Oh That Cheney: Just a Regular Dick!

Ah, yes. For those of you who have lost sleep wondering how the Vice President travels, CNN
offers a sycophantic "inside" look at Dick Cheney's needs while on the road.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Cheney's needs include diet Sprite, microwave popcorn, and FOX News, among other things. I'm not sure if the author's intent was to portray Cheney in a normal light or not, but the cheerful mood of the writing sharply contrasts with my mental image of the man. Like most people, whenever I think of Cheney, I think Darth Vader...not a man relaxing in a cargo plane watching movies before cheerfully meeting with leaders of foreign countries.

Unfortunately, the article does not cite an author or allow comments, which was the purpose of my reading the article over lunch today. With an (impossible) approval rating somewhere in the negative number set, I'm not sure the AP's attempt to breathe life into Cheney's terminator-esque persona will be well-received.

But still, there's something about Cheney that I'm drawn to...but I'm not sure what it is, though. I think my inexplicable attraction stems from the same jaded batch of emotions that led me to cheer for the coyote in Warner Brothers cartoons.

Map My Run: Cherry Blossom Saturday

I decided to skip the hilly Alexandria route this Saturday. Instead, I ran along Rock Creek, through Adams Morgan, and up to Cleveland Park before winding my way back down to Haines Point. My justification was two-fold: the cherry blossoms are out, and I wanted to avoid three straight Saturdays of the same route.

I couldn't have asked for better conditions for today's run. The weather was perfect, people were everywhere, and the scenery was spectacular. Running along the Potomac has become a workout staple, and the scenic Rock Creek Parkway is a great addition to the route. The Parkway twists and turns along Rock Creek, a small waterway that empties into the Potomac near Georgetown. For about two miles, you forget that you are in an urban environment as the parkway snakes its way through dense trees. The running path offers a smooth, dirt/gravel option...a welcomed reprieve for my sore and tendinitis-plagued legs.

Although the overall route is flat, the steep hill on 24th Street to Connecticut Ave NW is anything but a layup. The hill is about a half mile in length, and the grade is very steep. It is unlikely that I'll encounter such a grade in any race, but the hill served as a nice ego check.

The final outbound mile runs along Connecticut Ave., and the sidewalk was packed today. The terrain is a slight uphill climb, but not too difficult...especially because I encountered the hill so early in my run. The Cleveland Park Metro stop served as my turnaround point, conveniently 6.5 miles from home.

The return trip went well. I felt stronger than in weeks past, mostly because this route is flatter than my usual Saturday route. I failed to note the time I started the run...and I regret it because I felt strong from start to finish. It would have been interesting to crunch the numbers to gauge progress.

DC was packed today. Between the National Marathon, the Cherry Blossom Festival, and the first game at Nationals Park, the city was buzzing with people. I flirted with the idea of running the half marathon today, but the price ($80!) prevented me from signing up. Immersing myself in a competitive environment would have been the biggest benefit, but it wasn't worth the price of admission.

Cherry blossoms lined the street for the final five miles of my run. I've heard many stories about cherry blossom season in DC, and I can honestly say the scenery lived up to the hype. This year, the peak period is between March 27 and the first week in April...and the limited viewing window causes massive amounts of people to flood the city during peak week.

With about three weeks of training to go before the marathon, I'll probably start tapering my distance after next week. I'm going to attempt one more long (20 mile) run next weekend, if possible, before scaling back my weekly distance to about 30 miles. The tendinitis I've experienced lately is the main factor in my decision--the last thing I want is to hobble in to the marathon wondering if I'll be tough enough to withstand the pesky injury for 26 miles.

An Ugly, Horrible Rumor

I'm having difficultly locating a reliable source to reference this topic, but rumors are flying all over the Interwebs that the US will attack Iran on April 6th. Many blogs cite a Russian newspaper as the source of the rumor. Right now my only reliable source is US News and World Report, but the article doesn't name April 6th (or any date) as the specific date for action.

Most blogs admit that the same rumor swirled at this time last year, but obviously didn't materialize. The key difference between this year and last is the removal of Admiral Fallon at Central Command Headquarters. Fallon, who vehemently protested any US involvement in Iran, once said that [an attack on Iran] "Will not happen on my watch." Fallon reportedly angered White House officials last fall when he repeatedly denied an attack on Iran was imminent, adding that Washington was "mulling in non-military operations instead."

According to some websites, the attack will apparently last 12 hours, and will take out suspected uranium enrichment facilities, ships, aircraft, and defense installations. The US attack will be launched from several points, from bomber aircraft in Diego Garcia to ships positioned in the Persian Gulf and beyond.

Equally puzzling are the reports coming out of Israel. Under the guise of better preparing their citizens for another conflict with Lebanon, the Israeli government is planning massive evacuation drills for April 6th.

Perhaps most disturbing is the speech made today by an old US "adversary," Muammar Gaddafi. Gaddaffi warned Arab leaders to unite or face the same fate as Saddam Hussein.

Maybe I'm a bit more squeamish than most when it comes to conflict and rumors of conflict, but given all this information, I think I am justified in wringing my hands. It's no secret that the Bush Administration has been scheming for a war with Iran ever since Dubya announced "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq in 2003. The topic is a reliable staple on talk radio, and I can only imagine what our *impartial* television news anchors are saying about the prospect of bombing Iran. Somewhere John McCain, Dick Cheney, Norman Podhoretz, Sean Hannity, et al. are finding their pants to be a bit tighter, particularly around in crotch. Warfare is the ultimate aphrodisiac for neocon blowhards.

The ramifications of any form of an attack on Iran are severe. The difference between Iraq and Iran is simple: Iran can defend herself. You see, the dirty little secret about the US military is that she much prefers to attack countries that are unable to defend themselves (see Bosnia, Iraq, Somalia, etc.) Iran threatens that precedent, and the country is well positioned not only to defend herself, but to launch an effective counter-strike as well. With just over 130,000 troops in Iraq, and the bulk of them located inside the tiny Green Zone and Camp Victory, a well-planned counter offensive by Iran could trap US forces in Iraq. Let's not forget that the majority of Iraq's citizens are Shiite Muslims, as is Iran.

Further, an effective blockade of the Strait of Hormuz by Iranian submarines and mines could seriously cripple the world economy, as approximately 40% of the world's oil passes through the tiny Strait. If you think Federal Reserve inflation-generated gas prices are high, wait until the effects of a legitimate supply shortage is felt throughout the world.

Still, I remain a little skeptical about the attack because there has been no "Gulf of Tonkin" incident to drum up widespread support for war. Although the news media has tried several times to drum up war support using reports of Iranian weapons shipments, the scare tactic resulted in little traction. There was also the designation of Iran's revolutionary guard as a terrorist organization, but that failed to whet the public's appetite for war as well. I just don't see any evidence of a weapons of mass destruction-esque "smoking gun" crisis such we were made to believe existed prior to the invasion of Iraq. Then again, when it comes to big warfare politics--and especially Cheney--anything is possible. Every fireworks show has a grand finale, right?
I hope the rumor mill is wrong about this one, as they were last year. There is no way the United States can (literally) afford a third major conflict in the Middle East, especially against a country the size of Alaska that is capable of defending herself. At this point, even a cursory bombing of selected targets inside Iran has the potential of unleashing deadly consequences upon American forces inside Iraq. The solution, as always, is to bring the troops home...immediately.

"A Defining Moment"

President Bush called the military push in Basra a "defining moment in the history of a free Iraq."

Bush is right, of course...if you consider the following acts to be consistent with those of a "free" society:

- Lockdown/curfew for all citizens
- Rocket, aircraft, mortar, and small arms fire
- Interruption of daily services, such as food, water, electricity, etc.
- Unannounced searches and seizures/raids on private property
- Widespread killing

But it gets worse. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the US government has been engaged in paying off Iraqi militants in order to prevent further attacks on (what remains of) coalition forces. The article comes within a hair of admitting this when it refers to an "Iraqi government" policy of paying militants who willingly turn in weapons to security forces.

The dirty little secret about the "success" of the surge, as the above articles explain, is the fact that the US has been paying off militants for some time. Unsurprisingly, this fact has been spun by mainstream media who, in their unwavering loyalty to warfare, have linked the surge's success to General Petraeus. Regardless of how the act is spun, however, paying off insurgents is an act to be be interpreted as nothing short of desperation in a wholly unwinnable war.

TSA and Body Piercings

A Texas woman was humiliated by Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officers when forced to remove the jewelry from her pierced nipples. The woman passed safely through the first round of metal detectors, but was selected for additional screening. She failed the additional screening, and she told the agents she had pierced nipples. The agents did not allow her to board her plane until the piercings were removed.

Although the woman offered to display her piercings to female TSA agents in a private screening room, her request was denied. The woman claims she could hear male TSA officers snickering while she removed her piercings.

Ironically, the woman was allowed to board her flight while still wearing her navel ring.

It goes without saying that few people like the TSA or flying in general. In the days before the government nationalized airline security, airlines were responsible for their own passenger screenings. I didn't fly much in those days, but what I do remember is that airport screening lines were much shorter and there was no such thing as color-coded terror warnings and "mandatory" check in times for flights. Of course, 9/11 changed all that.

The myth that the changes in airport screening policies are designed to keep us safer, and that a little inconvenience on the part of consumers is a small price to pay when personal safety is the trade-off, is a complete fallacy. If market forces were allowed to work, as they were in the days prior to 9/11, consumers would have much safer and more efficient traveling experiences. Like any other good in a market economy, airlines, although for the most part nationalized themselves, would compete to provide the best services at the lowest cost. The result? Satisfied consumers.

The government can't provide you safety, it can only provide inconvenience. If you need evidence of this, consider why seemingly no government funded TSA agent is ever fired for failing to fulfill his or her responsibility as a screener. In fact, the opposite is true: TSA incompetence is rewarded with increased funding year after year. Remember all those stories about items such as bombs, knives, guns, etc. going through TSA checkpoints without a problem?

The answer, of course, is to abolish the TSA and make airlines responsible for their own security. Absent government bureaucracy, air travel will not only become safer and more affordable, it will ensure embarrassing stories such as the above never go unpunished.

Police Officer Above the Law?

An interesting story about a strip mall manager who threatened to have a Police Officer's car towed for parking in a "No Parking" spot outside his store in St. Louis.

According to the report, when first confronted about the issue, the cop flashed his badge and walked away. Unnerved, the manager repeated that he would call the towing company if the officer's car remained illegally parked. The officer returned to his car, took out his pistol, jammed it into the shop owner's chest, (reportedly) uttered a racial slur, and asked, "What are you going to do now?"

The Prosecutor's office is still determining whether or not to press charges on the officer.

Granted, most police officers do not consider themselves above the law. Certainly very few of them would come unglued to the point of jamming a pistol into another man's chest and threatening them. But why the delay from the Prosecutor's office in filing charges on the officer?

Police should not be granted any special privileges by virtue of their being police, and certainly should not have any more rights than any individual enjoys. This belief covers every action from parking illegally to owning firearms. When one group of individuals has more rights and privileges than another, the inevitable consequence of the beneficiaries bullying the less fortunate becomes increasingly commonplace.

Housing Bubble Perspective

(By Robert Higgs via LewRockwell blog):

"All of the leading presidential aspirants are engaged in a bidding war for votes. Each of them promises to bail out the unfortunates who cannot meet their mortgage obligations and stand to 'lose their homes' (which, properly speaking, were never theirs in the first place, since they put little or no money of their own into buying them). Although this display of surface kind-heartedness makes political sense, it promises only economically adverse effects on the wider economy in the longer run.

"Market economies do not work well when people do not honor their contractual obligations. If deadbeat borrowers can expect to be bailed out at public expense, then more deadbeats will arise, and lenders will be less careful about screening out borrowers whose situations and backgrounds do not augur well for the repayment of loans. The long-run effect of such bailouts is heightened uncertainty in the market for loanable funds and a transfer of income from responsible parties to irresponsible parties.

"Moreover, the crocodile tears that politicians are now publicly shedding for the 'little people' who cannot make their agreed mortgage payments are themselves a fraud. The real concern is for the big boys who now find themselves holding mortgage-backed assets of questionable value on their balance sheets and who sooner or later must recognize the loss of value these assets have sustained since the housing bust got under way. Like so many other ostensibly kind-hearted government measures, the promised bailouts will have the net effect of transferring money from taxpayers in general to financial fat cats. This scheme is no doubt an example of 'democracy in action,' but it is economically and morally rotten.

"Wall Street billionaires don't rush to help me when I am in financial straits. Why should I, or anyone else, be forced to help them? They made their bad-investment beds; now they should have to sleep in them. Bankruptcies are not the worst thing imaginable, and moving assets through receivership from bad managers to good ones has much to be said in its favor."

For me, the key to Higgs' commentary lies in the second paragraph. It's no secret that, when you subsidize something, you get more of whatever you subsidize. In the case of the housing crunch, the government subsidized low-income individuals by compelling mortgage lenders to loan money to individuals that normally would not qualify. Can we expect anything other than massive loan defaults once interest rates rise above a certain threshold?

The remaining mainstream politicians, McCain, Clinton, and Obama, are all promising some form of bailout for people who are unable to afford their mortgage payments. Such actions by politicians should be expected, especially during an election year. After all, politicians aren't responsible economists, and when it comes to bad news no one wants to be the messenger. Politicians are concerned with winning votes and spending money...not fixing crises.

I genuinely feel bad for individuals who are unable to make their mortgage payments. Some may have been pressured into making hasty decisions regarding purchasing a home, while others were probably caught starry-eyed, distracted by the dream of owning their portion of the American dream. But what about those people who have different American dreams, involving hard work, penny-pinching, and the solemn belief that personal debts have to be repaid? The proposed government bailout plans will not only subsidize poor decision makers (thus creating more of them), it will shatter the dreams of many financially responsible Americans by using their tax money to subsidize others. The ultimate consequence is eliminating responsible Americans from purchasing homes in the future.

Tibetian Protestors Clubbed by NY Police at UN

(from InfoWars): An interesting article and video about a "peaceful" protest at the UN building by Americans from March 14th.

Although his dialog is annoying at times, the cameraman does a good job of capturing police tactics in responding to protestors. At one point early in the clip, an officer threatens to kill one protestor if he doesn't get back on the sidewalk as ordered.

Raise that Flag, Ricky

Ricky Craven, a columnist for Yahoo! Sports, has written a thoroughly disgusting article about his recent trip through the Middle East visiting our troops. He visited soldiers in Afghanistan and Qatar over 10 days, and his experience resulted in a newly rejuvenated support for the United States.

These articles practically write themselves. Columnists don't need to travel outside their offices--much less outside the United States--to write about the conditions on the ground, how well the soldiers are eating, and the meager sleeping quarters provided. Craven laments taking down the American flag he so proudly hung after the 9/11 attacks, even going so far to criticize the lack of vocal support for the war. Craven's lame attempt to describe his coming-to-Jesus moment in the form of "new found" support for the troops is found in the article's final paragraph:

"Never again will I take them [the troops] for granted, and from now on you will always see the American flag waving proudly outside the Craven home."

Well done, Ricky. The State accepts your unabashed commitment to permanent war and unnecessary sacrifice of human life. Clearly the only way to support our soldiers is to engage in mindless flag-waving.

The article disturbs me on another level, though. All too often I am reminded of the parallels between sports and Nationalism, and the analogies seem to intensify every year. How often do you hear of a coach being compared to a "drill sergeant" because he or she is a strict disciplinarian? How about referring to football blocking schemes as the "war in the trenches?" The list goes on, from training exercises to game day tactics. Remember the Super Bowl? Specifically, FOX's shameless 20 minute mini-movie fusing sports legends and famous (and not so famous) soldiers from American history? Call me crazy, but with rumors of war with Iran swirling, Tom Petty's singing "I won't back down," combined with the flashing "We won't back down" behind him...well, that was just a little too eerie for my tastes.

The parallels can be drawn on a simpler level. Try supporting your favorite team in another team's stadium if you have no idea what I'm talking about. Hell, even wearing another team's colors is tantamount to treason, with some cities staking their reputations on being known for becoming violent with fans of the opposing team. The NFL, in particular, is increasingly becoming known for fistfights between fans in the stands...and for what? If the same guy were wearing a different colored sweatshirt you guys would be shotgunning beers together in the parking lot.

Perhaps I sound like an old man when bitching about stuff like this, I don't know. Maybe my problem is that I've never taken sports seriously enough to want to gouge out the eyeballs of another spectator because he insulted my team's recent free agent acquisition. It seems a game is not merely a game anymore, and that we're supposed to derive some deeper meaning out of a box score. Players are role models instead of entertainers, and coaches are inducted into the pantheon after winning a championship.

I know there are literally millions of people who enjoy following sports and have loyalties to teams that stretch further back in time than my family tree, and I think that's great. But at what point did war rhetoric become acceptable nomenclature when describing athletes and games? The parallels between Statism and sports run much deeper than the colors of a nation and the colors of a team. I think they are rooted in the spectator's (or citizen's) outright worship of non-entities, such as teams and nations. Perhaps that's why articles like Craven's are received so well--regardless of our individual team loyalties, we're all supposed to be "cheering" for the United States, right?

Price Haggling at Circuit City and Best Buy?

I listen to the Grandy and Andy show every morning before work. Every morning they propose a question to their audience, usually about something involving current events or pop culture. Lately their questions have centered around our economy, and needless to say their commentary is amusing. I've commented on their show before, so I won't go into detail again.

Despite my good-natured ribbing of the show's co-hosts, they remain my first source of information in the morning. And sometimes--sometimes--they break stories that can be interesting and inspire me to do further research once I get to work.

This morning Grandy and Andy were talking about Circuit City and Best Buy's implicit endorsement of haggling over the prices of their merchandise. Granted, the conversation was couched in the context of "helping to jump start the economy by increasing consumption" but the topic was interesting nonetheless. Apparently, salesman have long adhered to a somewhat loose pricing policy in order to finalize a sale...but have only recently gone public with their policy.

I think price haggling is a lost art. In some cultures it is considered an insult not to argue over the prices of merchandise, while in other places prices are never listed in order to induce dialog between customer and merchant. While there is no guarantee that price haggling ensures a lower price (indeed, I've been ripped off a time or twelve) it does help ensure better informed consumers, as the Gizmodo article points out.

Andy Parks, the Cro-Magnon co-host of the Grandy & Andy show, chimed in with his usual monosyllabic rhetoric attacking Best Buy's and Circuit City's policies. His rebuttal went something like this, "I'm a man. I don't want every store to turn in to a used car lot. When I go in to a store, I know what I want, I go in and find it, take it off the shelf, pay for it, and leave. That's it. I don't want talk to the salesperson if I can avoid it." A short while later Parks added that he thinks he will be "ripped off" because he'll have to pay higher prices to make up for the lower prices paid by price haggling consumers.

Of course, Parks has it completely wrong. There's no such thing as "make up pricing" as Parks alludes to, and any higher prices paid are the result of uninformed (or, in Parks' case, downright lazy) consumers unwilling to negotiate prices. Price negotiation is ultimately the consumers responsibility, but Parks misses the larger point: whenever a sale is made, there is a mutually beneficial agreement made between merchant and consumer that each party values the other's property more than their own property. In other words, the customer values the merchandise more than the money in his wallet; likewise, the merchant values the consumer's money more than the merchandise on the shelf. If either of the above conditions is not met, a sale is not made. Therefore, the "higher" price paid by Parks is a myth. No one is forcing him to purchase particular goods, and if the price were too high Parks always has the option of not purchasing the good in the first place.

Surprisingly, most callers agreed with Parks during the caller segment of the show. Most used the same reasoning as Parks, lamenting the fact that they would be forced to pay higher prices as a result of other customers negotiating with salespeople. Some callers even hinted at getting the government involved to ensure price stability, which of course will make matters worse.

What's frightening is the prospect of the majority of consumers adopting an Andy Parks-like mentality when it comes to price haggling. But alas, all is not lost. For the bashful consumer, online price comparison sites such as dealnews.com, Amazon, etc. will compare prices for you, even guarantee the lowest price in some cases. Best Buy and Circuit City are merely reacting to market forces and adjusting their sales approach to better serve consumers. And when stores compete for consumer dollars, prices fall...and consumers win.

Why I Will Not Vote (with one caveat)

Last week a friend of mine sent me a brilliant article that debunks many of the myths surrounding why voting is important. I don't have the link handy, I'll link to it on Monday. With another election cycle set to begin its full-court press of propaganda shortly I figured now was as relevant a time as any to outline my reasons for refusing to vote in this year's (and future) Presidential elections.

We've all heard the ads imploring us to vote, as if the future of our country depends on whether we (or is it the Diebold machine?) pull the proverbial lever for the Democratic or Republican nominee. Scores of people will volunteer their precious time in an effort to get people to turn out and vote using the same logic. While I admire the dedication of those committed to increasing voter turnout, my fundamental disagreement with the entire "Get out the Vote!" philosophy is rooted in my belief that increased Statist control over every aspect of our lives is anathema to individual freedom.

I'm not arguing for anarchy. I fully accept that there is a role for government in our lives. My argument is critical of the size of government rather than the existence of government. A strong argument could be made that federal government has enjoyed relatively unchecked expansion since its inception, and all government expansion is at the expense of individual freedom. I only mention this argument because I view today's election process as a de facto endorsement of government expansion. It matters not who you vote for--any vote cast is a vote against personal freedom.

The typical reaction to the above reasoning usually goes something like this, "Yeah, but, if you don't vote, how can you expect anything to change?" or, my favorite, "If you don't vote then you have no right to complain about the results!" Such responses are the byproduct of voting propaganda and are completely devoid of logic. To illustrate my point, compare this line of reasoning to someone sitting down at a poker table. The deck--as well as the odds--are stacked against all players, regardless of skill level, experience, or knowledge of the game...even before the player takes a seat. Every gambler (but unfortunately not every voter) understands the age old axiom that the house always wins; that's why casinos, like the federal government, always get bigger and expand their sphere of influence.

But what about the few players who overcome the odds and end up winning? Those winners represent the special interests, lobbyists, and the few anointed corporations (such as big oil, big pharma , and the military industrial complex) that benefit regardless of regime. Few would argue such government barnacles have succeeded due to luck or as a result of providing a necessary service to consumers. Perhaps a more appropriate analogy is comparing these "successful" industries to casino employees planted next to unusually successful players in order to determine whether or not the player in question is cheating or to throw the player off of his or her rhythm...but that would be splitting hairs. The analogy doesn't cover all successful players, but it is still relevant.

And so it goes with this year's election as well as future elections. Roughly 60% of American citizens will cast their ballots for either John McCain or the winner of the Democratic nomination. The months preceding the election will be filled with "heated debates" between the supposed philosophical differences between Democrats and Republicans, when in reality the debates should be called what they truly are: a bitter fight over who will control your life. What differences exist between candidates are merely cosmetic, regardless of how the candidates are portrayed on television or present themselves.

That said, I fully expect this year's election to mirror the "closeness" of the elections of 2000 and '04. Such narrow margins of victory for George W. Bush were attributed to a variety of things, ranging from outright voter fraud to television station's influence on state outcomes through premature projection of winners. These reasons, regardless of whether or not they are true, completely misdiagnose the larger problem; namely, that election closeness is more of a function of the similarities between candidates as opposed to some deep-seated ideological divide amongst voters.

Predictably, talk radio and television have outlined the similarities between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. In fact, some "experts" have floated the idea of an Obama/Clinton ticket, but so far that idea doesn't have much traction. The winner of the bitter struggle between Obama and Clinton will run against McCain, who is saddled with the task of shedding his "moderate, political maverick" image in order to justify himself those pesky, "principled" conservatives. Lost amidst the fanfare that will fuel debates between voters, however, is any serious dialog concerning the size and scope of the federal government. Philosophy is reduced to 30 second sound bites; the facade of party differences reinforced by campaign attack ads.

Which brings me to my exception. To date, the only Presidential candidate I've voted for is Ross Perot in 1996. Although I probably couldn't explain Perot's political philosophy at the time (much less today), I remember being encouraged by his against-all-odds bid for the Presidency. Similarly, the 2008 election has produced another candidate whose inspirational campaign has managed to resonate with a segment of today's younger generation. Ron Paul's Presidential campaign served as a catalyst for my new found belief in libertarianism. Unlike my dedication to Perot's campaign, however, Paul's campaign resonated on a much deeper level.

Ron Paul is like the casino dealer who, instead of dealing cards, distributes casino chips. His actions not only diminish the casino's revenue, but also threatens to undermine the very existence of the casino itself. He's running--not for the Presidency--but against what the office of President has become: a bully pulpit dedicated wholly toward the simultaneous usurpation of individual liberty as well as a distribution center of taxpayer dollars to a few privileged industries.

I fully realize my above analogy is extreme, and the likelihood of a Paul Administration has about as much chance of happening as any one of us has of encountering a poker dealer freely dispensing casino chips. But Ron Paul is my caveat. As long as Paul remains in the race, regardless of his exposure in the mainstream press, his uncompromising opposition to federal government expansion serves as a healthy injection of reality in a campaign season otherwise filled with cliches and trivial differences.

Call it a wasted vote, call it foolish, call it a contradiction of my above statements. In my mind, a vote cast for Ron Paul is a vote cast in favor of a return to our Constitutional roots. Feel free to laugh at my support for Paul as quixotic or some other media-generated term used to describe his campaign; but please, I beg you, do not deprive me of my one fantasy.

Peter Schiff's Prediction

Recently I've become a big fan of Peter Schiff. I read his book, "Crash Proof: How to Profit off the coming Economic Collapse" last Christmas and I've been listening to him ever since. My enthusiasm for Schiff crescendo'ed until January when he was named an economic advisor to the Ron Paul Presidential campaign. Schiff's company, Euro Pacific Capital, specializes in foreign investment. His site contains economic commentary as well as investment advice, and I highly recommend using it as a resource if you are looking to diversify your investments outside of the US dollar.

The clip below is from August, 2006. Schiff is a guest on CNBC's "Kudlow and Kramer" debating Art Laffer, a supply side economist and co-chairman of the Free Enterprise Fund with Larry Kudlow. Schiff predicts the US economy is heading towards a recession, a charge that does not sit well with Laffer. It is worth noting that, at the time of this interview, the stock market(s) were all reporting record (or near record) highs.



It immediately becomes obvious that Schiff is better prepared for the interview, as Laffer offers few arguments of substance beyond the expected ad hominem attacks that inevitably surface whenever an uninformed person responds to someone else's radical position. Laffer's tendency to come unglued upon hearing Schiff's market analysis prompts him to "bet Peter a penny" that his predictions are wrong. The stoic Schiff (yeah, I'm biased) promptly accepts the wager, offering to up the stakes. I found Schiff's comment near the end of the clip, "that's [a penny] is all the dollar will be worth" to be darkly comedic. I wonder if the two ever re-visited the topic, or if Schiff ever collected his penny?

Another interesting part of the clip takes place near the end. Schiff asks a question about why women with children are in the workforce. Unsurprisingly, this question caused both Laffer and the host to bristle. After all, Schiff just challenged our "sound monetary policies" and the strength of the US' two most valuable exports (Greenspan's and Bernanke's brains)...now he's going to attack women in the workforce?

Lost between the scoffs and seemingly pre-programmed PC alarms that went off in Laffer's and the host's heads was the larger point: women (or men, if you like) today are in the workforce because they can't afford to stay home and raise their children as in year's past. The residual affects of poorly raised children are beyond the scope of this post, but we're all familiar with the consequences. I don't think it is too far of a stretch to blame our country's egregious monetary policies for the erosion of quality family life.

I often receive criticism for immediately blaming poor monetary policies for nearly every ill that plagues America. And maybe they're right. But if it is true that money is the lifeblood of any economy, and if those determining policies that govern that economy have mishandled their responsibility, who are we to blame when prices rise and quality of life diminishes?

Saturday Afternoon Posting

I'll be posting a few things in a little bit, right after I figure out how to embed YouTube clips in my blog without violating any netiquette rules. A short while ago I was reprimanded for poor practice while linking to pictures in other people's sites. Oops. Apparently there are people out there who'll purposely sabotage the link if they don't approve of your linking to their site. Whatever; I'll master this trade and have a few things to say before the afternoon is over.

There will be no new Map My Run segment this Saturday as I ran the same route as last Saturday. I felt a little better this time out, mostly because I took Tuesday through Friday off from running. Fridays and Mondays are my usual non-running days, but an aggravating injury prevented me from running on Tuesday and Wednesday this week. Since I'm relatively close to race day (about a month away) I figured a couple of days on the crappy elliptical machine in my apartment complex gym was a smart thing to do. Normally my first, second, and third reaction to injuries is to try to work through them (does that make me tough in your eyes?) but in this situation I could tell the body was telling me to slow down...or else.

Is America Racist?

On the heels of Barack Obama's recent speech on race and politics in America, the inevitable dinner table conversations centered around race and race-related issues are going to surface. Is America racist? How do we come together as one people to solve these problems? Why haven't we been able to get over our prejudices in society? These questions will stump people for years to come, and will continue to mystify and divide politicians in pursuit of votes.

I did not watch Obama's speech live or via YouTube. Instead, I chose to read the transcript after his speech concluded. I'm probably the only person in America that hasn't seen a live Obama speech and then fawned over his oratorical skills afterwards, and I'm OK with that. However, in the interest of full-disclosure, I'll tell you that I'm a sucker for charisma and polished delivery...so it is in my best interest to avoid a live Obama speech if I am to remain true to my belief that politics should be about substance instead of form.

Regardless of whether or not you think Obama's association with Revered Jeremiah Wright is ethical, the issue is bound to spark far-reaching controversy in America. While the liberals and conservatives are busy trying to out-PC each other on this issue, lost amidst the discussion is any mention of the role government plays in creating racism in society. Legislative blunders, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, did more to perpetuate racial myths than eliminate them. The CRA, passed under the guise of "integrating society" actually stimulated racial divisions by allowing the federal government to intervene in the affairs of private property owners and dictate to them how to handle their property.

Before illustrating my point using example involving race, I'm going to use another example drawn from a more recent issue. Consider the latest craze across the country to outlaw smoking, particularly in restaurants and bars. In states all across the country, smoking is being banned at an incredible rate. In fact, the state of Maryland is considering a smoking ban on people driving their cars when children under six years old are present! Where will it end?

I know what you are thinking: smoking is bad for you, it creates poor air quality, and is overall a disgusting practice. Hey, I agree with you...for the most part. I love cigarettes, and I'll smoke the occasional cigar, but as an avid runner and self-professed health nut I limit my intake of such chemicals to a leisure basis. Anyway, that's beside the point. The larger point I'm trying to make is, what right does the government have to step in and tell these bars and restaurants how to operate?

Restaurant and bar owners, as business and private property owners, are driven by profit. The good ones are obsessed with providing the best services, to the most amount of people, at the lowest possible price. That said, the decision of whether or not to allow their patrons to smoke is based entirely upon the principle of profit. In other words, the owner considers the number of smokers versus the number of non-smokers before implementing a policy to cover his property. If the owner allows smoking, and enough people become disgusted by the air quality of his restaurant, the owner will lose business (and therefore profit). Failure to change his or her smoking policy will therefore result in the loss of his business.

Now consider the case for government intervention. Let's say that same restaurant enjoys a steady stream of regular patrons, all comfortable with the owner's smoking policy. Now the government, in its benevolent role, enacts a state-wide smoking ban in restaurants and bars. What choice does the restaurant owner have? None, of course, and the owner of that restaurant will lose revenue. The result of government intervention in business is always the same: lost revenue, lost jobs, and (most importantly) the usurpation of private property rights.

There are several parallels between smoking bans and the Civil Rights Act as it pertains to private property rights and racism. In fact, in terms of resentment, the case could be made that the Civil Rights Act was worse than smoking bans. This is because restaurant owners rarely refused to serve non-smokers before the smoking ban, whereas they were free to discriminate against minorities prior to the CRA. But their biases against minority customers most likely intensified once the Civil Rights Act required them to serve minorities. The result of the CRA, then, was exacerbating prejudice through the loss of private property rights, as well as turning minorities into scapegoats.

What it boils down to is this: government is incapable of legislating against racism and uses policies such as the Civil Rights Act to expand its already ominous presence in our daily lives. Only through staunch defense of private property rights can we hope to achieve the more perfect union that Obama alluded to in his speech. Racial relations have succeeded in spite of, not because of, despicable policies such as the CRA. That mankind is able to succeed in shattering racial barriers and improving multi-cultural relationships is a testament to advances in scholarship, technology, and diplomacy more than any misguided public policy.

The true promoters of racism lie within our government. Obama's call for us to work together "as one people" to solve racial problems is rooted in the same mentality that lead to the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Such calls for action will continue to bog us down with racial problems by creating unnecessary barriers to individual liberty. Only when we understand that racism is an ugly form of collectivism, perpetuated by government, can we begin to dismantle the government-created barriers that separate us into groups based on superficial characteristics.

The talking heads are already proclaiming Obama's speech to be among the finest he's ever delivered, with one commentator going so far to say the speech was better than any speech by Martin Luther King. And, in terms of style and delivery, maybe they're right. My hope is that, at dinner tables across America, the conversation shifts from style to substance...from collectivist principles to individual liberty. Absent serious discussion, we're in for more of the same.

The real racists are government officials masquerading as saviors by endorsing legislation that prevents private property owners from exercising control over their property. And yes, private property rights extend to cover the right to be a bigot. Legislating against what's in people's hearts and minds is an exercise in futility that inevitably penalizes all property owners, and can only achieve the opposite of its intended result.

The Real Purpose of Government Schools?

There's a struggle in California between legislators and homeschooling parents that came to a head last week. The linked article, by Vin Suprynowicz, is an alarming critique of government schools and their stated (and sometimes unstated) purpose.

Suprynowicz mentions that California courts have ruled that parents have no constitutional right to homeschool their children. Parents who desire to school their children at home must first pass a state-sanctioned accreditation program before being allowed to teach. The reason? Not because parents are doing a lousy job of educating their children. Statistics show that homeschooled children score between the 30th and 37th percentile higher than children educated in government-funded schools. The real reason? Check out the scary quote, from a judge who recently ruled on the case:

Judge Croskey obligingly explained: "A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare."

Wow--this is incredible! Parents who do not comply with this ruling can actually be prosecuted for educating their own children. What's more, despite higher test scores, parents are now forced to adhere to a government program that both violates individual rights dumbs down their children. But I'm sure this ruling was passed with the best of intentions...

I spent my formative years before a government-funded blackboard and I turned out average. I'm not trying to play the victim card when I say that my education could have been better in many respects, certainly I am the one who ultimately took the tests. But to deny the choice and, ultimately, the exposure of children to a highly successful program such as homeschooling because it doesn't meet government criteria seems downright absurd to me.

I don't have children, but a good friend of mine has a young son who is near the age where he and his wife will have to choose the right schooling for their child. They live in California, and both parents are some of the smartest people I know. I sincerely hope they leave California and its shameless loyalty-to-the-state mentality, and fast.

None Dare Blame The Fed

The Federal Reserve Board is meeting today to determine how much heroin to inject into the veins of the struggling financial sectors of the United States. The expectation is that The Fed will slash interest rates by as much as one percent, creating an easier environment for bankers to do business.

Of course, the Fed is no longer in the business of simply helping out member banks. Last Friday, in a surprise move, the Fed moved to bail out the investment firm, Bear Stearns, after the firm lost nearly half of its market value in a matter of minutes. Bear Stearns is one of the firms that was hardest hit by the subprime mortgage crisis.

Who loses when the Fed acts in such a manner? You do, especially if you maintain a responsible, frugal-t0-modest lifestyle that actually involves planning for your future. If you have been able to adjust your spending habits in order to survive the present recession, get ready to adjust some more...because if the Fed continues to take such irresponsible actions as they did last Friday, you are going to have to make a lot more sacrifices.

From the knock-me-over-with-a-feather department, CNNmoney.com today posted an article that (gasp!) called for more government (and Federal Reserve) intervention in order to stave off the unfolding nationwide crisis. The quote:

"[former Fed Governor] Lyle Gramley and some other experts believe the solution to the current credit crisis will have to come from Congress, not the Fed, and that the federal government will have to take steps to bail out both Wall Street firms holding mortgage-backed securities as well as homeowners who have mortgages with balances greater than the value of their homes."

I wonder who is less intelligent: former governor Gramley or the author of this article. Unless some form of non-financial bailout has been invented, I wonder how government will solve this crisis. The fact that the author (and his editor) saw fit to print this in spite of this oversight speaks volumes of their collective ignorance.

One thing is for sure, regardless of what actions are taken by the Fed today (and in the future), the bailing out of Wall Street firms as well as "upside down" mortgage holders will only intensify the impact felt by all consumers. It is well past the time where responsible people are punished for making the right choices and forced to subsidize those who have made poor decisions.

Easter Calculations...Huh?

Yesterday I came to the realization that Easter is this coming Sunday, March 23rd. Now, I'm not particularly religious--I honestly can't remember the last time I attended a non-Christmas Church service--so I guess I could use that as my excuse for Easter sneaking up on me. When someone reminded me about the upcoming holiday, I was stumped when I tried to figure out how the date for Easter is calculated.

Wikipedia to the rescue:

The rule has since the Middle Ages been phrased as Easter is observed on the Sunday after the first full moon on or after the day of the vernal equinox. However, this does not reflect the actual ecclesiastical rules precisely. One reason for this is that the full moon involved (called the Paschal full moon) is not an astronomical full moon, but an ecclesiastical moon. Another difference is that the astronomical vernal equinox is a natural astronomical phenomenon, while the ecclesiastical vernal equinox is a fixed March 21. Easter is determined from tables which determine Easter based on the ecclesiastical rules described above, which approximate the astronomical full moon.

That makes sense, sort of. I found this passage even more interesting:

The calculations for the date of Easter are somewhat complicated. In the Western Church, Easter has not fallen on the earliest of the 35 possible dates, March 22, since 1818, and will not do so again until 2285. It will, however, fall on March 23 in 2008, but will not do so again until 2160. Easter last fell on the latest possible date, April 25, in 1943 and will next fall on that date in 2038. However, it will fall on April 24, just one day before this latest possible date, in 2011.

The cycle of Easter dates repeats after exactly 5,700,000 years, with April 19 being the most common date, happening 220,400 times, or 3.9% compared to a mean for all dates of 162,857 times, or 2.9%.

I vaguely remember my high school biology teacher explaining the above rules to my class one afternoon, but of course I wasn't paying attention. Hey, it was high school biology, no one pays attention!

Economic Stimulus?

President Bush visited the Economic Club of New York on Friday, described the state of the economy as "going through a tough time," told several jokes, and promoted his economic stimulus package as one part of government's overall panacea for shoring up frightening statistics.

By now we've all been exposed to the various economic woes in America. Housing prices are falling, unemployment is rising, the stock market is down, gas prices are up, the value of the dollar plummets daily, gold prices are over $1000/ounce (and rising fast), consumer spending is down, and on an on. Some of the more bearish analysts are forecasting a deep recession rivaling America's Great Depression while defenders of the Bush Administration's policies point to production strength and export figures to buoy their arguments that the current recession--if they dare mutter that word--is temporary at best.

So how, then, do we know who's right?

I'm no expert in economics. I've only recently become interested in the subject, mostly because I wanted to better understand how money works. Little did I know that my initial curiosity would lead to such a complex rabbit hole of explanations and theories! My undergraduate degree is in math, a discipline similar to economics that certainly aids in its understanding. I will forever have a special place in my heart for anything dealing with numbers, graphs, statistics, charts, trend analysis, and (especially) logic. In undergraduate math, there's relatively little wiggle room when making your argument...and your logic is what counts most.

I think that's what frustrates me most concerning the analysis coming from the defenders of present economic policies: lack of logic. Every time I hear an ordained economic "expert's" explanation for the root causes of our present situation and his or her solution, I am left with more questions than answers. I don't gloss over and throw up my hands in defeat; rather, I'm genuinely bewildered, as in, "Wait, that's it? You haven't explained anything to me!"

This morning while walking to work I was listening to part one of the lecture entitled "The Great Depression, World War II, and American Prosperity" by Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Within the first ten minutes of the lecture, Dr. Woods gave a brief overview of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory (ABCT). Dr. Woods' explanation served as a template for comparison this morning while I read through the transcript of President Bush's speech at the Economic Club of New York. Sure enough, within the first few paragraphs of the Bush's speech (much of which is comprised of the same talking points I've heard countless times from economic experts on radio and television), the contradictions started to pile up.

First, there was Bush's statement that the economic stimulus package will help rehabilitate the unstable economy. The thinking is (if I interpret it correctly) that once the checks begin to arrive in mid-to-late May, consumers will be able to purchase more goods and alleviate debt. The increased consumption will breathe new life into our economy and everything will return to normal. Additionally, the stimulus package provides incentives for businesses to purchase new equipment. New equipment means job creation. This benefit is designed to combat rising unemployment figures.

Second, there is the bizarre notion that "good times and bad times" are an inherent part of a market economy. More commonly referred to as "booms" and "busts," these phenomena are generally accepted as unavoidable, even in America. President Bush briefly discusses booms and busts before covering the different elements comprising his economic stimulus package and its anticipated affects. It is important to understand that the net effect of "booms" and "busts" is an overall increase of prices.

Finally, President Bush outlines the government's role (and plan) in aiding various sectors of the economy recover from the present recession. These areas, President Bush notes, are in dire need of help...most notably the housing market. Bush praises the actions taken by Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve as well as Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson for their ability to anticipate the problem and act quickly to minimize its affects. Bush's implied message is that without the Federal Reserve and the Treasury the crisis would affect more people and be much, much worse.

Although I only listened to the first 20 minutes of Dr. Woods' lecture, the ABCT refresher helped me weed through the BS involved in Bush's speech. In order to debunk irresponsible claims such as the ones made above you must subscribe to the ABCT that the Federal Reserve creates "booms and busts" (as well as their residual consequences) by recklessly interfering with the market and inflating the money supply. By increasing the amount of money in the economy, the Fed sends misleading signals to entrepreneurs, causing malinvestment and unsound allocation of resources. This is the "boom" period. The "bust" period occurs when malinvestments are exposed and need to be liquidated, causing the economy to contract.

Make no mistake, our economy is in the "bust" phase of the business cycle. Malinvestments, especially in the housing sector, are being exposed, and irresponsible homeowners are watching interest rates rise--seemingly uncontrollably--in order to account for the inevitable economic contraction. Prices are plummeting, and people are being forced out of their homes. Government promises to help out troubled homeowners as part of Bush's economic plan, but will it be enough?

The better question to ask is, should the government help at all? My answer is no; I'd rather the government got out of the way and allowed markets to work. Government inaction would lessen the impact of financial crisis, allow malinvestments to be liquidated, prevent further mis-allocation of resources, and ultimately return the market to stable footing much faster than any government intervention can provide.

The basis of my argument is rooted in my (admittedly limited) understanding of the ABCT. The economic stimulus package Bush is promoting will only worsen the affects of the economic crisis by prolonging market corrections.

For an illustration of my point, consider the "rebates" the government will send out in May. These checks are supposed to alleviate economic woes by increasing the consumers ability to purchase goods and pay down debt. This "stimulus" will have the exact opposite affect. Where is the money to be used for these rebates going to come from? The Fed is simply going to print the money out of thin air and give it to you, the consumer. This practice increases the amount of money in circulation, creating another "boom" within a larger "boom," the end result of which is higher prices for you, the consumer. In short, you cannot combat higher prices by doing the same thing that increased prices in the first place: increasing the amount of money in the economy. If you think prices are high now, wait until the stimulus money works its way through the system!

The alarming fact about the Bush stimulus package is that it met very little opposition before being signed in to law. It goes without saying that politicians are not economists...that politicians exist merely to get elected and to expand government. The non-cynical side of me desperately wants to believe that the diverse schools of thought in economics influenced our leaders to pass Bush's stimulus package, but I think in order to subscribe to that theory I need to place an abnormal amount of trust in politicians. Instead, I think my cynical side wins out here: economic ignorance equates to (temporary) bliss, especially for politicians seeking re-election. In thousands of years of human history, no one has ever welcomed bad news. And no politician desires the role of messenger when the crisis becomes more pronounced.

Map My Run: The Rolling Hills of Arlington

One aspect of my training that I have sort-of neglected until recently is hill running. I've never been a big fan of hills, particularly running downhill. The legs seem to take on an abnormal amount of extra pounding, and it is rare when I can get into a rhythm while running up or down any kind of grades. They say hill running makes you fast, but I've tried to stay away from them as a preventative measure...I can't afford an injury with about six weeks remaining before the marathon.

But thankfully Saturday's run was different. The rolling hills of Arlington were a welcomed challenge. A few months ago I went on a bike ride along the Custis Trail and linked up with the Washington & Old Dominion Trail and the scenery was spectacular. That bike ride served as my inspiration for this run, only the hills were a lot easier to conquer while pedaling as opposed to on foot.

The weather was a lot more conducive for running this week, with the exception of the wind. I started this run around 9 am, and the wind was already gusting to 30 mph. Luckily the majority of this route was sheltered from the wind or, at least, there was no prolonged exposure to wind as the route generally stayed perpendicular to the direction of the wind.

Like my long run last week, this route started out along the Potomac River on the George Washington Parkway. The biking/running path was significantly more crowded this week, however, with many people taking advantage of the early spring-like weather. After about a mile on the GW Parkway the route takes you into downtown Arlington, where you meet up with the Custis Trail.

The Custis Trail parallels Interstate 66, winds through some small city parks, and ultimately terminates at the trail head for the Washington & Old Dominion bike trail around Benjamin Bennaker park. The majority of the uphill battles occur on the outbound leg, particularly between miles 4 and 7. Because I had never run Custis Trail before I decided to take the hills conservatively on the outbound leg in order to gauge how my body would react. That strategy worked well for me, because I was able to attack the hills on the return trip...and overall I felt very strong throughout the return trip.

The highlight of this run came around mile 12. I was descending one of the larger hills after crossing an intersection when I noticed another runner about 100 meters behind me. I had no idea how fast the guy was, but he looked like an experienced runner. Immediately the competitive instinct took over, and I told myself there was no way I was going to let this guy beat me to the river. Like most other runners, I try to avoid being passed by anyone while training. After about a half mile I came to another intersection. I had picked up my pace a little to try to "bleed" him out, and the strategy was successful as my lead had increased to about 200 meters. I made it to the river without being passed and picked up the pace a little more as I approached the final segment of the run.

Just like that past three weeks, my body told me it was tired with about a mile to go. Had I not picked up my pace at mile 12 I probably would have been able to coast home, but as this was not the case I instead was forced to endure significant fatigue for the balance of the run. I fought through it, and made it home without injury or having to stop.

Overall I enjoyed this run. Because of the amount of hills, the distance, and the overall scenery throughout the course, I will do this run at least once a week until it is marathon time. After neglecting hills for the first portion of my training, this run is exactly what I need to gear up for the rolling hills of Boston.

To Serve and Protect...and Harass

Occasionally my job requires me to deliver presentations or documents to a controlled access facility called The Navy Yard, referred to after this as The Yard. In order to gain access to this facility you need to have a NAVSEA badge with your name and picture on it. Nine times out of ten all you are required to do is flash your ID to the security guard and he will, without looking closely at all, wave you through the gate. Since The Yard is only a few blocks from where I work I walk instead of drive. I would say around 50% of the time there are active duty military personnel manning the entrance gate to The Yard and the other half of the time it is manned by Federal police officers. This particular day the ID’s were being checked by a Federal Officer. My job requires me to carry a couple of ID cards so I wear them around my neck and they are attached to a lanyard that has a string attached to it, much like a janitor’s keys, so if you were to pull the cards attached to the string it would snap back if you let it go.

I approach the front gate and show the officer my ID card and he pulls the string, almost to the end of spool, to get a better look at my card. He examines the front and the back and then lets the card go and it recoils as it should when you let it go under tension. I proceed to walk down the sidewalk to deliver my things and he says, “Hey, get back here.” I turn around to verify that he is talking to me and indeed he is. I walk back and he states, “You just snatched that ID out of my hand!” I respond, “No, it’s under tension so it snaps back if you let go of it the way you did.” To which he says, “Oh no, don’t you give me that, give me your badge.” I ask, “Why, what did I do wrong?” He snaps back, “Because I said so, I am a Federal police officer.” At this point it was clear to me he was one of the police officers that loved looking at his badge and abusing the power of his uniform. I asked again, “What did I do wrong?” and he repeated more than enough times that he was a Federal police officer and what I did wrong was not listen to him. At one point he even asked me, “Are you familiar with DC police code ___” to which I responded, “No.” He told me, “That requires you to listen to a Federal police officer.” I kept asking him what I did wrong for the next couple of minutes before the conversation heated up. The officer told me, “If you don’t give me your badge I will put you in cuffs and I will take you down.” Finally I thought to myself it wasn’t worth getting put in hand cuffs and I gave him my ID. After having my ID for a couple of minutes he ordered me to come into his cold weather shack so he could talk to me. He informed me, “I will talk, you will listen.” He then proceeded to tell me how I need to obey whatever a police officer tells me to do, that I am required to do so. I stared at him with a blank look on my face, not an objectionable face, just a blank stare while he lectured me on the rules I must follow. Afterwards he asked me for my drivers license, luckily I didn’t have it on me otherwise there would have been another struggle seeing how I didn’t drive to The Yard so there was no reason for him to have it. He asked me where I lived and I refused to give him that information and told him, “You don’t need to know my address.” So he asked me my work address and I told him since I was delivering stuff for work. He took down the name of my supervisor and our company’s security officer so he could call them and tell them what I had supposedly done wrong. When the officer was done talking to me and taking down the information he needed to I wanted to ask him a few questions but, as you can imagine, he was uncooperative. I asked him the name of his supervisor, his or her phone number, and how to pronounce his own last name. He gave me the first two pieces of information but he wouldn’t tell me how to pronounce his last name, rather he told me, “You have all the information you need, you are free to go.”

By the time I made the five minute walk back to my office he had already contacted my boss and he wanted to talk to me about what happened. I told my boss the story and he simply said, “well, it sounds like you ran into an asshole over there, if it happens again let me know and we will take it up the appropriate channels to deal with this.” I replied, “Actually, sir, it has happened before.” Approximately a month prior to this altercation the same police officer examined my badge, front and back, then gave it back to me. I looked at the back of the badge to see what he could be looking for and he sternly asked, “You got a problem?” and I said, “Excuse me?” and he asked again, “I said you got a problem?” and I replied, “Nope, sure don’t” and he ordered me to, “keep walkin’ then.” I asked him during his lecture if that was what the whole issue was about, the fact that he got in my face a month earlier and he told me he was not about degrading me or singling me out, funny coincidence I guess.

The lesson I have learned from this unfortunate event is that authority needs to be questioned. If there is anyone that should be transparent to the general population it’s the police, whether it be municipal, state, or federal. Citizens have a right to know what the police are doing and why they are doing it. In my opinion, that police officer owed it to me to tell me what I supposedly did wrong. The simple fact is he had no answer for my simple question because I didn’t do anything wrong. It would behoove people to find out what information is required of you to give to police officers when asked for it. The police are a crafty group of people and there are certain things you should think about when being questioned by a police officer. A good outline of these items can be found here . The next time you are walking and you see a police officer don’t be afraid to ask him or her, “Sir/Ma’am, if you were to tell me to give you my ID am I required to give it to you even though you have asked me for no apparent reason?” If they are a decent cop, and they may be few and far between, they will have no problems answering your questions. Police officers are certainly not above the law and in my opinion should be the most transparent organization the taxpayers fund.

Light Posting Today...

Apologies to my zero fans, but today will be a light posting day. My employer dared make me work, decreasing the likelihood that I'll be able to comment on much.

To satisfy the eager reader, I have employed a guest writer to take over for today. Look for an article a little later this morning or early this afternoon.

In the interim, I'll link to an article on LRC by Murray Rothbard concerning America's Great Depression. Rothbard briefly summarizes two books on the topic, dispelling the myth that capitalism caused the greatest economic calamity in our country's history. I've read Rothbard's book, "America's Great Depression," and am convinced that the blame for the causes (and subsequent length) of the Depression can be laid directly at the feet of American politicians rather than those greedy capitalists.

Rothbard's book is especially relevant today for people seeking to understand what is happening in our economy. With gold prices hovering around the $1000 mark and Bush finally hinting that America "might be, could be, sort-of are in the quasi-early stages of a possible recession" it would behoove people to start taking actions to protect themselves against the inevitable bear market. Once you understand how money works you'll look at government, the Fed, and so-called "public goods" in a whole new light.

Why are Gas Prices so High?

Hearing people complain about the price of gasoline has become commonplace. In fact, I bet you can't get through an entire workweek without someone making a snide remark about the rising price at the pump. If present trends continue, talking about the price of gasoline may eclipse talking about the weather as the de facto office platitude.

There are a few things my grandfather is known for. He likes seafood, has an affinity for high-quality vodka, and he loves loves loves to bitch about gas prices. Driving with my grandfather is always an interesting experience for many reasons, not the least of which is his taking constant vocal inventory of gas prices in the small towns we pass through. To understand what I'm saying, try to imagine grocery shopping with your mother, only instead of passively checking items off her list as she drops them in the cart, she instead announces the price of every product in every aisle as you make your way through the store.

Now, the point of this article is not to make fun of my family. I love em' to death...that's why I make fun of them. But yesterday when I heard my one millionth complaint about the price of gas, I decided to consider the price of gasoline from an economic perspective. So what's all the complaining about, anyway?

Several reasons are offered as explanations for the high price of fuel, and the range from the conspiratorial (easily the most enjoyable to read) to the angry (those greedy capitalists are at it again!) As with most difficult issues the truth probably lies somewhere in between, with a slight dash of conspiracy...because what's life without a little conspiracy thrown in?

Perhaps the most prevalent--and accepted--explanation for the increased price of gasoline is the "price gouging" or "excessive profit seeking" theory. You are most likely to hear this argument on radio talk shows and television programs from a democratic perspective. The problem, they say, is the oil companies collude in order to fix prices at a high level in order to extract from the consumer every last available penny. Every subsidiary company involved with some form of oil, from drilling to refining, is involved in the conspiracy, they charge. I file this explanation under the "angry" heading.

But are they right? I don't think so. They are correct when they suggest that oil companies exist in order to seek the highest possible profit, but doesn't every business exist for the same reason? Find me a CEO who's content 'just scraping by' and I'll show you someone who will soon be out of business. In order to survive in our quasi-free market, a businessman is forced to find the cheapest, most efficient means of producing a product for the most amount of people, thereby increasing his profits. In other words, reaping huge profits is another way of saying that the businessman has a successful product, and a lot of people are satisfied with that product or they would cease purchasing that product.

Furthermore, if a business wants to raise prices, so what? If Shell wants to charge $5 a gallon, what's the problem? A business should be free to charge whatever price they wish for a particular product, and will inevitably suffer the consequences--good or bad--of their pricing scheme. Higher prices mean less consumers will be able to afford your product. In other words, by raising prices to $5/gallon, Shell is effectively "pricing out" certain segments of the population. Fewer people buying Shell gasoline means less profit for Shell. Therefore, the "price gouging" explanation doesn't hold water.

But wait, Eddie--what if every oil company raises its prices to $5 a gallon via some secret meeting? Ahhhh, now we're venturing in to conspiracy territory, my friend, and it gives me great pleasure to address this question. Actually, this explanation has more truth to it than conspiracy. The fact is there are very few oil companies, lending credence to the idea that such a secret meeting is possible. Organizations such as OPEC do meet regularly to determine the price of gasoline, but I'll explain how cartels such as OPEC are unable to completely dominate the world oil market for prolonged periods of time.

Let's take the argument to the extreme, then. Let's say that every oil company in existence meets in some smoky room and decides to raise the price of gasoline to $10/gallon. Is this possible? Sure, I suppose. But as any member of the mafia will tell you, the more people you have involved on the "inside," the more likely you are to have your secret exposed. In this case, I'm not talking about exposure in the traditional sense. What good would knowledge of a secret meeting do for the public? Not much. Rather, I'm referring to the temptation for one member of the cartel to undersell his competitors without them knowing about it. This could be accomplished via the black market (another consequence of "price gouging" by the way) or through overt military force. The temptation to undersell would be HUGE, and protecting your ability to undersell would be easy, especially if you have the guns to do so.

Also, as stated above, if the price becomes too steep for consumers, less people will buy the product, thereby decreasing profits for the cartel.

Another fallacy is that gasoline prices are rising because of shortages in supply. While it is true that oil cartels such as OPEC can manipulate prices in the short term, no oil company (or cartel) has a large enough market share to sustain long-term withholding of supply from the market. My first question when confronted with this theory is, what good does unsold oil do for the cartel that is "hoarding" it? Critics often point toward the price spikes in the 70's that crippled the American economy, courtesy of OPEC. I cannot address every residual issue surrounding the price shocks of the 70's (mostly because I'm no expert on the era), but suffice it to say the government played a significant role in maintaining oil shortages across the country.

Today the "shortages in supply" theory is plain laughable. The fact is gasoline is available on demand at practically every busy street corner, 24 hours a day, 7 days per week, without shortages. Can you name a gas station that recently closed due to insufficient supply? I think not.

So we're back at square one: why are gas prices so high? We've dispelled the angry explanation and we've worked our way through the conspiracy/half-true argument. I subscribe to the theory that recent surge in gasoline prices can be tied directly to a combination of two things: our irresponsible monetary policies and our government's refusal to allow the free market to work.

The inverse relationship between gas prices and the strength of the dollar is no coincidence. The Federal Reserve injects "liquidity" (i.e. prints more dollars for use) into world markets with hopes of resurrecting our weak economy, and so far it has not helped. The result is always the same whenever more money is injected into the economy when not accompanied by corresponding increases in capital: increased prices. The issue goes back to supply and demand. When more dollars are chasing the same amount (or fewer) goods in an economy, the result is a rise in prices. Markets are simply responding to the rapid increase in the amount of money circulating in the world market. As the world's "reserve" currency, the dollar is directly involved in this scheme. For me, the blame can be laid squarely at the foot of Ben Bernanke.

Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't address some of the domestic roadblocks that prohibit us from increasing our own supply of oil and therefore lowering prices. Tapping in to our existing resources, such as the strategic reserve, drilling in ANWR and at various other off-shore locations, would go far in decreasing the price we pay at the pump. And let's not forget the excessive (and ridiculous) taxes levied by federal and state governments on the sale of a gallon of gasoline. Taxes alone account for nearly 50 cents per gallon sold--50 cents! Regardless of your opinion on offshore drilling and/or ANWR exploration, the evidence suggests that the government itself plays a significant role in the high price of gasoline.

It has been years since I've ridden in an automobile alongside my grandfather, but I'd accept the invitation in an instant. Only this time I'd (hopefully) be able to explain to him the reasons for rising gas prices...and thus alleviate any frustration the man may still have. Sure, I can't decrease the amount of money he will pay at the pump, but there's peace in understanding, right? The way I see it, we'd both be at peace--him knowing the root cause of gas price increases...and me not having to deal with audible price lists!

Presidential Prediction, Take I

I'd like to preface everything I'm about to say by stating that I think all remaining candidates (except Ron Paul) are exactly the same. The policies, voting records, etc. of Obama, McCain, and Clinton are virtually identical, with the exception of health care. Basically, this fall we have a choice between more war and some brand of socialized medicine or just more war.

That said, on the heels of Admiral Fallon's "resignation" from Central Command, I'm inclined to agree with the talking heads and various online news sources that this story carries with it larger implications for the general election next fall.

Many, many, many outlets are pointing to Fallon's well-documented disagreements with the Bush Administration and their officials (he once called General Petraeus "an ass-kissing little chickenshit") as evidence that America is heading towards armed conflict with Iran. According to them, Fallon served as the last vocal opponent to further American aggression in the region.

If the above is true, and we are indeed headed for some form of conflict with Iran, then I've got to believe that American voters will respond accordingly. Whatever issues so-called conservatives have with McCain will be brushed aside, especially if Bush attacks Iran before the end of his term. The promise of new conflict brings with it the the fear of those big, bad terrorists hiding under your bed (they took over for those commies during the cold war) will get you if you don't cast your ballot for someone with foreign policy experience, whatever that means.

By contrast, the Democrats can only counter with Clinton. Although she's no "war hero" as is the case with McCain, she did vote in favor of the Iraq war and has voted in favor of funding until last year. I'm inclined to believe Clinton's (and Obama's) vote against funding the war in 2007 is more of a political stunt than rooted in conviction. There's no way either Clinton or Obama truly oppose the war...both are polished, experienced politicians who have played their cards brilliantly in order to capture the anti-war vote.

So, in a nutshell, here's my prediction:

1. If we attack Iran before the end of the Bush's term, or there's significant risk of war, McCain wins.
2. If the risk of war is not significant enough, Clinton wins.

Obama is out. His perceived anti-war stance (although not genuine in my judgment) is enough for the Republicans (and moderates) to paint him as too weak on foreign policy to risk placing in the White House for four years, especially given the "instability" in the Middle East. The anti-war movement is not strong enough to sway the general election, especially because it has thumbed its collective nose at the only non-interventionist in the race. Anti-war voters will vote for Obama regardless, but it will not be enough. Besides, given his age, there's plenty of time for Obama to change and re-change his position on war...if you believe he's wavered at all, that is. He can start by actually voting in the Senate instead of marking "NV" as often as he does.

Of course, my track record of predictions is abysmal at best. If all the candidates are the same, as I believe, then it really doesn't matter who wins. But still, I can't resist the temptation to pick the winner.