who's your nanny?

You Keep Using That Chart. I Don't Think It Means What You Think It Means.

I've seen this chart floating around Facebook lately. Apparently liberals think that the tall red bars under the Republican presidents' images is "winning" when compared to the lower blue bars under the Democratic presidents. Thus, when one asks the question, "Who increased the public debt?", liberals can all yell in unison, "Republicans!". But that would be an incorrect answer. According to this chart, the correct answer is all of these presidents increased the public debt. The Democratic presidents did not increase public debt as much as the Republicans, but each president increased the previous administration's borrowing. Which means that each president has contributed to bankrupting the country. Yes, my dear liberals, this means that your presidents have also contributed to bankrupting the country. Why do you want to brag about this?

Google Doing Its Part

This is great.

As I like to say, the internet will free more people than an army ever will. Which, when you think about it, is probably what the state's most worried about.

I Got a 67

Radley Balko has created a Cop or Soldier Quiz which is not as easy as it sounds. That such a quiz is even plausible tells you all you need to know about the direction our government wants to take us.

An MLK Speech No One Talks About

MLK's speech on the Vietnam War. Here are a few excerpts (emphasis added):

Since I am a preacher by trade, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle, and others, have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor - both black and white - through the Poverty Program. Then came the build-up in Vietnam, and I watched the program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political play thing of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic, destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.

Perhaps the more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the young black men who had been crippled by our society and sending them 8000 miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in Southwest Georgia and East Harlem. So we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. So we watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would never live on the same block in Detroit. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.

My third reason grows out of my experience in the ghettos of the North over the last three years - especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through non-violent action. But, they asked, what about Vietnam? They asked if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today, my own government....

They must see Americans as strange liberators. The Vietnamese proclaimed their own independence in 1945 after a combined French and Japanese occupation and before the communist revolution in China. Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France in its re-conquest of her former colony.

Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were not "ready" for independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long. With that tragic decision, we rejected a revolutionary government seeking self-determination, and a government that had been established not by China (for whom the Vietnamese have no great love) but by clearly indigenous forces that included some communists. For the peasants, this new government meant real land reform, one of the most important needs in their lives....

At this point, I should make it clear that while I have tried here to give a voice to the voiceless of Vietnam and to understand the arguments of those who are called enemy, I am as deeply concerned about our own troops there as anything else. For it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each other and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for our troops must know after a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy and the secure while we create a hell for the poor.

You could replace "Vietnam" with "Iraq" or "Afghanistan" or "Libya" and the speech would still make much sense. America has to make other people living in foreign countries free. If the people choose a government that America does not like, then America must show the indigenous people what real freedom and democracy look like. The price of this freedom is always the lives and property of the people living in said foreign countries.

MLK loses me near the end of the speech with this line, however, "When machines and computers, profit and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered." It is precisely the State's attack on property rights and profit, which is a property right, that allow the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism to roam freely. It is the State that upholds Jim Crow laws. It is the State that produces artificial barriers to competition so that politically connected firms can grow unchallenged. And it is the State that funds the military through its taxation and inflation so that it can build an empire.

Nevertheless, this is not an MLK speech one will hear about in the mainstream. Calling the US Government out for what it is, "greatest purveyor of violence in the world today", is too harsh a truth for mainstream Americans to accept in any era.

How Do You Get the American Public to Be Ashamed of the Military?

Show the American public video of soldiers urinating on dead Afghan bodies. Showing pictures of American soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners also compels the American public to hold the military in contempt, at least temporarily. Of course if a solider leaks video of American soliders joyously killing reporters and Iraqi civilians in Baghdad among other war crimes in hopes that the American public will see the truth of the war, the American public will be ashamed of that solider.

The lesson to be learned-The American public has no qualms against the U.S. military killing brown people in foreign countries. The American public has no qualms against these murders being videotaped. However, if U.S. soldiers dare videotape the desecration of dead Afghan bodies or take humiliating pictures of tortured Iraqis or leak video of U.S. soldiers killing brown people in foreign countries, the American public will condemn such actions as "disgusting", "highly reprehensible", and "traitorous".

Ron Paul's "Baggage" Is Not the Problem

While reading various blogs and comments, I have noticed that some libertarians are lamenting the "baggage" that Ron Paul carries, namely the racist newsletters that were published under his name. If only he did not have this baggage, some argue, then he would be a much better candidate to advance liberty. I dislike being the bearer of bad news to some of my fellow libertarians, but even if Ron Paul were not associated with racist newsletters, his message would not advance much further than it already is. This is because the racist newsletters are a red herring. What people despise about Ron Paul is his message.

I'll use liberals as an example. While there are some liberals who appreciate Paul's foreign policy, they loathe his views on race, affirmative action, women and gay rights. But what exactly do they not like about Paul's position? He is not a racist who has called for blacks to be re-enlaved nor has he called for women to go back to the kitchen. However, he has argued that the federal government has no right to prevent firms from hiring whomever they want, that private business should be able to serve whomever they want, that abortion should be handled at the State level.

Liberals hate Paul's message because it respects private property and advocates decentralized power. For the liberal, Americans are free to use their property as long as they do so in a manner that does not offend liberals. Thus, a restaurant that does not want to serve blacks or a firm that does not want to hire women or a State that bans abortion is committing a evil that must be rectified by enlighted liberals. But clearly liberals are not going to arm themselves and force the restaurant, the firm, or the voters in States to obey their dictates. They need the Federal Government legitimize their threats of violence against the people who do not obey them. And they know that without the Federal Government some restaurants will not serve blacks, some firms will not hire women, some States will outlaw abortion.

I can make a similar argument using conservatives. Conservatives hate Paul's foreign policy because his foreign policy means that the United States government cannot continue to kill brown Muslims in foreign countries. His desire to end the drug war means that conservatives can no longer control the bodies of their fellow Americans "for their own good". His views State's rights means that some States would legalize abortion.

While Paul's message is gaining ground, we should not delude ourselves into thinking that his message would be better received without his "baggage". There are many people who understand the logical results of Paul's message about liberty. His opponents despise these results. They love the power of the State and they want to control everyone else's lives. And they know that they will not be able to do so if Paul's policies are realized in America.

Lessons from a Beta Cop Who Scares Woman

A cop in Chicago is being sued after allegedly asking a woman on a date after giving her a $132 speeding ticket. According to the lawsuit, the cop found her address in the motor-vehicle database and left a handwritten note on her windshield.

In the note, a copy of which appeared was included in  the court documents and was obtained by the Associated Press, the 27-year-old police officer tried to woo the female driver with humor and a seemingly heartfelt plea.

"It's Chris … that ugly bald Stickney cop who gave you that ticket. … I know this may seem crazy and you're probably right, but truth is I have not stopped thinking about you since. I don't expect a girl as attractive as you to … even go for a guy like me, but I'm taking a shot anyways."

"I did cost you $132 - least I can do is buy you dinner," the note reportedly read.

I despise cops so I hope he loses his shirt in the lawsuit (unlikely, I know). However, there is much the newbie to game can learn from this pathetic letter so let's look at his mistakes. His first mistake was writing this letter and putting it on her windshield. Using your power as a police officer to find a woman's address screams, "creepy serial killer". In fact using anything other source of information to find a woman's address other than the woman herself will be seen as "creepy serial killer". Don't google her name looking for an address, don't stalk her on Facebook, don't hire a private investigator to follow her.

Now let's look at the letter itself. First excerpt, "...ugly bald Stickney cop...". Don't self-deprecatef. It does not matter if you are ugly. If you are a man, you still have a chance. That is because women are attracted to qualities like confidence, dominance, and projections of power. Play to your strengths and not your weaknesses (Roissy's 12th commandment) But it also means that an ugly man has less margin of error. So what you say, and more important, how you say it matters.

Second excerpt, "I know this may seem crazy and you're probably right, but truth is I have not stopped thinking about you since." Remember that he found her address using the police database. This screams, "Creepy. Serial. Killer." Never stalk a woman and don't let her know how you feel about her. Women like mystery (Roissy's 6th commandment). They like the challenge of figuring out if a man likes her. Mystery keeps the tingles going. 

Third excerpt, "I don't expect a girl as attractive as you to … even go for a guy like me, but I'm taking a shot anyways." You must ignore a woman's beauty (Roissy's 10th commandment). I don't care how attractive she is. Many men screw up with women because their beauty creates fear inside of them. They worry about saying the wrong thing or doing the wrong thing. And they end up saying the wrong thing or doing the wrong thing because they don't display the qualities that women find attractive in men. He also is breaking Roissy's 11 commandment, "Be irrationally self-confident". If you already expect that women won't go for you a guy like you, then your expectations will be met.

In short, fellas, if you are interested in a woman, never write a letter like this or talk to her like this. Words like these are like applying a Sham Wow to the vagina. But if you internalize Roissy's commandments, you'll water lawns like a gardener.

Another Day in The Twilight Zone

There are days when I wake up and I feel that I am in an episode of "The Twilight Zone". The past year has felt like I'm living in The Complete Definitive Collection. But just as the Twilight Zone has a few episodes with a twisted sense of humor, I occasionally find news articles that reflect that black humor. Today, I found this article on FoxNews whose title reads, "Obama Administration Tests Constitutional Power After Controversial Appointment". Let that sink in for a moment before continuing.

The article begins (emphasis added):

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce may sue the Obama administration over President Obama's controversial appointment of Richard Cordray to head a controversial consumer financial board, officials from the business group told Fox News on Wednesday after an unprecedented display of executive power that is sure to poison already-strained relations with the GOP.

Chamber spokeswoman Blair Latoff and colleague Bryan Goettel both told Fox News that their understanding is that "we are not ruling it out." However, they said they still "need to understand the specifics of the appointment to determine if a legal challenge is even possible."

The chamber was early in its criticism of the president's move Wednesday to appoint Cordray to chair the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in a move that invites legal challenge but which administration officials say is perfectly within the president's authority to do.

"To say we are disappointed in the move by the president today would be a gross understatement," Chamber President Tom Donohue said in statement. "This controversial appointment is unprecedented, constitutionally questionable, and puts the authority of the director and the validity of the bureau’s work in legal jeopardy. What's more, it ignores repeated calls to reform the bureau by restoring basic checks and balances."

Others are also questioning the validity of the president's move. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who could become the majority leader in 2012, released an ominous statement Wednesday, saying the appointment "lands this nominee in uncertain legal territory, threatens the confirmation process and fundamentally endangers the Congress' role in providing a check on the excesses of the executive branch."

Once again, let those emphasized phrases sink in for a moment. This president has argued that he can detain anyone suspected of terrorism indefinitely. He even signed a bill authorizing him to do so. (Footnote-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell voted against the amendment that would have banned indefinite detainment of Americans and voted for the NDAA bill that Obama signed into law.) If capturing the suspect is too time-consuming, the president can order the CIA assassinate him. These are only the most recent constitutional violations which are legion for this administration and builds upon the unconstitional actions of past administrations. But this appointment to a consumer financial board is "an unprecedented, constitutionally questionable display of executive power" according to FoxNews and "fundamentally endangers the Congress' role in providing a check on the excesses of the executive branch" according to Senator McConnell who voted for the bill that officially destroys habeus corpus.

Some may not find this dark humor funny. I can understand that. But I gave up hope for liberty in my lifetime months ago. As Murray Rothbard noted:

Any man who is an individualist and a libertarian in this day and age has a difficult row to hoe. He finds himself in a world marked, if not dominated, by folly, fraud, and tyranny. He has, if he is a reflecting man, three possible courses of action open to him: (1) he may retire from the social and political world into his private occupation...(2) he can set about to try to change the world for the better, or at least to formulate and propagate his views with such an ultimate hope in mind; or, (3) he can stay in the world, enjoying himself immensely at this spectacle of folly.

I used to belong to group #2. However, after three years of blogging, studying, and interacting with people after taking the red pill, I'm now in group #3. I'm just enjoying another day in the Twilight Zone.

Sounds About Right

"Oh, no! I'm in The Friendzone!" (NB: Profanity)