who's your nanny?

And I Want a 10-Inch..

... never mind.

Recipe of the Week: Bothwell's Black Bean Beer Brew

Sorry for the alliteration.

This soup recipe goes out to my boys up north (north of me, anyway) in Buffalo and Pittsburgh. With weather still in the 50s here in Maryland it's pretty much like spring in upstate New York, but this black bean soup will keep you warm when you're tailgating in the snow. And the recipe will only take you about an hour from start to finish, so it's great in a pinch.

BLACK BEAN BEER BREW

2 14½ oz. cans black beans, strained
1 14½ oz. can diced tomatoes
2 tbsp. olive oil
½ red onion, small dice
3 cloves fresh garlic, minced
2 cups chicken broth
1 bottle Labatt Blue or other good lager
2 tsp. Worcestershire sauce
1 tsp. garlic powder
1 tsp. onion powder
1 tbsp. cumin (NOT cayenne,* Erik!)
2 sprigs fresh oregano
2 bay leaves
1 cup fresh corn sliced from cob (canned corn isn't as good, but it will also work)
Salt and pepper to taste
Dash cayenne for heat

1. Sweat red onion in olive oil in stockpot set to low heat. Season lightly with salt and pepper and stir sporadically for 5 minutes.

2. Add garlic, diced tomatoes, garlic and onion powder, Worcestershire sauce, and another dash of salt and pepper. Stir once and cover for five minutes to simmer. Check halfway to be sure ingredients aren't sticking, and give a quick stir.

3. With flame or burner still set to low, add chicken broth, beans, beer, fresh herbs, cumin, and corn. Stir to combine and cover pot, leaving a small vent with lid for steam to escape. This will allow soup to reduce to a thicker consistency. Once soup starts to boil, set heat to simmer and cook for 15 to 20 minutes, stirring occasionally.

4. Once soup has thickened a bit, close lid completely and allow soup to simmer for another 15 to 20 minutes. Remove bay leaves before serving.

5. Ladle soup into four individual bowls and garnish with a dollop of sour cream. Serve hot with a side of nacho chips.

Note: By the time the soup has finished cooking, the oregano likely will have fallen apart throughout the soup. I prefer this more rustic feel, but if you'd rather remove it before serving, you can wrap it in cheese cloth before adding it to the pot so it can be easily retrieved.

This recipe makes 4 perfect servings, so if you want to increase the quantity you can easily double or triple the ingredients across the board.

I also apologize for failing to include at least a couple photos, but if you try this out feel free to snap a few yourself like my man Wolf did for Trevor's Cajun Schmearwich, and I'll be sure to post them.

* A couple weeks ago my brother called me for my chili recipe. I ran down the ingredient list and told him to add between two and four tablespoons of chili powder, a few dashes of hot sauce or cayenne to taste, etc. I called the next day to see how he liked it and he told me everyone loved it, but it was so spicy they could barely eat it.

He said it gave them all an excuse to drink more beer with it (even though milk works better, but that clearly isn't manly), but I asked why it was so hot. He said, "Well, you said to add two tablespoons of cayenne!"

What I really said was a couple tablespoons of chili powder, but yeah, that amount of cayenne will do it. I felt sorry for his ass the next day.

Monopolism at the Heart of the State

Forget for a moment government-created monopolies on things like mail delivery, currency, and national defense or the cartelization of utility companies and the tobacco and oil industries. Now that America is in its worst recession since the 1930s, it's becoming clear to many people that, for all the talk of property rights and private industry in the U.S., monopolism lies at the heart of the American state.

From war to health care subsidies to financial bailouts, all impossible absent the existence of the taxpayer, the government must retain a monopoly over any and all activity lest it lose its relevance. Even antitrust laws, which ostensibly exist to prevent monoplies, are nothing more than a means used by the state to secure its own dominion over private industry. The government doesn't mind monopolies; it only minds if it doesn't husband sole authority over everything we do.

The definition of monoply is having exclusive control over a commercial activity. However, how many people ever associate monopolies with the state? The government, they say, prevents monopolies to "protect" us from big, bad corporate monsters who would "gouge" us for every penny otherwise. Nothing could be further from the truth. Instead of allowing mismanaged behemoths like AIG, Citibank, Bear Stearns, and Freddie and Fannie to fall -- a very real testament to the fact that there are no monopolies in a truly free market -- the feds inject their authority in the attempt to preserve the status quo and prevent competition in the marketplace.

The American economy ultimately is one monstrous government monopoly. Whether the central state creates its own monopolies or hyper-regulates and subsidizes so-called private industry, we nevertheless are subservient to its every whim.

The Race-Conscious State

The L.A. Times runs a touchy-feely article today about how multiracial families see themselves in a "mixed" Barack Obama.

I appreciate the struggles that blacks and other minority groups in the U.S. have faced, but it's important to realize that most of this hardship is a product of state-sponsored racism, discrimination, and bigotry.

"I totally feel proud that [Obama's] a black man and he's mixed," Maile Winograd said of Obama. "I identified with him so much. What he went through as a biracial person, I went through. And my son must look at Barack and say, 'He looks like me.' That's a good thing. A very good thing."

It's part of human nature to identify personally with people who are similar to us. Like when you feel that inexplicable connection to the random stranger on the highway who has a decal of your favorite sports team on his bumper, or a sticker of your college alma mater running along the bottom of his rear window. Still, there's something disconcerting about people who will vote for someone simply because he looks like them.

More:

For the parents of multiracial children, Obama's rise has been a vindication of sorts, a presidential rebuttal to a society that has not always been kind to their offspring, labeling them "half-breeds," "tragic mulattoes," "mutts," "mixed nuts," according to Susan Graham, the white mother of two multiracial children and the founder of the California-based Project Race, a 17-year-old nationwide group that advocates for a multiracial classification on all school, employment, census and other forms.

So where's the problem really lie here? With "society" or with an all too racially-conscious state whose existence rests largely on its ability to foment tensions between many different identity groups within that society, and therefore seeks to continually obtain more power to "solve" any number of "crises" for us?

Identifying with Obama is one thing; voting for the man solely because of his racial identity, however, is perverse, and clearly helps to explain how our complete ignorance of policy results in the election of politicians who continually rob us of more and more liberty. Whereas the state sees race in all it does -- those census forms, or school and job applications -- most people, as the election has essentially proven, see America.

Individual racists and bigots are ignorant and disgusting, but alone they can do very little harm to anyone. The state, on the other hand -- comprising armies of attorneys, police, military personnel, weapons, and concentrated power, all of which is claimed forcibly through taxation -- is very dangerous and leaves all sorts of carnage in its wake. Barack Obama is merely a cog in this machine and a representative of the very government that has from the beginning existed at the expense of our rights.

The "government" did not end chattel slavery in America; slavery ended despite the government, as a direct result of the hard work and many personal sacrifices of untold numbers of abolitionists and other individuals who protested this evil. And even today, while we may no longer wear the manacles, we are all slaves to the state in one form or another, as our democratic institution routinely allows the strong to rule the weak -- the majority is legally permitted to assert its will about a minority that stands in opposition.

As long as we live under the decrees of our elected rulers we will never be free, and the racial makeup of the despot who sits atop the throne hardly makes a difference at all.

One boy in the Times's story complains, "I always check 'Other' on my college applications," alluding to the fact that he's unable to find a box that represents his specific heritage. Well, I'm what passes for white in most circles, but I always check "Other," too. Because it's none of the state's damned business what I "am."

The very existence (and requirement) of these forms illustrates the state's commitment to racial division in the first place.

Thanksgiving

I suppose I'm thankful that CBS at least came up with Patrick Warburton for its man-in-the-street reporting for this year's parade as opposed to...well...who knows, but all I'll say is that I would've been a heckuva lot more thankful if they'd stuck with NPH!

I'm also thankful that the Buffalo Sabres broke a five-game losing streak last night, though I'm pretty confident they won't waste much time starting another one.

And of course, I'm thankful for my friends and family, especially my son, Biggie Smalls, who's 1 going on 15; and for fantastic artist and new friend, Chris Ayers, who's inspired me to pick up the drawing pencil for the first time in -- yikes -- 17 years (!).

In fact, here's the product of a couple hours and a sixer of Sam Adams Pale Ale last night -- from a photo of Biggie Smalls when he was about two weeks old. Go easy, it's been awhile.

     

Happy Thanksgiving!

Quote of the Day

Courtesy Manuel Lora, on President Bush:

"He will pardon a turkey but not the thousands rotting in federal prisons for non-crimes. Ain't justice grand?"

The Cost of the Bailout Is Staggering

The Great American Rip-Off costs more than every federal boondoggle or expenditure undertaken since the end of WWII -- combined. 

In fact, it may already be almost twice as much.

Cory Maye, Cont. (On Apologies, and More)

I'd like to revisit my post on the Bush pardons for a minute and reiterate my apologies for neglecting to realize that the president couldn't legally pardon Cory Maye even if he wanted to. As reason magazine's Radley Balko kindly pointed out, presidents are constitutionally permitted pardon authority only for federal crimes. Therefore, because Maye was tried and convicted in a Mississippi state court, he could only be pardoned by Gov. Haley Barbour.

And while I'm enjoying this plate of crow, I might as well apologize to reader David for the title of my original post, which reads "Bush Pardons Cory Maye." David read this at my Examiner blog and wrote to tell me that while he agreed with my sentiments, he didn't appreciate the misleading title of the post. In fact, he said he actually shouted in celebration when he read it, thinking that Maye had indeed been freed, and then he admonished me for using the headline as some sort of "stunt."

I've already personally replied to David, but I will reiterate here that while I apologize that he took offense to the title, I do not regret using it. For one thing, this was a blog post, not a news headline. As far as I know, I'm under no obligation at the Examiner to write dryly or elicit no emotional reaction from readers. In fact, the entire point of creative writing is to grab and hold the reader's attention, and I freely admit that my objective was to get viewers to 1) notice the post, at which point they would either learn or be reminded of the plight of Cory Maye, and 2) to get upset when they realized Cory Maye is behind bars for protecting himself and his little girl from home invaders. So if that means a few readers have to get mad at me to likewise take offense at such a horrible injustice, I think that's a small price to pay. Indeed, I trust David will appreciate, or at least understand, my motives once he reads my explanation.

Now, as for my mistake itself, I'm obviously embarrassed that I made it. Credibility is everything in writing, and it's unfortunate that I stumbled on something as fundamental as the concept of federalism. However, I'm sure I'm not the only writer out there who's ever had a "D'oh!" moment, and considering the fact that Cory Maye was rounded up and incarcerated courtesy of the war on drugs -- all sorts of federal funding, policies, and mandates are unconstitutionally conveyed to the states in the process of waging it -- it isn't too difficult to infer, if mistakenly, some presidential authority over the victims.

Which gets me thinking: Even though extraconstitutionality is the order of the day, and it clearly isn't logically appropriate to argue the acceptability of presidential abuse of authority simply on grounds that sometimes it could be used for "good" when it's so frequently used for evil, why isn't it incumbent upon a president to free those who have been unjustly robbed of their liberty as a direct result of his policy?

Moreover, given that I oppose the state in its entirety in the first place, does federalism necessarily trump our natural right to be free of immoral imprisonment? Cory Maye, among hundreds of thousands of others today who are incarcerated for victimless crimes, is in prison because the federal government has dismantled the Constitution for decades precisely to increase its control over the rest of us.

If the feds can immorally beat, torture, and even kill us despite our supposed constitutional protections against abuses of authority, it would make little sense to argue that they have no moral obligation to reverse such injustice. As far as the libertarian is concerned, the apparatus of the state and its attendant man-made laws are superseded by natural rights and moral law, which are imperative to any free society.

An Application of the 'Myth of Failed Policy' Thesis

Yesterday I posted a link to a Robert Higgs speech at the FFF conference and also to his essay, The Myth of "Failed" Policies. In that essay, Dr. Higgs argues that when we ask the question "Cui bono (To whom the good)" we will realize that there is no failed policy. We've simply been misled if we believe that our rulers design policy to benefit the masses. An application of this thesis, albeit not an explicit application, can be found in this LRC podcast. Lew Rockwell interviews Dr. Thomas Dorman who argues that the apparent failure of our medical system is not at all an accident. This is not a case of good intentions gone bad but rather a calculated effort by socialists and communists to assert social control over the masses.

College Is Overrated

I love this argument today from Karen DeCoster, who explains why college is hardly "necessary" and why it most certainly is not a requirement for everyone.

Artificial demand for college degrees, driven largely by state- and federally-subsidized loans along with public school teachers' entreaties to children everywhere to pursue education after high school, has resulted in skyrocketing tuition, too many colleges and students, and too much student debt -- which often culminates in loan defaults when an oversupply of graduates can't find jobs in a tight market.

Karen's spot-on analysis primarily makes me happy because it serves to vindicate some of the teachings I would share with former elementary school students back in the mid to late '90s, when I knew I had strong libertarian leanings but well before I was versed in the teachings of LewRockwell.com, Austrian economics, and libertarianism.

As many readers probably know by now, I once taught fourth grade in a public school, which was located in a low-income, inner city-type area and populated primarily with minority students. It epitomized single parenthood, broken families, and all the other perks that often tend to accompany widespread crime, drug use, and welfare subsidies. To say that the majority of students faced uphill battles to overcome problems in their home lives and communities would be an understatement, and any honest teacher knew that many of them would be lucky to graduate from high school, much less go on to have successful college careers.

I may have been a mere college graduate myself, but I would've had to have been an idiot to tell 10-year-old kids, many of whom were certifiably illiterate, that they "needed" to go to college to be successful. Inasmuch as discussions of the sort even need to take place in an elementary school classroom, it would have been borderline criminal to fill these kids' heads with such a notion when half of them hardly even wanted to be in school in the first place.

However, looking back I highly doubt many of the other teachers in my school shared my views. It was virtually common knowledge that kids were simply expected to go to college, and I'm almost certain that the principal would have written me up if I was ever caught "demoralizing" the students or "discouraging" them from "taking ownership for their education," or whatever the lofty mantra was for the year. Admittedly, I've tried hard to forget about many of the politically correct policies I was expected to swallow and regurgitate for my students back then.

Of course, I did (and do) believe that every student is responsible for his own education, and that anyone can accomplish just about anything he puts his mind to if he's willing to make the sacrifices necessary for success. When talk of college came up in my classroom, I was quick to point out that every single kid in the room was capable of getting good grades, going on to college, and getting almost anything he or she wanted in life. I most certainly did not discourage my students from aspiring to academia after high school. However, I did make it perfectly clear that they did not "need" to go to college to be successful.

What I told them was that they, in fact, would need to learn how to read, to write, to learn how to multiply and divide accurately, to think logically, to speak in coherent sentences, to respect others, and to understand that they were the only ones who could determine whether they would be successful or not.

Though the school had a 70 percent minority enrollment, there was no black, brown, or white in my classroom; aside from only a handful of "normal" students, the vast majority comprised a technicolor array of kids who were growing up on the wrong side of the tracks and needed all the proper guidance adults could provide them. I told them that the world was full of plumbers and construction workers and electricians and hair stylists and UPS drivers who probably all made more money than their humble teacher; that anyone who employed the aforementioned skills could open up her own business and learn how to do her own accounting or inventory management or interviews for new employees. But more importantly, I told them that anyone who had a decent academic skill set could find employment just about anywhere.

So thanks, Karen, for making me realize that even when I hardly knew anything, I at least knew enough not to force my students to flounder, for at least a few years anyway, in the self-righteous ramblings of their government schools.

Bush Pardons Cory Maye

Just kidding. Cory Maye, perhaps the country's most unfortunate living innocent victim of the government's criminally inept, violent, and unacceptable war on drugs, still faces life behind bars for justifiably killing a police officer during a raid on his house in the middle of the night in 2001.

President Bush deserves credit for his latest round of pardons, and especially for freeing those convicted of victimless crimes. But while this list of 16 lucky individuals is far too short -- there are hundreds of thousands of nonviolent drug offenders in prison today who should similarly be freed -- it is a travesty that Maye did not make the cut.

There's little reason not to believe Cory Maye when he says he thought the police officers trespassing on his property were random criminals, but it's irrelevant even if he did know they were cops. Everyone has a moral right to protect himself and his family from armed thugs breaking into his home with guns drawn, even if the intruders have state-issued costumes, badges, and firearms.

UPDATE: Thanks to Radley Balko for writing to correct something I overlooked entirely:

While I of course agree with your sentiment, I'm fairly certain that Bush doesn't have the power to pardon Cory Maye.  The president can only pardon people convicted of federal crimes.  Maye was convicted in state court, so the pardon would have to come from Haley Barbour.

I regret the error.

More Subsidies for the Power Elite

The Fed again announces criminal plans to rob the poor and middle class in order to lavish almost a trillion dollars on politically connected mortgage lenders and corporate interests.

As Anthony Gregory writes today, it's time to rid ourselves of the Fed and all its lies.

Don't Steal

This is a sign that hangs in Orion's Music Shop, located in Park City, Utah, and owned by one of my best buddies in the whole wide world, Brian Richards. Click on the picture for a larger version.

  

Another Example of the State's Protection Racket

This example comes from the erudite Will Grigg. He links to an article in USAToday which reports that Marvin Driver, father of Green Bay Packers wide receiver Donald Driver, was beaten by police who had arrested him for unpaid parking tickets. This quote should be a warning to some of the more naive folks out there who believe that the agents of the State will not turn on them:

Mr. Driver has said that the beating he endured was less painful to him than the fact that he had known one of the assailants in the neighborhood before he grew up to be a police officer. They had been on friendly terms until one of them was given the assignment to collect revenue for the government, and the power to turn his erstwhile friends into corpses.

Just because you are friends with a police officer or FBI agent or DEA agent or soldier does not mean that these agents will hesitate when commanded to beat and kill civilians. These people will kill and it's about time that Americans wake up to the murderous power of our own rulers.

Will the Big 3's Future Be Its Past?

As Big 3 execs continue to beg for their place at the bailout trough after running their companies into the ground, I can't help but think about my own car purchases and whether my actions are indicative of some future trend.

In 1997 I bought a Ford F-150. I'd just moved to Maryland from New York the year before and the Geo Prizm from my college days was on its last legs. Considering I'd recently accepted a job as a public school teacher and was actually making less than people collecting unemployment, I didn't have much to spend on a new car. So thankfully I didn't need much -- manual everything was just fine for me as long as the vehicle had air conditioning -- and I managed to get this new ride on the road for under $14,400.

Fast forward to 2007. I was no longer a 23-year-old punk. That's right, I was at that point a 33-year-old punk whose pregnant wife insisted that we upgrade the pickup to one with an extended cab, primarily so I could more safely transport our forthcoming addition to the family and comfortably seat three.

Suffice to say, selling a reliable truck that had been paid off for six years was a bit discomfiting, but there was no point (much less room) to keep it. It actually had just under 80,000 miles when I sold it to a girl in her early 20s who was looking for an economical way to transport her horse. I bet that truck's still running like a champ.

Although I couldn't have asked for a better truck, I couldn't bring myself to buy another F-150 despite the 0% interest offer. The design in 2007 was quite unappealing to me, and, free market advocate and all, I've never really been much the "buy American"-as-the-rule type. So I settled on the Toyota Tundra, which gave me a couple fits early on with some quirky clock and tailgate lock malfunctions, but (knock wood) has nevertheless been growing on me of late. The engine torque and overall power is unmatched, and there's more than enough leg room in the back.

However, after five years of dealing with endless electrical issues with my wife's Chevy Tahoe, I'm pessimistically awaiting similar problems with the Tundra. Nothing against Toyota, but given that today's cars seem to be more hard drive than hardware, electrical issues just seem to be the norm.

Ironically, although technological innovation is largely responsible for the standard of living most of us enjoy, I often wonder if rapid computerization in the manufacturing world isn't doing just as much harm as it is good, in at least some regard. Consider this: Seven years ago my wife and I bought an early '80s-model refrigerator and turned it into a kegerator, and that thing's still kicking on its original motor today; in 2003 we bought a computer known as a "refrigerator" that fried up and died after only three months. If it didn't literally have a meltdown, the ice cream in the freezer did.

Which brings me to my point. I'm wondering how many people are out there like me -- people who appreciate how efficiently freedom, competition, and innovation are integrated by intelligent humans to provide an infinite supply of goods to the market, but who simultaneously recognize that simple can often be much better than complex. The beauty of free market capitalism is that there's something for everyone. The guy who wants his camera to keep time, track appointments, and adjust for 150 varieties of shade and light will be served just as readily as the guy who just wants to point and click.

As a software tester by day -- not to mention blogger by night (and maybe some lunch breaks) -- I obviously appreciate computers. I'm just not so sure how much I care that they're in my cars, too. I suppose that's why I told the Ford salesman eleven years ago that I was simply looking for a car with "a stick shift and a/c." The manual windows and locks could be a pain when I had to lean all the way across the front seat to let someone in the passenger side, but they always worked. And I think that's part of the reason I bought a 1970 Chevelle a couple months ago. Aside from the sheer coolness of owning an old American muscle car, what you see is what you get. There's plenty of room to work under the hood -- a benefit to someone like me who's trying to learn more about vehicle maintenance -- and when a part goes, you don't need to hook the car up to an expensive computer system just to diagnose the problem.

With the American auto industry's heyday behind it, I've been thinking lately that its future might actually be its past. Instead of shelling out tens of thousands of dollars for streamlined products that nowadays seem to live up to their warranty but rarely much longer, will we increasingly go the foreign route when buying new cars but stick with American manufacturers when buying used? If companies like GM and Ford face significant downsizing, decreased output, or even outright extinction, I can see nostalgia rearing its head in a big way among motorheads everywhere, with guys (especially) buying up 20-, 30-, 40-year old cars and trucks and restoring them.

I'm not much of a prognosticator and I'm pretty much just thinking out loud here. All I really know for sure is that there's no amount of taxpayer subsidy that can rescue an unprofitable company that's being outhustled and outperformed in the marketplace. Subsidizing something results in getting more of it, so subsidizing problems is not the answer to eliminating them. If American automakers really want to be saved, they might want to simplify things themselves and embrace a good old American attribute they seem to have forgotten: hard work.

How's that for nostalgia?

Our Enemy, the State

Here is Robert Higgs' speech at the Future of Freedom's conference Restoring the Republic 2008: Foreign Policy and Civil Liberties. Dr. Higgs' work is one of the reasons I'm such a fiery and uncompromising opponent of the State. He has advanced the theory that there are no "failed" policies of the State; all policies benefit someone or some group and when we see who benefits, we then understand why policies that are clearly detrimental to the public good are never reversed. He applies that theory in this lecture to the Iraq War.

These Guys Are Idiots

Takes a real bright bulb to make a statement like this when one advocates economic policy that causes the realities he laments.

It's called a correction for a reason, genius.

Here's your yaktastic comment of the day:

"We have acted boldly, bravely, and above all, together," Obama said. "That is the chance our new beginning now offers us, and that is the challenge we must rise to in the days to come. It is time to act. As the next president of the United States, I will."

I Want My Cut, Too

El Presidente Bush has signed into law a $6 billion emergency bill extending unemployment insurance to the masses. Clearly this is the social justice balm to soothe public after the whipping it took when the (first?) bailout bill was passed against its wishes. This will lead to more unemployment for it creates moral hazard so that the unemployed will have less incentive to find a job. Moreover, those who are at the margin may find it better to quit their job and go on unemployment due to the disutility of labor. Transfer payments do not increase national income or wealth. To think otherwise is like thinking that one can take water out of the deep end of a pool and pour it into the shallow end of the same pool and expect the water level to rise.

Again, Bastiat's definition of the State is quite apropos-"The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else."

Marriage Is None of the Government's Business

Nothing better illustrates the farce of state-regulated marriage than the recently-settled lawsuit between online dating service eHarmony and Eric McKinley (in conjunction with New Jersey's Civil Rights Division).

The discrimination suit stemmed from a complaint in 2005 by gay New Jersey resident McKinley when he was unable to utilize the matchmaking service because there was no option for men seeking men.

"It's very frustrating and it's very humiliating to think that other people can do it and I can't," [McKinley] said. "And the only reason I can't is because I'm a gay man. That's very hurtful."

Well, boo-hoo. Apparently now we all have some universal right to use online dating services.

Admittedly, eHarmony decided to settle instead of choosing to fight this case in court, which obviously may have ruled in its favor, but the company decided not to take the chance of losing even more money than it already has.

Anyone who values property rights is understandably upset that eHarmony executives seemingly caved to this pressure, but I can't say I blame them. The mere fact that it's now commonly accepted that the state has the right to meddle in the business practices of private companies did not bode well for eHarmony's chances.

If there's any distinction anymore between the public and private sectors, I hardly see it. It's one thing for the government to require its own agencies to abide by equal opportunity/anti-discrimination legislation, but these fascist diktats are unacceptable and altogether evil when required of the private sphere.

In short, companies should have the right to discriminate against anyone for any reason. They also have the right to go out of business if their discriminatory policies work to their disadvantage.

This ruling is little more than a manifestation of policies that largely are a charade in the first place, as any company that wants to make money -- which means creating all those jobs our politicians love to take credit for -- knows it must discriminate. What's next, forcing the Dallas Cowboys to hire paraplegics at wide receiver? (Actually, that might be an improvement, but I digress.)

Gays wouldn't feel the need to fight these battles in the first place if the state didn't meddle in affairs of marriage, which likewise is a private contract that is none of the state's business. However, that doesn't mean gays and their supporters have any right to force heterosexual dating services to cater to their wants. For starters, gay dating services already exist, and in a free market there are products to meet every need. Certainly gay dating services would resent being forced to cater to straights.

Because the state insists on defining the scope of marriage, conflict between those on the left and right is increased. Liberals want to see gays treated like everyone else in the eyes of the state and so pursue statist methods to overturn public and private policies, while conservatives who want marriage to remain a heterosexual institution encourage the state to pass legislation defining it as such.

Both sides are wrong. People should be free to form whatever unions they please and therefore allocate their possessions accordingly. Absent the state people would form peaceable, private contractual unions that served their own interests. Only the state can prevent this through the initiation of violence.

Yes, absent a state we would still have anti-gay bigots among us. But they would be powerless, and having them around seems like a small price to pay to be free. As it stands, we just took another giant leap in the opposite direction.

More Fast Food Fascism?

A new study has found that fast food advertising has a "large effect" on childhood obesity, leading researches to propose even more nanny-state regulations on the food industry.

A ban on such commercials would reduce the number of obese young children by 18 percent, and the number of obese older kids by 14 percent, researchers found.

Know what else would probably reduce the number of fat kids? Bans on fast food restaurants altogether. Or maybe even a ban on everything but fruit! Of course, when the high sugar content of some fruits started leading to obesity, which could in turn cause Type 2 diabetes, we'd probably have to ban them, too.

Maybe we can just ban kids.

Shakedown Artists, Part 2

Today Trevor gave an example of how Maryland extorts money from its citizens with traffic violations. Here's an example in Virginia. Arlington County is now requiring all citizens to appear in court to dispute parking tickets. 

"This was the most efficient way to give the public an opportunity to appeal their parking tickets,” said Arlington County police Sgt. Wayne Vincent.

Actually, Sgt. Vincent, this is the most efficient way to increase your revenue from parking tickets because most people would rather pay the $25 or $50 fine than take a day from work to protest the ticket. At times I really wonder if the agents of the State really believe the BS they give us as an excuse to violate our rights and steal more of our money. I would like to the think that they are just cynical and evil rather than this naive and stupid.

This charade was quite clear to Larry Mayer, president of the Arlington County Civic Federation, who said,

"From a citizen’s perspective, this alteration doesn’t help. The process makes everything much more cumbersome, and what will end up happening is that more people will just pay the parking ticket because they don’t want to waste valuable time...”

If you lose in court you have to pay a $61 court cost in addition to the fee. Nevermind the fact that the tax dollars of Arlington County residents also pay the judges, so if you're an Arlington County resident you may want to make this your new logo.

Let us remember that the State is an institution which the ultimate judge of conflict, even conflicts involving itself. Therefore, whom do you think the vast majority of these decisions will favor?

Yet Another Reason

I don't vote.

(Thanks to Kramer)

Against Socialized Medicine

Bill Anderson has an excellent articleon socialism and medicine over at LewRockwell.com today. This is a really, really good piece. Mr. Anderson gives a brief history explaining how our medical system deteriorated into the chaotic mess we have today. What I found more rewarding was Mr. Anderson's application of the socialist calculation problem advance by Ludwig von Mises to Canada's health care system. Since the future portends much more political action to fully socialize the health care industry, we must be ready with our arguments for why this will fail and make us all worse off (all of us except our rulers who always find ways to find the quality goods and services they forbid us to have).

How Eric Holder Could Really Make History

With Eric Holder's conditional acceptance of Barack Obama's offer to serve as the country's top law enforcement official, there predictably has been a lot of celebration over what would be an historic appointment of the U.S.'s first black attorney general.

Aside from elections and political appointments, though, the United States made history earlier this year when it was reported that it leads the world in manufacturing prisoners -- in terms of both the absolute number of incarcerations and percentage of population.

With nearly half a million people imprisoned over nonviolent drug crimes -- blacks make up more than half of those convicted on drug offenses -- if Holder truly wants to make history, he should, upon assuming his post, immediately recommend the presidential pardon of every single inmate who has fallen victim to the federal war on drugs.

Shakedown Artists

The state and its merry band of tax collectors, that is.

My wife had the pleasure of dealing with the buffoons at the district courthouse this morning to contest a speeding ticket she got a few months ago. She was nabbed driving about 10 mph above a residential speed limit in the attempt to get to our son, who was having trouble swallowing at daycare, so she could take him to an emergency doctor's appointment.

Of course, it's a fiasco in itself even to get into the courthouse. My wife was initially turned away at the metal detectors for having a cell phone and baby stroller in her possession. (Apparently it's lost on the state why its behavior necessitates the use of metal detectors in the first place.)

When my wife finally was allowed entry, she had the option of going straight to the courtroom or meeting with an assistant state's attorney. She chose to meet with the SA and ask what her options were, and the SA told her she could either wait in line and take her chances with the judge, or she could -- get this -- make a $120 "donation" or do eight hours of community service to get the point off her record. The use of the word "donation" in this context is just about as despicable as politicians who "ask" you to pay taxes.

Considering my wife and I surrender tens of thousands of dollars to the state every year in various income and property taxes, I'm thinking we've already done our "community service" many times over, thank you very little. And given that the state assesses a $45 court fee in addition to the potential $80 fine if the judge fails to waive the infraction -- in which case you'd still have a point on your record -- my wife decided to just "donate" $120.

This, of course, is what the state expects of most people who don't have time to waste screwing around with government thieves. And after all, one can hardly rely on a judge -- a mere agent of the state -- not to rule in the state's favor. So my wife figured she'd cut her losses and get on with her day.

Dupes of the state always see police officers "doing their jobs" and "upholding the laws" as they sit along the road and pull over anyone exceeding their arbitrarily determined allowable speed limit of the day. I, however, see portable tax collectors shaking down citizens who have harmed no one.

Nothing puts the lie to the perceived "need" for speed enforcement like the fact that the state essentially solicits bribes once you arrive at the courthouse to challenge a chump ticket. Forget the fact that emergency situations morally excuse the obligation to observe petty laws, or that the state isn't even legally required to assist you in an emergency. How serious can "speeding" possibly be if the state's willing to wipe your driving record clean in exchange for cold, hard cash?

If these types of shakedowns don't convince you that the state has anything but your safety in mind, despite its lofty rhetoric to the contrary, nothing will.

Victim Disarmament at Sea

Do tankers worth tens of millions of dollars really need to be protected from a handful of pirates by international navies?

In a word, hell-frickin'-no.

Understanding the Duplicity of the State

Anthony Gregory has an excellent article on LewRockwell.com today warning libertarians to not fall for the Siren Song of Freedom now being sung by the State. He gives a wise admonition to those of us who may think that the State sincerely wants to advance liberty given the recent rhetoric of freedom :

Until the true partisans of liberty understand how the enemy co-opts our message, our struggle will seem futile and our gains will be illusory. The key to championing freedom is in staying dedicated to true free-market principles, property rights, individual liberty, free association, and peace – and eschewing all forms of warmongering, socialism and statism, no matter what rhetorical games are being played or whether the conditional friends of liberty have become duped into accepting the state’s aggrandizement in the name of anything, especially freedom.

It is imperative that radicals continue their unyielding opposition to the State. We must remember that the absolute power of the State corrupts absolutely and those who gain entry into the State are already corrupt, will be corrupted, or will be ignored. True liberty is an impossibility as long as the criminal gang known as the State exists.

Ron Paul on Bailouts

Suffice to say, he's against them.

(Via LRC blog)

Two Cheers for Divided Government

(Three for no state at all, of course.)

Question: How can having an anti-liberty president result in more liberty?

Answer: When we finally have an opposition party that's willing to stand up for liberty it helped erode during the years it reveled in unified government. 

As Lew Rockwell explains today, divided government is always preferable to a monopoly on power. A snippet:

Back up a bit to try to understand why divided government, even when it is divided among evil people, is better than unified government. Ralph Raico makes the point at every opportunity that the reason that the medieval period gave rise to liberty is that there was no power center on earth. The state was in competition with the Church and a thousand tiny governments were in competition with each other. Power was diffuse, and though any center would have been glad to have it all, the diffusion of power created a kind of gridlock that permitted liberty to grow and thrive.

So too with divided power in any government. They can and do logroll to each other's mutual benefit, but when that process breaks down, it is a glorious thing. Recent history suggests that the logrolling between power centers is least effective when the Republicans are in the minority and the Democrats hold the presidency. The Clinton years are a case in point. Spending rose very little. Warfare was curbed relative to the past and present. Deficits fell. The public sector shrank.

If we're lucky, maybe we'll end up with Clinton II and the GOP, if only because we'll be shackled with a two-party state for the forseeable future, will regain a little of the sanity it shed during its eight-year orgy.

Shameless Self-Promotion

My article criticizing the Maryland slots initiative that passed on election day runs today in the Baltimore Examiner.

UPDATE: It goes without saying that I'm always appreciative whenever publications that garner significant exposure run my articles, but if I may have one quibble, allow me to share my original ending.

First, the final edited conclusion:

By dictating the course of human action, the state is merely determining, according to its own standards, how we may live our lives. This latest legislative atrocity paves the way for even more government growth and power over how we choose to live our lives.

My original conclusion (difference laid out in bold):

By dictating the course of human action, the state is merely determining, according to its own standards, how we may live our lives. This latest legislative atrocity is nothing but another step toward totalitarianism that will lay the foundation for even more government growth and autonomy over the rest of us.

Aside from the "live our lives" redundancy in the edited version, I think the editors do their readers a disservice by removing words like "totalitarianism" in cases like this when they're entirely appropriate.

When I first blogged this issue I called this a legislative atrocity that was a "fascist" step toward totalitarianism, but removed the adjective from the piece I submitted to the paper after determining it would most likely be viewed by the editors as too radical -- whatever the slant of a paper's editorial board, their livelihood nevertheless depends on advertising revenue obtained across the political spectrum.

However, while I applaud the editors' decision to save the term "storm troopers" from the cutting room floor, I believe that the news media's general refusal (or at least failure) to depict our politicians' totalitarian actions for what they are is one big reason so many folks fail to associate statist government with tyranny.

I'm the last person who's going to argue that a private company has any obligation to provide its customers with anything more than the goods or services for which they've contracted -- and certainly I hope the editors realize this is nothing but an honest, respectful critique from a grateful contributor -- but freedom will be little more than a pipe dream if our media shy away from telling the brutal truths about government oppression.

The Fraud of State-Provided Law, Order, and Justice

As everyone who reads this blog regularly knows, I am a huge fan of Hans Hermann Hoppe. His work has been a great influence on my thinking. He defines the State as a territorial monopolist of law and order and ultimate decision making. It is the final judge of conflict between individuals, but also between conflicts involving itself. Thus, it should be no surprise that the State almost always rules in its own favor.

It cements its monopoly, not by being the most efficient producer of law and order services, but by threatening with violence those who would offer competing law and order services. It also has the power to tax without consent and make laws without consent. Since this entity receives its revenue through taxation, it has no incentive to do anything it promises to do, namely to protect people and judge fairly.

I wish to give an example of just how this protection racket works in the real world using the 1981 court case, Warren v. District of Columbia. You can read the sordid details here; the following is only a synopsis. On March 16, 1975, two women heard screams from their roommate who was being assaulted by two men on the second floor of the house they shared. They called the police. A squad car arrived at the scene, but drove through the alley without stopping. A second car arrived; the cop knocked on the door, but left when no one answered. The two women heard more screams and called the police. This call for help was never dispatched to any officers. After a while, the women no longer heard any screams; they assumed the police had arrived and went downstairs. Unfortunately, the two men had not left and assaulted all three women for the next fourteen hours. The women sued the DC government and the police for negligence. The District's highest court exonerated the DC government and its police, stating it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.''

Now let us take the time to analyze just what happened here through Dr. Hoppe's philosophy.

High Crimes

I don't know about you, but I sure feel safer knowing that Maryland police have arrested Brett Evan Ward, a nonviolent enemy of the state charged with the high "crime" of engaging in voluntary trade between consenting adults.

Officers recovered 3.61 pounds of marijuana, $1,310 in currency and four vehicles.  The marijuana has an estimated street value of $10 thousand.  Also recovered were numerous smoking devices, a scale and empty zip-loc bags. 

Officers did not "recover" Ward's plants, money, and vehicles. They seized them. Confiscated them. Robbed him.

If it isn't bad enough that Maryland's totalitarians make the possession and sale of a plant a crime, they also assume the right to steal any other property you might have within eyeshot of the contraband.

Land of the free, baby. Land of the free!

Just Do It, Sarah

Turns out taking the day off work to stay home and watch your 1-year-old doesn't leave a lot of spare time for blogging, but I thought I'd try to start a discussion about a porn director's offer to have Sarah Palin make an appearance in one of his films.

Given that being a porn star is a much nobler profession than being a professional politician, I think she should take the guy up on his offer. I mean, if you're gonna get paid to screw people, the least you can do is be upfront about it.

Are the Oil Companies Suddenly Feeling Charitable?

It's been quite awhile since I can remember filling my truck's gas tank for 40 bucks, but I did just that about an hour ago. I think that's just about half of what I paid only a few months ago.

Which got me to thinking, at about two bucks a gallon nowadays, there's not much talk around town and in the press about all those "greedy" oil company CEOs anymore. Let me go out on a limb and guess that will pick up again, oh, around the May-June timeframe.

Instead of making more New Year's resolutions to stop eating Big Macs or save the trees, wouldn't it be nice if more people resolved to read a basic economics book once in a while?

The Production of Fear

Last weekend I went to Mexico for a mini-vacation and a pretty good time. I stayed on the beach during the days and danced the nights away. The trip back was interesting in that it allowed me to contrast airport security in Cancun with that of Miami. You don't have to take your shoes off in Cancun; you only have to show your boarding pass to one person; and it's pretty quiet. The security officials have a pleasant demeanor and it reminded me of what airline travel was like pre 9-11. On the other hand in Miami you have to take your shoes off; you have to show your boarding pass to four people, including one person sitting in a chair after you have cleared the metal detectors; and it's loud. The security officials have a menacing demeanor and they are constantly barking orders. The new x-ray machine which can see through your clothes sits in the between two x-ray conveyor belts; it's huge and looks like something out of a Star Trek movie. The new uniforms of the TSA officials look like police uniforms which is no coincidence. The last person I had to show my boarding pass to really fired me up and my girlfriend had to calm me down. This woman was sitting in a chair just after I cleared the metal detectors and the x-ray machine. I had already shown my boarding pass to three other people before getting to her. She just barks at people to hold out their boarding passes, as if we could have gone that far without it. Of course since the State can tax without consent, it will allocate resources inefficiently. But I don't think there is anything inefficient about what I witnessed. The entire purpose of this display was train Americans to obey the same way one trains beasts of burden. The State is doing the best it can to inure us to humiliation, extinguish our belief in natural rights, and frighten us so that we will submit without conflict. "Move along, question nothing, and if you do we reserve to the right to imprison or kill you." 

 

To be fair, when I left DC, the security check point was more similar to that of Mexico, save the dark blue uniforms and shoe policy. At least it was that day and at that time. Plus, Miami probably suffers from lot of drug smuggling thanks to the law enforcement welfare program known as the War on Drugs. Perhaps Cancun's airline security can also be just as scary. Nevertheless, since I had left Mexico only an hour and a half ago, the contrast was stark.

 

The reason why security officials can get away with such behavior is exclusively due to the State monopoly on airline security. If a private security firm treated its customers so poorly, it would be out of business yesterday. The State, on the other hand, has forbidden anyone else from providing security. Moreover, it receives its funds through robbery, aka, taxation, so our only choice to avoid airline security is not fly.

 

Hans Hermann Hoppe continually reminds us that the State actually produces bads and fear is the most important. Fear is the foundation of all government power and the State does produce fear quite efficiently. The Miami airport is a good example of an efficient allocation of resources to this endeavor.

How Cute

George Bush tells world leaders that the free market isn't the cause of our current economic problems, but he continues to believe that the solution lies in the same government interventions that caused the mess in the first place.

Either the government's to blame or it's not. Guess which one's the right answer.

I Heart the Internet

Seriously, where else would you be able to find an entire portfolio dedicated to Hot Chicks with Douchebags?

(Via Michael Barnett)

Price Controls Cause Shortages

If you have a child in a public school, I have a question for you: How do you feel about the quality of your kid's education knowing the people in charge of it don't even understand the most basic laws of economics?

I've lived in Maryland for 12 years now, and I can recall reading about teacher shortages at some point every single year. Apparently, this year is no exception (my emphasis).

"While we have been able to fill teaching positions in Calvert County, it is becoming more challenging to hire highly qualified teachers in certain areas such as higher level sciences, special education and speech pathology," said Calvert County Public Schools Superintendent Jack Smith.

"In St. Mary’s [County] we have worked extremely hard to make sure that we hire highly qualified teachers. One difficulty that we face as a state is that Maryland does not produce enough graduates in the teaching area to fill all of the vacancies Maryland counties have,["] said Dr. Edward Weiland, director of human resources for St. Mary’s County Public Schools.

It would be amusing to listen to all this complaining if it weren't an outgrowth of pathetic economic ignorance, especially considering the fact that top county officials rake in six-figure salaries (Supt. Jack Smith makes over $150,000 a year). But I can save all the perplexed superintendents and directors of Maryland's failing public schools a lot of time: You will always face teacher shortages when you artificially set teacher salaries.

A shortage occurs when demand for a good exceeds the amount supplied at a prevailing price. In short, shortages will take place when the price of a good is too low. In Maryland, there aren't enough teachers willing to work for the prevailing wage. Because public schools do not operate on the free market, prices will not rise to meet the current demand. Hence the shortage.

In a free market, however, producers understand that the more people want a particular good, the more they're willing to pay for it. This concept was illustrated this past summer when gasoline prices "skyrocketed." Rising prices not only ensure that goods will be available to consumers who need them most by forcing everyone to economize, they also send a signal to the market that these goods are needed in the first place. This draws producers into the market to provide the demanded products in the hope of making a profit.

If Maryland politicians and bureaucrats really wanted to make sure there will be enough teachers to fill classrooms full of students, they would get out of the education business altogether and allow the private sector to provide schooling. Private school officials would automatically adjust their prices to allow for salaries that would draw teachers into the classrooms.

Don't buy lame excuses like the one Dr. Weiland offers when he claims that Maryland colleges simply aren't producing enough teachers to fill all the vacancies. I relocated from New York to accept my first full-time job as a fourth grade teacher; others would do the same if the price was right.

Interestingly enough, it turned out after three and a half years that the price wasn't "right" enough to convince me to stick with an industry that stole from taxpayers, failed to adequately discipline students, and refused to require actual learning before promoting students, so I quit.

Maryland's school leaders would do well to realize that there may be no price at which they can attract quality teachers, given that funding is forcibly extricated from taxpayers and is therefore in limited supply. Price controls are merely one problem with government schooling. Along with this also come statist "education" policies, statist "values," union demands, and any number of other undesirable workplace conditions that prevent prospective teachers from choosing to put up with them, or even preclude smart college kids from majoring in education completely.

One reason private schools often are able to attract good teachers for less money is precisely because they're not public schools, replete with the many headaches that accompany statist control.

Despite their lofty rhetoric, public school officials probably realize they can't increase prices to the point required to actually attract the "best and brightest" -- obviously there are a handful of intelligent teachers willing to teach at prevailing rates -- for if they did, they would price themselves into irrelevance as taxpayers ultimately would refuse to fork over the money and instead send their kids to cheaper (or at least more valuable) private schools. Instead, they are content to promote and produce an inferior product in order to convey the impression that they can adequately serve the educational needs of their students.

But just remember: It's all "for the children."

Hey Barack, Where Do I Send My Mortgage Bill?

Since the government's made it clear there should be no such thing as fiscal responsibility even in the private (sic) sector anymore, and will soon effectively be nationalizing the American auto industry in addition to the banks, I see little reason why I should have to be responsible for paying off my own mortgage note. You know, equaliy and all that.

If the auto giants deserve cash welfare payments -- at the expense of taxpayers no less -- where's our bailout? Certainly you parasitical oxygen thieves don't believe your high-rollin' buddies in Detroit and on Wall Street are any more important than the rest of us, right? I mean, that would imply you just view all us common folk as nothing more than revenue generators to be exploited to fund all these fascist scams. And I just can't believe that! I won't believe it!

So Barack, I can only guess that part of your transition to the throne includes the establishment of the Communal Mortgage Agency, replete with a national mortgage czar. I really can think of no better "wealth redistribution" program than one that would put every American in a free home. Forget "a chicken in every pot"; that scam's for softy socialists. You could throw "a house on every lot!"

Don't listen to all those idiots who say printing gobs and gobs of fiat currency will cause even more inflation and continue to wreck the dollar, or that bailouts for well-connected billionaires is tantamount to transferring wealth from the poor to the rich. Whatever... we realize you know what is best!

Seriously, dude, screw that "only one president at a time" babble. You are The One, sent from on high to save us all from ourselves; to turn our nightmares into dreams; to show us The Way! There's no logical reason for you to wait until January to get your balls rolling. Stand up to that emasculated patsy sitting in your chair right now! We hate him. We love you! You don't endorse torture, do you? Get him the hell out of there today. For us! Honestly, just ask him to resign. He'll do it yesterday. He can't wait for you to take over any more than we can!

Oh my Barack, waiting for January 20th is going to be harder than waiting for Christmas. Please, Your Holiness, Your Grace; save us from all our misery now!

What's Wrong with Government Schooling?

Aside from the moral implications of state ownership of children whose parents can't afford private schooling, it's no secret that perhaps the biggest problem with public education is that no amount of money can result in the education of students who aren't expected to compete -- not necessarily even with one another, mind you, but with themselves.

The reason colleges have a slightly better chance of successfully educating their students is because, unlike elementary and high schools across the country, they can usually be selective during the admissions process. If applicants don't meet an expected standard, they won't get in. Similarly, students can be booted out if they don't maintain the school's minimum grade point average.

However, due to the vast federal influence at even the college level, the statist policies that have corrupted public schools at the primary and secondary levels have simultaneously eroded the integrity of the country's highest institutions of "learning." See this poignant story from one graduate student.

Will Obama Free the Slaves?

No, not at all says Michael Rozeff. Here's my favorite quote from the passage:

Whatever the psychology of those who support government, they should have the government they want. Only they should not impose that government on those of us who don’t want it. We do not all have to be in the same government boat even if all of us continue to live on this continent. There is nothing sacred about the Union, the U.S.A., or the U.S. Constitution. It has not been written anywhere that we must be "one Nation, under God, indivisible." The parts about "one Nation" and "indivisible" do not appear anywhere in my Bible, which is the Holy Bible. The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by one Francis Bellamy. It has been an annoyance to schoolchildren ever since. As taxes imposed on non-consenters violate rights, so is the Pledge of Allegiance an oath against property and the right to one’s person.

Suckers

How many people beatifying the despot-elect will be doing so five or ten years from now, after Our Holy Savior has conscripted their children, confiscated their retirement savings, and exacerbated the bankruptcy of the country?

Well, maybe more than you'd think, since a president's melanin count is apparently more important than the solvency of his political philosophies.

"Any time you create buzz and excitement, it doesn't matter what the economy does," claims one fellow in California.

I'm starting to think we really are a nation of imbeciles.

Robert Higgs Asks, "Are We the USSA Yet?"

Prof. Higgs uses Marx and Engels list of the ten measures in the Manifesto of the Communist Party necessary to establish communism in advanced countries. He concludes,

So, here we stand, having come close enough to communism for government work. It is a mistake, however, to call it communism or socialism, because a major part of its genius is its preservation of the form of private property rights, even as the substance of such rights is progressively gutted. Properly speaking, our system is, and long has been, economic fascism. "It's a free country," the Red State voters keep yelping. But it's not. In truth, it never was. But a hundred years ago, it came a great deal closer to being free than it does now.

 

You May Want to Move Your Retirement Money

Michael Rozeff and Karen de Coster both link to an article in which House Democrats are contemplating the confiscation of private 401(k)s and IRAs. Apparently the financial crisis has opened the door as many people have lost money in their accounts and House Democrats believe that such things should never happen. Thus, the State will step in to save us by robbing us of our investments to protect them. Since Obama is a Marxist, this plan may come to fruition in his presidency. True, the people may protest, but as I pointed out during last week, the State is powerful enough to do whatever it wants because the people consent to democracy.

You may want to consider moving your retirement money before it's too late. I'm thinking about putting mine toward the principal in my condo.

GM 'Needs' to Go Under

General Motors chairman Rick Wagoner says that his company is in such poor financial shape -- indeed, Deutsche Bank considers the company's stock worthless -- that it "needs" welfare assistance from American taxpayers before it runs out of cash.

Well, Wagoner didn't put it exactly like that. He called it a "federal aid package."

"This is an issue that needs to be addressed urgently," Wagoner told Automotive News, adding that now is the time to "overshoot, not undershoot" the level of assistance.

GM is willing to offer the government preferred stock, speed the introduction of fuel-efficient vehicles and set limits on executive compensation in exchange for financial aid, Wagoner said.

In other words, GM is willing to prostrate itself before the state if that means getting its fix. Nothing like selling your soul for corporate fascism.

Hey, Rick, I've got a 1970 Chevelle sitting in my garage that would look great in a sweet new paint job. I suppose I should just beg for my place at the federal trough like you instead of doing what normal people do and find new ways to make money, huh?

Listen, it wasn't American citizens who knuckled under to the UAW and decided to lavish fat pensions and health benefits on assembly line workers making $100k a year the past few decades. So get over it. Figure out how to cut overhead and improve your product or go the hell out of business.

Dictator-Elect Won't Waste Time Signing Executive Orders

According to John Podesta, one of Barack Obama's transition coordinators, the next American prez is eager to exercise his executive authority "without waiting for congressional action."

The issuance of executive orders is not without precedent, of course; for years, U.S. presidents have used them as a way to get around the Constitution. President Bush, lacking no apparent appreciation for irony, disobeyed hundreds of laws during his tenure that conflicted with his own interpretation of the Constitution. He essentially signed every bill that came across his desk, then proceeded to file "signing statements" absolving himself from compliance with laws limiting his authority.

Most middle-schoolers will be able to tell you that the legislature is the government body tasked with making laws. Not so in the age of the ubiquitous executive order, however. Because all of these statements are recorded in the federal register, the president necessarily serves as the ultimate legislator. Some republic.

Shortly President Bush will bequeath the most powerful presidency in the nation's history to Obama, who will use his own presumed dictatorial authority to craft the laws as he sees fit.

Regardless of who sits on the throne, federal power will continue to grow as individual liberty takes a back seat to concentrated state authority.

Maybe Philly Fans Aren't All Bad

I can't believe I just said that, but booing Joe Biden's a good start at redemption.

Like a Good Little Drone

From the Buffalo News:

Red Wings defenseman Chris Chelios ... claims he never voted in a public election. "I never vote," he said. "I always had the mentality that once a president gets elected, whether it's a Democrat or Republican, he's the president so you follow his lead. My wife votes for the family."

Chris, you had me at "I never vote." But now I know why not voting gets such a bad rap in so many circles.

Integration of Church and State

I was baptised, confirmed, and married Roman Catholic, but I'll confess to being neither a particularly religious person in general nor an enthusiastic fan of the Catholic church in particular.

When I was younger I resented the fact that my parents forced me to go to church every Sunday, as well as attend CCD classes once they took me out of my Catholic grade school and enrolled me in public schools, which were closer to my house and allowed me to walk to and from school when my mom had to go back to work full time.

I think my aversion to organized religion grew out of this compulsory participation, and it didn't help much when my grandmother would tell me I would "go to hell" if I missed church. I'm pretty sure that admonition isn't a generally accepted tenet of Catholicism, but suffice to say your belief systems are influenced tremendously by your surroundings. In short, even when I was ten years old I remember thinking that God probably wouldn't care too much how I worshipped him as long as I did.

Although I spend a lot of time thinking through various feelings on the subject of religion, my faith took a big hit a few years ago when two of the best people I ever knew were killed in a car accident. I continue to work through my outlook on the church in general, but experiences like the one I had today don't do much to affirm my allegiance or convince me not to just do my own thing on my own terms -- i.e., absent affiliation with a particular church.

For one thing, going to church with a 1-year-old is nothing if not unpredictable, but I was entirely unprepared for the full-blown state-worship that was on display in the sermon this morning. I think it's perfectly fine to pray for the troops, though I wasn't aware that the Catholic church now considers the murder of innocents to be "peacekeeping" -- especially when the priest so adamantly condemned abortion at the conclusion of the mass.

However, I was thoroughly disgusted when the reader reciting the prayers asked parishioners to "pray for president-elect Obama, so that he may work to end the injustice in the world."

I kid you not.

I'm obviously no authority on religion, but even if it's appropriate for a private church to pray for a government official -- especially one who inhabits an office replete with sin -- it's altogether reprehensible that it would buy into and advance the pretense that Obama is all-worldy, or that he or any other fallen human being even has the capability to "end injustice" anywhere.

The state, due to its very existence, is the epitome of injustice. To believe a state official could relieve the suffering in which he is complicit is naive at best. But what's worse, to exalt Barack Obama in such a manner smacks of placing him on par with Jesus Christ.

I'm sorry, but that's more than enough to make even this fair-weather Catholic sick to his stomach.

On the Economy, the Only 'Necessary' Action Is NO Action

On my drive home from work yesterday, I heard radio clips of an Obama interview about the economy. The most poignant segment was his promise, upon assuming office, to "act swiftly" and take all the "necessary steps" to resolve our economic crisis.

This morning I tracked down the report online. Here's the entire quote:

"We are facing the greatest economic challenge of our lifetime, and we're going to have to act swiftly to resolve it," Obama said.

He said he was confident that "a new president can have an enormous impact," but he tempered that optimism by adding, "I do not underestimate the enormity of the task that lies ahead."

"Immediately after I become president, I will confront this economic challenge head-on by taking all necessary steps to ease the credit crisis, help hardworking families, and restore growth and prosperity," Obama said.

Obama is saying nothing different than any other president-elect, Democrat or Republican, would say (save Ron Paul, of course). To me this is the most striking thing about this entire situation: the wholesale lack of understanding about free markets and economic liberty, not only at the highest levels of political office, but throughout the country, as well.

Believe it or not, this isn't the time to ridicule the president-elect's ignorance on "the economy." There are many accomplished and intelligent economists teaching in the halls of some of our most prestigious universities who no doubt are well-versed in economic history and the competing ideologies, but who nevertheless fail to understand the economics of prosperity.

Obama's admission that he doesn't underestimate the scope of the "task ahead" may be a respectable admission, but it's also a perfect illustration that he throws his hat in the ring with the many Keynesians who have come before him. That Obama believes that the government must control the economy from the top down is the rule, not the exception; we have the important job of trying to convince him to see the economy through the eyes of Austrians.

The best action a president and his government could take during an economic downturn is no action at all. History is replete with "positive actions" that have done nothing but perpetuate economic chaos, panics, recessions, and depression. We need look no further than 1933 for the best example. Now is the time to allow the market to allocate scarce resources to their most productive uses. This cannot be accomplished through government intervention. 

If the new president is telling the truth when he says he wants to work productively with Republicans and even include them in his administration, perhaps he'll be open-minded enough to entertain a return to the only school of economic though that "predicted this current crisis, explains its origins and source, and offers the only plausible way out."

Today we need the teachers. We also need a president who will embrace sanity and sensibility. I have no idea if he will. But if we do our part and tomorrow he refuses to listen and learn, the ridicule can most certainly proceed apace.