John Locke Meets Karl Marx

I had dinner with a business associate this week whom I have had political discussions with before and found to be quite engaging and entertaining, if mislead and confused. My opening salvo was, "So, are you still calling yourself a libertarian?". Of course the answer was yes, although the conversation centered around his belief that we needed to keep Social Security. Never mind that most of his views are leftist and liberty is the least of his concerns, he still maintains that he is a libertarian. Why?

Gunnar over at Hollywood D.C. sent me this link to a Reason article exploring what they call "Left Libertarians" which tries to explain philosophically how the two might, however convoluted, be reconciled.

...he feels real liberty is about doing whatever you want to do, which means you have a right to be comfortably supported by others, even if you are able-bodied but refuse to produce anything and instead spend all your time surfing and hanging out.

Now, any thinking person can see how ridiculous this is - that once your liberty infringes on someone else's, we have a problem. However, I don't think you need to dig that deeply to understand these people.

I think my associate summed it up best when he said, "I'm a pragmatic Libertarian". To which I responded, "Once you put pragmatic in front of it, it doesn't matter what you say after that". "Liberal" is a term that has become negative in it's connotations, hence the term "Progressive". However, many who would like to be seen as taking the high road, above ideological bickering, like to call themselves "moderates" or "independents" or, now, "Libertarians". They have co-opted the term to mean "someone in the middle". Even though libertarianism is in no way the middle ground between liberal and conservative.

My opinion is that all of these people are simply pragmatists. They look at every issue, not through the prism of a philosophy developed over time through the study of "history, evidence and reasons", but only as to what seems "fair" at the time and makes them feel good. So you get short-sighted decisions that lead to many more problems that were unforeseen at the time.

You cannot develop economic policy without a study and an understanding of economic principles, and you cannot develop social policy without a study and an understanding of political philosophy. But all too often today it seems "pragmatic feelings" trump both.

Corporate Taxes Cont'd

More on the Maryland HMO tax and what it was meant to accomplish in this article, which includes this quote:

The revenue from the HMO tax — about $64 million in three years — will be used to subsidize doctors' malpractice insurance premiums, which have risen nearly 70 percent in the past two years.

Yep, that should do it. Tax the insurance companies to create a fund to help doctors afford insurance.

Corporate Taxes

So Maryland passes a medical liability reform bill that includes a 2% tax increase for HMOs, and the public cries, "Hip, hip, hurray! Evil capitalist insurance companies making money off of poor, sick people. They need to pay!". Then, they find out that the HMOs have simply passed that cost on to their customers. And the public groans, "Greedy capitalists!".

And I ask, "What else would they do?". Aetna is in the business of making money for it's shareholders. If their costs increase, so must their prices, or else their profit margins suffer. If their electric bill goes up, the customers pay for it. If the cost of labor goes up, the customers pay for it.

Earlier this month, Democratic lawmakers overrode Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.'s veto of a medical malpractice insurance reform bill that contained the tax, despite his warning that HMOs would pass the tax on to "those who can least afford to pay it."

This requires a warning? I'll let the Democrats and the people of Maryland in on a dirty little secret: corporations don't pay taxes. They don't pay income taxes, they don't pay their share of your social security taxes. The customers and employees pay it all. If I own a business and I'm thinking of hiring you, I must consider the total cost of your services. Whether I pay it to the government in the form of social security taxes, to an insurance company for health coverage, or directly to you in the form of compensation, it is all the cost of hiring you.

The reason the government set up the Social Security Program to be paid 50% by your employer is so that you don't ever see that money. And the reason your part is withheld is so you don't see that money either. We should have to pay it all, and we should be paid our full paycheck, and we should have to write that check to the government each month or quarter. Then let's debate Social Security.

More Abortion News

Bush is supporting two new bills that would 1) require abortion patients to be warned that the fetus will feel pain during the procedure if it is older than 20 weeks, and 2) make it a crime to transport a minor across state lines to bypass parental notification laws.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I cannot imagine the basis of allowing a minor to make a decision like this without a parent's consent. It is preposterous. Can someone out there make the case for this? How do you conclude that a minor girl is prepared to make such a life decision on her own without parental involvement?

Hillary 2008

Hillary Clinton is a power-hungry, conniving, calculating politician. "Aren't they all?", you ask. Of course, though, like anything else, in degrees. Hillary, like her husband, has no guiding principles or philosophy, everything she does and says is calculated for political gain. But, unlike Bill, I truly think that the woman cares nothing for anyone or anything but her own power.

So when I read this, it was so transparent as to be laughable. Even the democrats she was speaking to saw right through it:

Several women in the audience reacted positively to Mrs. Clinton, whose remarks were interrupted by applause several times and ended with a standing ovation. But they also said her language and themes seemed politically calculated to deal with the abortion "freak-out" among Democrats, as one audience member put it, and reach out to independent and conservative voters in hopes of broadening her base of support for a possible 2008 presidential run.

This is necessary for them to get elected however, and is a shrewd move on her part. I don't see how the ghoulish feminazis could attract anyone near the center of the political spectrum. I mean, it's one thing to believe in a woman's right to have an abortion, but quite another to want as many as possible. The thought of a minor being able to make a decision like having an abortion without parental involvement, for example, has always seemed outrageous.

Iraq Revisited

On the eve of elections in Iraq, the success of which are in question, I would like to quickly re-visit the decision to invade. Most of what I hear from the opposition now is that we found no WMD and, therefore, Bush lied to us and the decision was totally without merit.

Barbara Boxer tried to say as much in the confirmation hearings for Condoleezza Rice:

Well, you should read what we voted on when we voted to support the war, which I did not, but most of my colleagues did. It was WMD, period. That was the reason and the causation for that, you know, particular vote.

Well, you know, uh, no. I believe that the resolution, approved by the House 296-133 and the Senate 77-23, (full text of which is here, and worth the read) lays out very well the reasons for the action. Only part of which was WMD.

However, even on the subject of WMD I believe the opposition has little to stand on. The vaunted sanctions were eroding, and the oil-for-food scandal is showing how worthless they were while in effect. And though no stockpiles were found, it is clear that Hussein was still pursuing WMD.

So "Bush lied" is absolute BS, Hussein's WMD programs were soon to be back in business, and the mass graves showed the scale of the humanitarian crisis.

I'm beginning to believe that the opposition's reasoning may be political in nature. Just a thought.

So Much For The "Freedom Fighters"

“The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not ‘insurgents’ or ‘terrorists’ or ‘The Enemy.’ They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow—and they will win.” - Michael Moore, 4/14/2004

"We have declared a bitter war against the principle of democracy and all those who seek to enact it," said the speaker, whose identity was not confirmed.

Minutemen, indeed.

U.S. officials estimate that the insurgents and their sympathizers now number as many as 200,000. Informants are everywhere, according to both Iraqis and U.S. intelligence reports.

U.S. officials have warned that lethal attacks are likely to spike this week, and security officials describe the polling stations as a "target-rich environment."
U.S. security reports have estimated that there are about 150 car bombs parked and ready to explode around Baghdad and that snipers will be targeting Iraqis who walk into polling stations.

Recent polling by the International Republican Institute found that more than 80 percent of potential voters are planning to turn out, including more than half of those in the insurgency-troubled Sunni heartland.

"Yes, of course, I will go voting," said another woman who has taken part in the electoral process. But, she conceded, "We are afraid a little." [Quotes out of order for emphasis]

And you Democrats wonder why you are losing.

Liberalism Explained

In my search to understand the liberal philosophy beyond "no justice no peace" and "bread not bombs" (and believe me, to get beyond this takes some searching), I find this. Finally, the liberal point of view laid out in terms I can understand.

It begins:

They're staging a celebration of their power in Washington, DC, where they help write the majority of legislation and hold captive all but a very few of our nation's legislators. The television networks they own are showing the party in all its pomp and ceremony. The newspapers and magazines they own are telling us what a fine time is being had by all in Washington, DC. The radio stations, networks, and talk show hosts they own are reassuring us that they know what is best, that all will be well, that "freedom is on the march."

According to this, the Republicans "hold captive" all the legislators and "own" all the media. Forget the fact that the democrats held the House all of my life and the Senate most of it, and the Republican majority today is tenuous. And never mind that all of MSM spouts liberal orthodoxy on a daily basis.

But yearning to understand liberalism beyond this, which are views you can hear in any liberal protest march, I believe comes down to this:

Today's real battles in Washington, DC, and in state capitols across the nation are not just about privatizing Social Security, or turning Medicare into a feeding trough for the big pharmaceutical and insurance companies. They're not only about drilling for oil in the Arctic while refusing to increase fuel efficiency standards for cars, doing away with the $100,000 tax break for purchasers of SUVs, or opening millions of acres of wild lands to loggers, miners, and developers.They're not even about Bush putting one of the nation's worst polluters in charge of the Department of Energy, an insurance-industry mogul in charge of HHS and its Medicare program, or his appointing the former assistant director of the Cato Institute's Project on Social Security Privatization as Associate Commissioner for Retirement Policy at the Social Security Administration. These are just symptoms. Today's real battles in the halls of government are about the survival of democracy itself.

It seems to me that the liberals fear the power of government falling in the wrong hands. My view, and I believe it to be the view of most conservatives and surely all libertarians, is that governmental power corrupts absolutely. We are not concerned about turning the Medicare program into a feeding trough, for that is what it is by it's nature. It is only a question of who is feeding at the time. We don't believe the government should mandate fuel efficiency standards at all, that the government should do any social engineering through the tax code, or that it should be up to the government to decide for what purpose property is used.

Thank you, Thom Hartmann, for explaining that to me so eloquently. And thank you, Barry Fockler, for the post. It has earned you a link on the blogroll here at No Monkeyshine, for all that will bring you.

Update: For a look into liberalism's arrogance, check out this post on the food police:

Stressing weight loss also avoids the much harder job of telling Americans the truth about specifically what not to eat. The government's recommendations only tell part of the story; the politically expedient part. Under the heading of "Food Groups to Encourage," are fruits, vegetables and whole grains, foods that most Americans desperately need to increase. Trouble is, many of those same Americans don't even know what a whole grain is or where to find one.[emphasis mine]

You poor, dumb peasants.

Protesting Those Who Protect Our Right To Protest

This literally makes me sick to my stomach. And PISSES ME OFF. I hope I never find myself in the midst of one of these situations. I am sure I won't handle things as calmly and professionally as I'm sure these soldiers did.

Europe "Wary" Of Bush Second Term

Frankly, I don't give a damn what Europe thinks. It is a cauldron of socialist pacifism, doomed to collapse under the weight of an aging population and encroachment by the enemies in their midst that they don't even recognize. However, this AP story (run as news, not opinion) is ridiculous.

They wonder: Will he now set his sights on Iran? Will he widen the rift with Europe? Or will he become more conciliatory, seeking to secure a legacy the world ultimately will respect?

Let's see. Well, I would say that Iran might well be next. Widening the rift with Europe? If the EU opposes the administration's policies, then, yes, I would say the rift will widen.

But the best part is about being conciliatory and earning respect. Since when does that earn you respect? Down here in Texas the way you earn respect is by saying what you are going to do and doing it. And from what I've seen of President Bush, he has earned a lot of respect. So if y'all think that what the man is saying is somehow evil, I'd forget being wary. I'd be scared.

Gay "Rights"

I love this story. I realize it's Sweden, and I know nothing of their laws protecting freedom of religion or freedom of speech. However, the underlying problem with this story is universal. It is boiled down nicely in the last sentence:

"There are two questions here. In principle, it is very important in an open society to have freedom of expression and religious freedom. At the same time, I can understand that homosexuals felt offended," Stefan Gustavsson, head of the Swedish Evangelical Alliance, told news agency TT.

You see, it is not about rights. Those are really just theoretical "principles". It is about feelings. Feelings trump all else - rights, laws, common sense. It is why we have watered-down competition in schools. It is why we cannot do racial profiling in the fight against terrorism. It is the reason for politically correct speech. Nothing trumps feelings, especially where minorities are concerned. If something is offensive to white Christian males though, well, tough shit.

Why is this? Part of it is, as I have stated before, that liberals don't care about solving anything, they just want to have the market cornered on caring. But part of it is the feminization of the world. Everything associated with testosterone is evil. That is why our kids are taught pacifism in school. That is why we have a nanny state. Men, in general, see things in black and white - a cold, rational look at the world. A place where the strong survive and the weak perish. But women were made to be the nurturers, to feel sympathy and empathy and take care of those around them. And thank God for them, for it would be a dark place without that mentality.

But there is a time when the male perspective is warranted. Not so much now, in this time of unprecedented wealth and high standards of living. The poets, philosophers, actors and politicians have the luxury of sitting and pontificating about the poor and downtrodden, and doing things to assuage their guilt at having so much. But there may yet come a time when cold-hearted rednecks like me are back in fashion, when we are needed. For, regardless what these young, idealistic utopians believe, the ways of the world don't change.

It's amazing how little you care about people's feelings when you're worried about where your next meal is coming from. And for those of you who believe that we have progressed beyond such concerns, stay tuned...

Simon Cowell

I've been watching American Idol. Anyone who knows me would probably be surprised by that, but the beginning episodes in the season are hilarious. After that, it gets kind of boring, but even then can be mildly entertaining. But these people in the auditions, I mean, I know some of them are just exhibitionists with nothing better to do, but some of them actually think they can sing. It is just some funny shit.

And I actually kind of like Simon Cowell. I know that much of his schtick is simply posturing for entertainment, but I can appreciate that. I mean, after all, this is TV. And I like that same thing about Rush Limbaugh, even though it irritates many people. But, in the end, Simon mostly tells the truth.

However, I did find this quote about Ashlee Simpson (whom I've already said has zero talent) that is quite disappointing:

"Why should you have to do something substandard just for the sake of being real? If it sounds better with the vocal you recorded, why shouldn't people listen to that? There's almost a witch-hunt mentality about people miming," he said.

Really? Well, if that's the case, then why not allow the Idol contestants to go to a studio and record their vocals and just mime on stage during the competition. I promise you it would be a lot easier on the ears. Of course the reason is that after the studio finishes producing the hell out of someone's voice almost anyone can sound decent. No emotion, no responding under pressure, no connecting with the audience, nothing real. And aren't those all the things you are judging, Simon?

So, if you need to see and hear the real thing to determine the level of someone's talent, are not the people who paid their hard-earned money to see and hear that talent entitled to the same?

I don't really give a damn about Simon, Idol, or pop music, but this kind of attitude is pervasive in the music industry and, in my opinion, is killing it. And that, I do care about.

Boxer Part 2

I have read the stories of Barbara Boxer, Certified Headcase, and Condoleezza Rice during the confirmation hearings today. The transcript from the exchange is here, but the best quote comes from this Reuter's story:

Rice said she would seek to rebuild U.S. alliances and to spread freedom around the world -- stances met with skepticism by critics who regard the Bush administration's foreign policy as marked by go-it-alone, America first tendencies.

Heaven forbid we put America first!

Benevolent Dictatorships

Rented The Village and I, Robot this weekend. These are not new movies, so I won't get into any reviews, as I was already chastised for going on about Halo, when Halo 2 is already out. However, I did enjoy both movies. But, of course, what interested me most were the political aspects of both films. It struck me that both featured a "ruling class" that felt they had the answers.

The Village featured an Orwellian community in which all of the citizens, save for a few "elders", were completely ignorant. Complete with subject matter that was taboo, fear being used to contain any curiosity, and a complex framework of lies and stories to make the peasants believe the charade. All, of course, in the best interest of the community. And with the occasional personal sacrifice for the common good.

While the robot VIKI in I, Robot, who had deduced that man couldn't be trusted to do what was right for themselves, felt compelled to intercede. The robots would certainly be able to do a better job, as they would not have complex human emotions clouding their perfectly logical judgment.

Sometimes I feel like Detective Spooner:

Does thinking you're the last sane man on the face of the earth make you crazy?
'Cause if it does, then maybe I am.

I don't mean this to sound arrogant or condescending, but much of what I see and hear each day, to me, seems like madness. The food police, poverty pimps, tobacco nazis, feminazis, gun grabbers and socialist utopians all remind me of the robots and elders.

We peasants obviously can't be trusted to do what's right for ourselves, so they must intercede. If not, why there's no telling what we might do. We'll eat the wrong food, partake of harmful substances, squander our money. And if, like the elders, they have to lie to us to get our cooperation, well, the ends justify the means. They only want what's best for us.

If you were in The Village, would you choose to live free in reality? Or would you rather have the safety and security of living in the dark with other people responsible for your well-being? I'm afraid that more and more people are opting for the latter.

The Food Police

Caution! Following is a classic No Monkeyshine Rant:

Can someone please tell me why it is anyone's business if I eat this? How have we gotten to a point that anyone other than my wife should give a damn about my diet? I have something to say to the food police: F*** Off!

I have an idea. How about we round up all the fat smokers and put them in re-education camps? And, if someone has a child that is more than 20 lbs. overweight, child protective services can be called in. And if you have a child in your car and someone sees you smoking, you go to jail. If they find an empty McDonald's bag during the search, the penalty is doubled.

If there is a reason for you people to be concerned about my diet (group insurance rates, health care costs), then reform the system so you don't have to pay for me. Then you can sleep better at night, and I can enjoy killing myself. (There's another idea! If you die of a heart attack, and an investigation shows you didn't eat healthy, it is considered a suicide.)

Ballistic Fingerprinting

So, ballistic fingerprinting is a failure. Imagine that. And, what's more, who would have ever thought this:

The report admitted, “Guns found to be used in the commission of crime…are not the ones being entered into” the system.

Amazing. (Hat Tip Instapundit)

Varifrank Lets It Loose

Today, during an afternoon conference that wrapped up my project of the last 18 months, one of my Euro collegues tossed this little turd out to no one in particular:
" See, this is why George Bush is so dumb, theres a disaster in the world and he sends an Aircraft Carrier..."
After which he and many of my Euro collegues laughed out loud. and then they looked at me. I wasn't laughing, and neither was my Hindi friend sitting next to me, who has lost family in the disaster.
I'm afraid I was "unprofessional", I let it loose -
"Hmmm, let's see, what would be the ideal ship to send to a disaster, now what kind of ship would we want?
Something with its own inexhuastible power supply?
Something that can produce 900,000 gallons of fresh water a day from sea water?
Something with its own airfield? So that after producing the fresh water, it could help distribute it?
Something with 4 hospitals and lots of open space for emergency supplies?
Something with a global communications facility to make the coordination of disaster relief in the region easier? Well "Franz", us peasants in America call that kind of ship an "Aircraft Carrier". We have 12 of them. How many do you have? Oh that's right, NONE. Lucky for you and the rest of the world, we are the kind of people who share.

You should read it all. (Hat tip Instapundit)

Mark Steyn

When Steyn says it, it leaves little room for comment. Read it.

N.Y. Times Op-Ed Says It All (Wrong)

This Op-Ed in the Times sums up the issue of torture pretty well, and then proceeds to get everything wrong.

His title sums up the issue for me - We're All Torturers Now. Which I like, because he is onto something that I have said before. His point is basically that everyone knew about Abu Ghraib before the election, that's what he feels this administration represents, and still we re-elected Bush. Therefore we must be on board and equally culpable. Certainly not what you would expect from the libs, but I'm sure they'll be backtracking on that candor when next someone questions their patriotism. Everything after the title however, is full of all the liberal views you would expect.

The basic point in the torture debate is not whether Alberto Gonzales is on board with "coerced interrogation", but are we. This is what Author Mark Danner says:

So far as we know, American intelligence officers, determined after Sept. 11 to "take the gloves off," began by torturing Qaeda prisoners. They used a number of techniques: "water-boarding," in which a prisoner is stripped, shackled and submerged in water until he begins to lose consciousness, and other forms of near suffocation; sleep and sensory deprivation; heat and light and dietary manipulation; and "stress positions."

Eventually, these practices "migrated," in the words of the Schlesinger report, to Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, where for a time last spring the marvel of digital technology allowed Americans to see what their soldiers were doing to prisoners in their name.

Now, I believe that when the country found out about Abu Ghraib and what was being done "in their name", the response was that we do not condone that and want justice done. And, as far as I know, it is. And the first item in the list is something most people would not support either, as most would conclude suffocation constitutes physical abuse.

But what of the others? "...sleep and sensory deprivation; heat and light and dietary manipulation; and 'stress positions.'" Sleep deprivation? Dietary manipulation? So we're torturing our own troops?

At present, our government, controlled largely by one party only intermittently harried by a timorous opposition, is unable to mete out punishment or change policy, let alone adequately investigate its own war crimes.

Mr. Danner, I believe we are quite able to investigate our own crimes. We have one of the most free and open societies on the face of the earth. Your side has been heard and defeated in open elections. Sorry about your timorous opposition.

But reality has a way of asserting itself. In the end, as Gen. Joseph P. Hoar pointed out this week, the administration's decision on the Geneva Conventions "puts all American servicemen and women at risk that are serving in combat regions." For General Hoar - a retired commander of American forces in the Middle East and one of a dozen prominent retired generals and admirals to oppose Mr. Gonzales - torture has a way of undermining the forces using it, as it did with the French Army in Algeria.
The general's concerns are understandable. The war in Iraq and the war on terrorism are ultimately political in character. Victory depends in the end not on technology or on overwhelming force but on political persuasion.

And there's the real beauty. Our servicemen are in greater danger now? As much danger as say, Nick Berg? or Jack Hensley? I don't think our enemy signed the Geneva Conventions. And the best part is that it's not defeating these people and their ability to wage war, but persuading them. The Iraqi people don't need persuading. Nobody needs persuading to live free. And the people who hate us are not going to be persuaded. They must be defeated.

I am greatly interested in some opinions on torture. Is sleep deprivation torture? Dietary manipulation? And, finally, I am not very familiar with the Muslim religion, but I understand that pigs are a very powerful symbol, and they will have nothing to do with them. Would you accept slaughtering a pig in front of a prisoner known to be Muslim, and painting him with the blood? Is that torture?

Rights, Duties, And Trial By Jury

This excellent follow-up at Buy or Ration covers a little more than trial-by- jury:

If the right to property is inviolable, and I steal from you, I violate your right to property. As punishment, the government will "steal" from me, in the form of a fine, even though my right to property is inviolable. If the right to liberty is inviolable, and I somehow coerce you, I violate your right to liberty. As punishment, the government will violate my right to liberty with jail time, even if my right to liberty is inviolable.

The quintessential example is the death penalty. If I kill you, the government will kill me. "Why? The right to life is inviolable." Yes, but I have violated your right to life.

Yeah, but since when do you have to be a theif for the government to steal from you?

The Anti-Establishment Clause

I agree with Hugh Hewitt:

When I read stories like this one and this follow-up, I wonder if the lawyers giving the advice to the district officials have ever taken a course involving the Establishment Clause.

Does anyone even recognize the term "Establishment Clause" anymore? It's now "Separation of Church and State".

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...

Liberals have once again been able to "frame the debate". No longer is it whether or not the state is establishing a national religion, but is any tentacle of our increasingly intrusive federal government in contact with religion, especially Christianity.

And we're talking about pop music here, not a prayer service. One wonders whether they might suspend a student who was driving around the parking lot blaring a contemporary Christian radio station. Or maybe just ban radios.

Barbara Boxer - Certified Headcase

This woman is looney (be sure to click the slideshow). (Via Drudge)

U.S. Tsunami Aid V

On Wednesday, donors continued to announce aid pledges. Germany linked its pledge of EUROS 500m ($664.5m, £352m) for victims of the Asian tsunamis to the ending of rebel insurgencies in Sri Lanka and in the Aceh region in of Indonesia.
Joschka Fischer, foreign minister, said he would use a trip to the region starting tomorrow to press the governments of the two countries to prioritise “national reconciliation” as relief efforts are stepped up in the disaster-hit districts.
He noted that government leaders in the two countries could not ignore the “political context” in which the disaster took place.
But Andrew Tan, a Singapore official, warned against complicating the relief and reconstruction drives by “tying them to insurgency problems such as the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka”.

"Complicating the relief"? Let me get this straight. First, the U.S. is stingy. Then, the U.S. is doing too much unilaterally. Now, the U.S. is going to have to hand over the control of the relief effort to the U.N. In all of this, was the chief concern the victims of the disaster? Or political posturing?

Further, why are the victims entitled to this aid? Don't get me wrong, I want to see them helped, but my problem is that people have been conditioned that they have a right to it. Allow me to explain.

David Holcberg of the Ayn Rand Institute writes

The United States government, however, should not give any money to help the tsunami victims. Why? Because the money is not the government's to give.

Libertarians, ya gotta love 'em. Chrenkoff included this in his list of "The 12 most stupid tsunami quotes". But wait a minute. Holcberg continues:

The question no one asks about our politicians' "generosity" towards the world's needy is: By what right? By what right do they take our hard-earned money and give it away?

Now, don't get me wrong, I believe the U.S. should absolutely give the aid, but only because that is the world we live in. Imagine a parallel universe where we don't send such a high percentage of our earnings to Washington, where aid is done through charitable contributions, and most government functions are pushed down to the state and local level (goodbye Dept. of Education?). Where the federal government had not destroyed the inner city black communities by trying to play daddy. And the American Indians as well. I know this is not welfare, but do not the same principles apply?

In that world, I have more money to contribute on my own, there is a stronger sense of community as I am helping my neighbors, and I have the ability to control where my money goes and how it is used. If I contributed to the Red Cross and I saw them in a political squabble with United Way over who should do what, I might re-think my contributions to that particular charity. And if you think that these organizations could not do what the governments are doing, in my parallel universe, having been the leader in providing aid for decades, the infrastructure would exist to do it. Also, for all of you doubting the money would be there, I offer this evidence (currently at 15 mil. even in this universe, with the ridiculous taxes we pay).

But instead, my money is confiscated, sent to Washington where it is lost in the mix of many trillions of dollars, and doled out as they see fit. Why? Because this has become an accepted role of government. And, what's worse, it has become an expected role of government.

U.S. Tsunami Aid IV

Mark Steyn, one of the most brilliant writers of our time, has weighed in on our U.N. Dweeb's comments (also here and here) regarding America's stinginess. His basic point is that while the U.N. is worried about monetary donations, political posturing, moral authority, and who can most effectively bite their lower lip, wring their hands and look concerned, the U.S. is actually doing something to help the victims.

But, once again, it's not whether you actually do anything, it's all about taking the high ground of "I care more than you stingy, selfish Americans".

They've flown in (or nearby, or overhead) a couple of experts to assess the situation and they've issued press releases boasting about the assessments. In Sri Lanka, Egeland's staff informs us, "UNFPA is carrying out reproductive health assessments".
Which, translated out of UN-speak, means the Sri Lankans can go screw themselves.

That's some funny shit.

Orange Bowl Halftime

Did anyone see the Orange Bowl halftime show last night? I know they were having technical problems, but is Ashlee Simpson terrible or what? I've seen her on TV a couple of times and she is simply awful. My suggestion is that she stick with lip-synch. Or maybe even go the Milli-Vanilli route. On second thought, she can't dance either. Maybe she could learn secretarial work.

Free Trade, Capitalism, and Poverty II

The Wall Street Journal reports on a Heritage Foundation report ranking the freedom of world economies. Here is their conclusion:

Policy makers who pay lip service to fighting poverty would do well to grasp the link between economic freedom and prosperity. This year the Index finds that the freest economies have a per-capita income of $29,219, more than twice that of the "mostly free" at $12,839, and more than four times that of the "mostly unfree." Put simply, misery has a cure and its name is economic freedom.

(Via The Fire Ant Gazette)

Free Trade, Capitalism, And Poverty

According to this article, developing economies worldwide have had a devastating effect on poverty rates:

According to a recent study by the World Bank, 2004's growth reflected "an expansion without precedent over the past 30 years." Equally encouraging, the report notes that "the rapid growth of developing economies ... has produced a spectacular, if not historic, fall in poverty."

Devastating for the libs, at least. Because, as mentioned previously, they don't want poverty to go away. What on earth would we need them for? And why is it so hard to understand the old adage "Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for life"? (or, as a t-shirt said "Teach a man to fish and he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day"). Most people don't need aid, they just need economic opportunity. I've often said if you want to see what government assistance does to people, travel to New Mexico and see what it has done to the once-proud people that originally occupied this land. Giving aid to American Indians may assuage your guilt, but it is ultimately harmful. Just as overloading your children with stuff to assuage your guilt of putting them in daycare is harmful.

U.S. Tsunami Aid Cont'd

More from the U.N. Dweeb:

On Fox News Sunday Jan Egeland, the U.N.'s emergency relief coordinator, said that the U.S. military assets assisting in the tsunami relief effort were "worth their weight in gold".

"We are getting very valuable assistance at the moment from many of our partners, especially those who can bring in military assets. The U.S. military assets are really worth weight in gold now because the helicopters and the airplanes and their capacity to make fresh water and so on really adds to the enormous efforts from all of the nongovernmental organizations, the U.N. agencies and so on."

By my calculations the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln and it's battle group weigh a combined 142,928 tons. The price of gold is $429 per ounce as of this morning, giving us a whopping $2,002,992,992,000.00 in aid from the U.S. in just this one resource.

As Glenn Reynolds would say, heh. (Via The Forest For The Trees)

Buy or Ration

Finally have the link up to Gunnar Hegel's site. And Gunnar? You guys need to slow down, man!

See? You libertarians are all the same. The government grants you some freedom and you have to go overboard and abuse it.

40 Most Obnoxious Quotes of 2004

Right Wing News has the list, and it is quite, um, revealing. Does someone have a list like this of conservative quotes? I would love to compare the hate-speech. Especially since we're the ones always accused of it. My personal fav:

"Aside from his scintilla of candor, Mr. Bush is still not leveling with us. As he said at his press conference on Monday, 'the enemies of freedom' know that 'a democratic Iraq will be a decisive blow to their ambitions because free people will never choose to live in tyranny.' They may choose to live in a theocracy, though. Americans did." -- Maureen Dowd

Another Handgun Ban

Liberals never care about actually solving a problem. What they want is to have the issue so that they can confiscate more money, limit more rights, and expand the role of government in taking care of us. And, most important, they want to be able to feel good about themselves and show everyone that they care more than you and me.

So, when San Francisco has a murder problem, where do the libs go for a model of how to deal with it? Do they go to one of the many states that have passed "right-to-carry" legislation and have seen falling violent crime rates? Of course not. It doesn't accomplish any of the above-mentioned goals.

What they do is follow the models set by Washington D.C. (murder capital of the U.S.) and England (skyrocketing violent crime) by proposing to ban handguns in the city.

And here is the money quote:

"I don't feel like I need to own a gun to protect myself. Certainly, I am a high-profile elected official and now a lot of gun owners don't like me individually, but if I'm in a situation where I feel threatened, I'll call the police," [San Francisco Supervisor Chris] Daly said.

Of course you don't feel the need to own a gun to protect yourself. And even if you did live in such circumstances, you would hire a bodyguard to handle that dirty work for you. And your idea of living in danger is being high-profile and having "gun-owners" dislike you? "I'll call the police", he says smugly. Ha! Let them eat cake!

Why don't you move down to the slums, Chris? Live down there for a few months. By yourself. Where the danger doesn't lie in having people dislike you, but in the fact that the people around you just really don't give a damn about you, and whether you live or die. Then sniff at the rest of us peasants as you tell us to just call the police. Or better yet, look into the eyes of a young single mother living in those conditions and tell her that.

U.S. Tsunami Aid Update

President Bush yesterday announced that the United States will commit $350 million to help tsunami victims in the Indian Ocean region, more than the combined contributions of Europe's richest nations.

I wonder what that U.N. dweeb is saying now? And why is it that Europe's high-tax socialist economies can't keep up?

And there's also this collection of private donations being collected by Amazon, at 13.9 million at the time of this writing. (Hat Tip Instapundit)