Iranians to Price Oil in Euros and Yen

If you remain skeptical about the possibility of a United States/Iranian confrontation in the near future, Iran's refusal to sell oil in dollars should dispel any lingering doubts.

In a lot of ways, economic warfare is deadlier than conventional warfare. Simply put, Iran's refusal to accept dollars for oil will trigger an increase in demand for other (more stable) currencies like the Euro and the Yen. Iran's decision, coupled with the Federal Reserve's latest rate cut, means more dollars will compete for fewer goods in the world economy. This is inflation in its simplest form.

How will that impact the United States' policy towards Iran? Well, there's a (recent) historical precedent to consider here, as Saddam Hussein did the same thing in November, 2000. While I do not contend that we invaded Iraq solely to defend the dollar's hegemony in the world market, there is a significant amount of literature available to suggest Hussein's decision to diversify his country's holdings played a major role in our ousting of the dictator.

Is the deliberate destabilization of a country's currency enough to drive that nation towards open conflict? Absolutely. A country's currency serves as its economic bloodline to prosperity and the well-being of its citizens. Given that the United States has been itching for a reason--any reason--to strike Iran, and that effort has received (at best) lukewarm support, how much more support is likely to be drummed up when we begin to read stories blaming Iran for our economic woes?

Make no mistake, the drumbeat for war will increase in intensity over the coming months and, under a constant deluge of propaganda, American support for another pointless war in the middle east will increase. As the economy goes south, support for war will increase. This formula isn't new or groundbreaking...it has been perfected over the years and experienced great success.

Unfortunately, most Americans refuse to confront the reality associated with years and years of reckless spending and the continuous expansion of the welfare/warfare state. Instead, we embrace a series of programs and reforms that will only result in prolonged agony and an even deeper recession. You cannot possibly solve government-generated problems with more government; such "cures" are tantamount to curing an alcoholic by giving him a job as a bartender. Yet, due to economic ignorance or general ambivalence, Americans are doing just that.

I hope I am wrong about my prediction in the coming months, and that America begins to address our present economic woes using methods other than reducing interest rates and flooding the world market with more worthless dollars. It should be obvious by now that this Keynesian practice hasn't worked, nor will it ever work.

It is time for serious action in our economy, and the government can kick things off by legalizing competing currencies. It goes without saying that, had America stuck to any semblance of a gold standard, America's supply of oil would be secure and not subjected to the scares that are inherent in a fiat banking world. Sound money knows no borders, nationalities, or codes...and senseless wars to defend a worthless currency would never be fought, much less entertained.

Ron Paul on CNN's American Morning

In my (heavily biased) opinion, this is by far Ron Paul's best performance in an interview. From start to finish, Dr. Paul displays why he's the only candidate with consistent, principled views on the economy, the war, and civil liberties. His book, The Revolution: A Manifesto, is a brilliant roadmap that offers direction to disenfranchised conservatives (as well as liberals) who find no hope in our present slate of mainstream candidates and desire a return to traditional American principles such as sound money, a non-interventionist foreign policy, and market-driven solutions to present economic woes. Only Ron Paul has the answer, and he comes across as America's physician in this interview:



I especially enjoyed Paul's contention that, if John McCain is the party's nominee, then why waste all the taxpayer money in having a convention? From Nevada to Minnesota and beyond, organized (as well as active) Paul supporters refuse to accept the status quo and continue to use the democratic process to press for recognition of their candidate. Shame on the GOP for overtly discriminating against Paul's followers. Based on the strength of Paul supporters at caucuses nationwide, perhaps the GOP elite will admit there's more than a "handful" of Paul supporters spamming those online polls?

The Best of Neocon Radio

I'm really, really starting to like Mark Levin's radio show. Not because he's informed, insightful, and displays any semblance of intelligence, but because he's so over the top that I find myself laughing out loud while listening to his analysis of some issues.

He has all the required characteristics for today's "conservative" talker: overt blood lust, adherence to the blame-the-liberals-at-all-costs doctrine, willingness to play paddy-cake with traditional conservative values such as low taxes and responsible government spending, and of course bowing at the alter of Rush Limbaugh and his most famous barnacle, Sean Hannity.

One of Levin's favorite things to do (usually near the end of his show) is to go into his familiar refrain wherein he "salutes the men and women of the armed forces, our police, fire, and emergency personnel." Like the other talking giants Limbaugh and Hannity, he believes any criticism of our armed forces to be tantamount to treason, and anyone critical of our war effort to be any combination of the following adjectives: leftist, Stalinist, unpatriotic, and/or liberal. Of course, like his big talking brethren Rush and Sean, Levin is missing military service on his resume. But never mind that...

I started listening to Levin's radio show this past summer when I moved to Baltimore. Listening to conservative radio has long been a hobby of mine (if you can call it that), and I thought I'd heard it all. Boy was I wrong. Listening to Levin is like being transported into an altogether different universe, but it took me a while to reach that conclusion. Once I worked through the usual anger associated with closed-minded blowhards like Levin (whose arguments, despite being a lawyer by trade, consist of "You jerrrkk" and "Get off the phone ya big dope!" when he disagrees with callers) I started to appreciate his firebrand sense of humor...sort of.

Until tonight, I couldn't place my finger on why I am enjoying this intellectual caveman's show so much lately. And then it hit me: Levin's uncanny ability to transport me back in time generated my new found affection for him. It's as if Levin is broadcasting from within a bunker (eerily enough, his top of the hour lead ins hype the show as Levin broadcasting from the "underground command post, deep in the bowels of some hidden bunker, underneath the brick and steel of a non-descript building...) in late 1930's Europe. Pick your country, they all heavily inundated their populations with propaganda wherein the [insert enemy country] were coming to get them if they didn't conform!

Tonight was the tipping point for me. Every once in a while--and usually during the last hour on Friday's show, where he plays "America" by Ray Charles--Levin will play a patriotic song to remind his listeners that, yup, he's still rooting for America, and no, his support for her has not waned during the commercial break. Tonight Levin broke with tradition and decided to play the fight songs of our five branches of national service: Navy, Army, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard. It's a pity fire departments, police, and emergency personnel do not have patriotic songs...I'm sure Levin would have played them as well.

From now on, while listening to Levin's play list and rhetoric, I'm going to try and substitute various words from the 1930's and 40's for his usual targets, the leftists, liberals, Stalinists, Maoists, socialists, etc. Words like Nazis, Fascists, Jews, Gypsies, race mongrels, etc. are a good place to start, I think. I don't think the conclusion I'm going to draw here will shock anybody: Levin--as well as his big talking compatriots--are repeating history in targeting specific groups of people, and using fervent nationalism to buttress their cause.

Regardless, Levin's show is entertaining. Of course, I couldn't disagree with him more on a wide range of issues, but I still appreciate his dog-and-pony show that gets played out for two hours every day. That people call in to voice their support for this maniac, and even form fan sites dedicated to "The Great One" should serve as a reminder that, no matter the extremities of your views, there's always a fan base eager to accept vehement nationalism.

My Online Battle With a "McCainiac"

Lest you think I only criticize Democrats, the following is the transcript of an online "battle" in which I am presently engaged. The blog's owner, John, has been gracious enough to engage in an exchange of ideas, and I'm thrilled he has (at least up until now) allowed me to comment/criticize freely. Although I disagree with the majority of the views presented on his site, I regularly visit his blog to remove myself from my comfort zone.

jen Says:
April 27th, 2008 at 7:18 pm

Deranged? What’s deranged is the quaqmire in Iraq, what is deranged is fed reserve ripping off and owning the American people. Deranged is those who support the conditon of todays socitey, foreign policy and deranged is those who vote purely on media propaganda from talking heads from monoplized communications in the US..Deranged is those who want to see chaos no matter where chaos happens to be..or else create it.

Ron Paul people unite through the message of Liberty, prosperity and PEACE.

There is a better way. Ron Paul makes sense and is for the people, by the people. He stands for the American principles. One man in Washington who can be trusted to say what he means and does what he says for the betterment of our country and YOU, man kind!

Jonn wrote: That’s fine, jen, you can feel anyway you want. You can belittle me, call me names, throw eggs at my house, anything you want to do, but stop trying to subvert the two-hundred year system because you think you know what’s best for America. Stop having childish little hissy fits because the majority of Americans don’t see things your way. And stop calling the majority of Americans who do the heavy lifting in this country sheeple. I’m convinced that Ron Paul has done so poorly this year, not because of his politics, but because he attracted the most infantile, underhanded, disingenuous people in the country to his campaign. Spamming polls and spamming blogs is not the best way to convince people you’re not deranged.

EddieWillers Says:
April 28th, 2008 at 6:02 pm

Jen is right, but it will take more time for Ron Paul’s message to sink in…regardless of education level.

To John and the other anti-Paul people: can you refute Jen’s claims? Specifically, how is the federal reserve NOT ripping us off? And, more importantly, what solution(s) has your candidate offered to help ease the suffering we’re feeling at the hands of reckless inflation?

The Iraq and our “War on Terror” strategies speak for themselves. Why anyone would mindlessly accept a rudderless policy of “winning the war” is beyond me. For the record, none of the remaining “mainstream” candidates will end the war, a fact that should please the pro-war crowd.

The major reason people don’t support Ron Paul is because he’s against ALL overseas occupation by the United States military. I can’t think of a more pro-American policy than bringing our troops home to defend OUR borders, and history is rife with examples of how mercantilistic policies have failed. Even cynical supporters of our unconstitutional invasion of Iraq (those who admit we are there for oil, for example) have to face the fact that the policy has failed miserably (price of oil has tripled since Iraq invasion).

Are Paul supporters smarter? Of course not. But please, if you are going to refute claims made by us, back it up with something more than a slogan or name calling.

As for the GOP gridlock in Nevada, that’s democracy in action. Paul supporters aren’t breaking any rules, and McCain isn’t the GOP nominee. He didn’t even win Nevada for chrissakes!

Jonn wrote: I have no interest in refuting anyone’s claims.

RON PAUL WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT NO MATTER HOW OFTEN HIS MINIONS BADGER PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET. I hope the caps help you deal with reality. Whether McCain won the primary in Nevada or not, it doesn’t improve the potential for Paul to be our President for a crowd of Paulians to throw a temper tantrum. McCain may only be a marginal improvement over the alternative, but he’s an improvement nonetheless.

I’ve already made it clear that there’s little I find to disagree with Paul, but his main problem is that he’s attracted a bunch of pseudo-intellectual blow hards to support him. Every time I point that out, another pseudo-intellectual blow hard shows up to prove my point.

EddieWillers Says:

April 28th, 2008 at 7:33 pm

Ah yes, the ad hominem…the mating call of the anti-intellectual.

No, the CAPS don’t help me to deal with reality. It only underscores the reality of the majority of today’s “Conservatives” as being nothing more than a conformists. Need I remind you that the lesser of two evils is still evil? Such mindless logic is EXACTLY how we arrived in our present political quagmire, and why we will continue to rationalize foolish votes while our liberties are steadily eroded by bigger government (Democrat or Republican).

I’d gladly take a bunch of “pseudo-intellectual blowhards” over conformists any day, if for no other reason than these same “blowhards” have brought to the forefront major issues that heretofore have been neglected in political campaigns. When was the last time you heard the subject of monetary policy, non-interventionist foreign policy, etc. debated? Absent Paul’s successful campaign these issues would have never been raised.

Again, McCain has won nothing. He’s not the GOP candidate. If the nomination is sewn up, why have a convention? You’d think that true believers in the democratic election process would admire Paul’s fervent supporters in advancing their candidate’s chances of winning…that we experience the opposite should serve as a bellwether of how far we have drifted from our Republican principles.

Jonn wrote: Look, after over a year of tolerating you folks good-naturedly, I’m just sick of the weasely way you think you can circumvent the system in favor of the minority. You misspoke when you wrote “…would admire Paul’s fervent supporters….” That should be “…Paul’s fevered supporters”. Just because all of your spamming internet polls and harrassing hardworking bloggers finally came down to your candidate getting less than 2% of the POPULAR vote in the primaries, that doesn’t give you the right to throw temper tantrums.

I’d rather be called a conformist than call Obama my president - because that’s the best you can hope for.

And this is MY blog, if I want to call you a pseudo-intellectual blowhard, I have that right. You have the right to go elsewhere and cry your crocodile tears. Certainly a fine Libertarian like yourself can understand the rights of ownership? But somehow I feel your inherent blowhardedness isn’t quite slaked yet

EddieWillers Says:
April 28th, 2008 at 8:06 pm

I completely understand the ownership issue, and please understand I’m being sincere when I tell you that I appreciate your willingness to read/respond to my comments. I’ve been banned from sites before for asking questions and/or presenting pro-Ron Paul positions, and I respect the administrator’s right to do so without complaint.

Moreover, I like your site and visit it often…even if I disagree with the majority of the views expressed. It does me no good to read pro-Ron Paul articles all day because it does nothing to help me understand the viewpoints of others. To that end, I appreciate your site.

Hate to tell you, but there’s not much difference between Obama, Clinton, and McCain. How many can you name? None will end the war (a plus for you, I assume), both believe in expanding the government’s reach into your life without restraint, etc. Basically, what it boils down to is a choice between nationalized health care and reckless warmongering or reckless warmongering and runaway inflation. Both candidates are big government shills, and it’d be foolish to categorize them as anything but.

Sure, Paul supporters have spammed polls and bloggers, but so what? Do you take those polls seriously? I’d ban half the idiots I read responding to RP sites, too (weellllll, maybe). Point is, why not engage the brain a little and step outside of our comfort zone once in a while?

Jonn wrote: Funny, but I’d like to see the war end yesterday. Successfully for all concerned. To call any veteran “pro-war” is intellectually vacant. Is that “reckless warmongering”? If it is, we’ll never have anything to discuss.

EddieWillers Says:
April 28th, 2008 at 8:24 pm

My argument is not just for the end of the “War on Terror” but for the end of all ridiculous “wars” in which the government is presently engaged. Take your pick: War on Drugs, War on Poverty, etc. All have failed, and failed miserably.

Bring the troops home, not just from Iraq and Afghanistan, but from every remote corner of the world. Why do we continue to occupy other countries? It’s pointless, and we’re going bankrupt doing it. Mercantilism doesn’t work, but free trade and non-binding relationships do. Vietnam is the textbook example: what we failed to achieve in over 20 years of war we achieved in short order through trade and diplomacy.

The reckless warmongering I was referring to was the adherence to the idea that we need to station troops all across the globe, that we need to threaten Iran at every turn, and that somehow we can enforce democracy and freedom through the barrel of a gun. I don’t know about you, but to classify any of the remaining “mainstream” candidates as anything other than reckless warmongers (using that definition) would be foolish.

Jonn wrote: See? we have nothing to discuss because your child-like innocence in regards to our national security negates a rational discussion.

Using Vietnam as an example of not using war as an instrument of diplomacy is ridiculous. Vietnam punched themselves out. As allies of the Soviet Union, and not trusted by the Chinese Maoists, where else did they have to turn when the wall came down and the Soviet Union fell apart? How many Vietnamese died and were driven out since 1975? How many Laotians suffered when Vietnam invaded them before the Chinese stepped in? It’s certainly naive of you think that we can just sit back and let the world punch itself into exhaustion. How many will die in the Sudan, Zimbabwe, Israel, Lebanon, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, North Korea, etc…while we sit safely inside our borders passing around the same dollar bill?

Somehow, Libertarians think we all live in the 19th century in remote agrarian communities isolated from the next county.

jozzf Says:
April 29th, 2008 at 1:01 am

John,

EddieWillers brings up a lot of good points, and you (for the most part) just continue the ad hominem attacks. You don’t really have anything to back up your pro-McCain position besides the tiresome “the lesser of two evils” and “Ron Paul just can’t win!” (why, because that’s what the media tells you?), which are both not good enough reasons for me. If you have really “made it clear that there’s little I find to disagree with Paul”, then what does it matter to you what his supporters are like? VOTE for him. Thanks.

Ray Says:
April 29th, 2008 at 2:03 am

Jozzf,

Eddie deludes himself with the misconception that we live in a society that has no ties to the rest of the world. “We should bring all our troops home.” Really? Ask the French how well a static defense works against a mobile enemy. How would you have us respond to direct threats to the United States? With a magic “transporter beam” that would move troops when we finally decided we were in danger? You can’t move troops, armor and a logistics train halfway around the world with fairy dust. How different would our world be now if we had taken your attitude during WWII? The whole European continent would be speaking German now and I’m guessing Hawaii would be speaking Japanese. The Korean and Vietnam wars as well as the rest of the “Cold War” hot spots were attempts by the Soviets to dominate the world, and eventually us as well. Had we just sat back and watched, the USSR would still be a Superpower, and a good number of people who are now alive and free would be under their yoke.

People who hide behind walls and ignore the wolf will eventually become dinner. Ron Paul deludes himself that “diplomacy and free trade will win out” when the other side has no intention of negotiating in good faith. His ignorance of the existence of real evil in the world scares the crap out of me. Fortunately enough Republicans realize his limitations and have declined to vote for him. In a general election he would be like a piñata on Cinco de Mayo. Ron Paul is a dead horse that you can beat all you want, but he will NEVER be POTUS.


John Says:
April 29th, 2008 at 2:06 am

Paultards,

Saying that Ron Paul cannot win is not an ad hominem attack, it is simply a mathematical fact. Ron Paul has not won a single state and John McCain is the GOP nominee. Get it?

It is also a fact that many Ron Paul supporters have staged many various spamming and phishing events on the Internet that pretty much piss everyone off. I almost get the feeling you don’t really want Ron Paul to win as much as you want to argue with people until they agree you’re right. Seriously, move out of your parent’s basement, get real jobs and grow up.


EddieWillers Says:
April 29th, 2008 at 10:24 am

I suppose if I subscribed to the “might makes right” school of foreign policy my views would appear childish and uninformed. My point is that our foreign policy–regardless of the political affiliation of the president–has been one of murderous intervention, and it has failed miserably to achieve its desired results. Why continue to pursue a fruitless foreign policy that has only succeeded in usurping American freedoms and making us less safe?

The idea that we saved lives in Vietnam by killing millions of civilians (a practice not unfamiliar to your heralded candidate, I might add) is Orwellian beyond belief. Seriously, if the Chinese, Russians, French, etc. want to fight over Vietnam, so be it. It’s none of our business, and we’re going broke trying to fight those battles.

The likelihood of a Red Dawn-like Soviet invasion of the United States is/was about as likely as the Soviets taking over Mars. If you’re still unconvinced, consider two things: one, the Soviets utter failure to overrun Afghanistan, a country with not even a fraction of the military prowess of the United States; and two, the fact that the mighty US military (the world’s only superpower) cannot control more than a sliver of land in Baghdad. Somehow the idea of a successful, prolonged invasion of another sovereign nation seems far-fetched.

But you go on and subscribe to the government’s latest boogeyman if you want. PT Barnum was right–there’s a sucker born every minute.

Ray, my argument is that we should engage in commerce with the rest of the world and set a positive example. Instead, our present policy has us bombing them when we disagree with them, and subsidizing them when they adhere to our demands. Either way, under the present system, our citizens lose. We lose tax money when we subsidize foreign governments, and what we lose in war need not be mentioned.

Further, Ray, while your knowledge of WWII certainly would have earned you an “A” in any government-funded public school, it is wildly off the mark. I suggest reading authors that are critical of FDR, Churchill, etc. in the run-up to the war. You have history exactly wrong. The information is out there, you just have to find it and have the courage to confront your convictions. Feel free to insert the obligatory conspiracy theorist label if you want, but if you blindly subscribe to the idea that we’d all be speaking German or Russian if it were not for benevolent US military intervention and fail to balance your research, then you are the fool, not me.

John, my point is that it is none of our business if other countries want to bomb each other into submission. If we deem such actions are a threat to the United States, then we should DECLARE WAR, win it, and come home. No nation building, no prolonged presence. It doesn’t work! We haven’t declared war since WWII, and we haven’t won a war since WWII. If you want to continue to invade countries at the behest of the President or to enforce UN resolutions, then I expect you to be at the front of the line volunteering to serve. If you, your family, friends, etc. are so intent on dying for the freedom of the Sudanese, Vietnamese, Tibetans, Venezuelans, etc. there’s nothing stopping you from going…even if the US fails to declare war. Become a mercenary, but don’t drag the rest of the country (via taxes and inflation) into your personal conflict.

Ultimately, I find it comical that libertarians are labeled as childish, unemployed basement dwellers when in reality the self-admitted conformists (see John’s comments above) are the ones mindlessly toeing the party line despite obvious disagreements with McCain. Silly me, I thought patriotism was more closely linked to dissent than conformity.

Finally, John McCain is NOT the nominee. He hasn’t won anything. The democratic process involved in determining the nominee includes electing delegates to the national convention. While I don’t dismiss Paul’s poor showing in the primaries, I offer a similar question to McCain supporters: if there is such strong support for McCain, where are all his supporters when electing delegates? In other words, where are the McCain supporters WHEN IT MATTERS?

Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright

I'm really starting to like Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright. The more I learn about him, the more I hear him speak, the more I like him. I've never been much for religion, and I disagree with Pastors, Reverends, Rabbis, etc. endorsing candidates (they can, but they should immediately lose their tax-free status upon endorsing a candidate), but I'm really starting to get in to this "controversy" surrounding Reverend Wright.

We've all heard the clips from his 9/11 sermon. Most of us, whether we care to or not, can recite some of his "outlandish" claims from memory, much like we can recite annoying commercials (think ads for Jared jewelers, for example). We all know Barack Obama attended Reverend Wright's services for the better part of 20 years, and supposedly during that length of time we're supposed to believe that Reverend Wright's beliefs somehow became Obama's beliefs. It's the classic guilt-by-association argument, and it appears to be working to perfection.

Well, somewhat perfect anyway. Last week Reverend Wright gave an interview with PBS' Bill Moyers, wherein he let slip this juicy piece of information (emphasis mine):

BILL MOYERS:
Here is a man who came to see you 20 years ago. Wanted to know about
the neighborhood. Barack Obama was a skeptic when it came to religion.
He sought you out because he knew you knew about the community. You led
him to the faith.

You performed his wedding ceremony. You baptized his two children. You
were, for 20 years, his spiritual counsel. He has said that. And, yet,
he, in that speech at Philadelphia, had to say some hard things about
you. How did those words...how did it go down with you when you heard
Barack Obama say those things?

REVEREND WRIGHT:
It went down very simply. He's a politician, I'm a pastor. We speak to
two different audiences. And he says what he has to say as a politician. I say what I have to say as a pastor. But they're two
different worlds.

I do what I do. He does what politicians do. So that what happened in
Philadelphia where he had to respond to the sound bytes, he responded as a politician.

Indeed, Obama's politician-esque reaction to Reverend Wright's comments has helped shore up his campaign against the onslaught of attacks, but there's a larger lesson here: Obama is just more of the same. Anyone doubt the other candidates would have handled this issue differently?

But the Obama's ties to Wright is not what intrigues me most about the Reverend. In my estimation, the majority of Wright's "9/11 sermon" is accurate. In other words, from my viewpoint, what Reverend Wright was suggesting was that reckless American foreign policy is what contributed to the attacks on 9/11.

Sounds like blowback, doesn't it? Hmmmm, where have we heard blowback mentioned before? And, I could be wrong, but doesn't Obama subscribe to some form of blowback as well?

By far the most amusing Reverend Wright soundbite came out yesterday while Wright was speaking at the National Press Club in Washington. During his speech, in response to his alleged unpatriotic leanings, Wright asked the question:

"I served six years in the military. Does that make me patriotic? How many years did Cheney serve?"

Of course, the morning "conservative" talkers in DC had a field day with that comment, immediately shifting the focus of the conversation from Wright's brilliant quip to his 9/11 comments. And all was right with the world--my trusty morning show was back in their comfort zone, having successfully avoided addressing Wright's assertion.

Personally, I hope Wright continues to speak out, and often.

The Pentagon Matrix

A thoroughly scary examination of how involved the Pentagon is in our everyday lives. Whether we realize it or not, from the sheets we sleep on to the tires on our cars, the products we consume all share a common thread that can be traced directly to a company that is heavily involved in defense contracts.

Nick Turse (via Tom Englehart and LewRockwell) details the extensive, powerful reach of today's military industrial complex in his book "The Complex: How the Military Invades our Everyday Lives."

Police Victory in NY

Getting married in New York? Your chances of surviving your bachelor party just decreased, and you cannot expect anyone to be held accountable for your wrongful death, especially if the local police determine their lives are in imminent danger.

Three police officers were acquitted of all charges stemming from the killing of Sean Bell in Queens, New York, in November, 2006. The description and subsequent explanation of the events that transpired that morning is beyond absurd: five officers fired a total of 50 bullets into Bell's car, all because police believed one of Bell's friends was returning to Bell's car to retrieve a gun after an argument broke out. Only one officer suffered "injuries" during the fray when he was grazed by Bell's car.

The police were present at the Queens strip club as a result of increased suspicion of three non-crimes--drugs, guns, and prostitution--present or originating inside the establishment. Bell's surviving friends testified that none of the plainclothes officers identified themselves as police during the argument.

Think about this. Plainclothes police officers fail to identify themselves as such while arguing with three men outside a strip club at 4 in the morning. When the three men decide to leave the scene of the argument, police play the familiar "we thought one of them had a gun, and we feared for our safety" card to justify firing 50 bullets into the side of Bell's car, murdering him in the process. Is it any wonder people no longer trust police officers?

To top it off, this murderous rampage by state-hired and taxpayer-funded jackbooted thugs goes unpunished because some of the witnesses had prior convictions and contradicted themselves. Exactly how a prior conviction (one whose punishment was delivered via a revenue-generating courtroom of the state, no less) can diminish one's credibility as it pertains to this case is beyond me.

Cases like this serve as a pertinent reminder that, no matter what, the will of the people is always subjugated to the will of the state.

Brilliant Ron Paul Antiwar Ad

If only Ron Paul had aired an ad like this prior to Super Tuesday things might have turned out a little better for him. Regardless, the message in the pseudo-animated ad is powerful.



Yesterday, about 130,000 (16%) voted for Ron Paul in the Pennsylvania primary. In fact, between Paul and Mike Huckabee, over 25% of Pennsylvania voters cast a ballot against presumptive nominee John McCain. If those results don't indicate displeasure with the Republican Party's frontrunner, nothing will.

In addition to the wonderful results in the Pennsylvania primary, Paul supporters remain active in state delegate elections, challenging the principles of today's Republican Party. In states such as Missouri and Minnesota, Paul supporters actively pursue national delegate positions, with the ultimate goal being allowing Paul a speaking slot in the Republican National Convention.

Oil Price Stability

I dedicated a good portion of my afternoon toward finding a reliable, historical chart showing the price of oil in gold versus the price of oil in dollars. After a good hour of searching, I found the above chart.

The chart pretty much speaks for itself. After Nixon de-coupled the dollar from gold and ended the Bretton Woods agreement in August, 1971, the era of price instability (in oil as well as other commodities) was foisted upon us by our government. After severing the gold-dollar alliance, Nixon infamously quipped "We're all Keynesians now," a reference to perhaps the most economically destructive personality in the history of the science.

Still, the absence of true economic debate amongst elected officials is reason for concern. The solutions offered by our government varies in degree and not substance, with some brand of socialism acting as the key ingredient. Between advertisements and promises of Federal Reserve-generated bailouts, the underlying assumption that we are to trust government to solve our problems remains the unquestioned constant in economic debate.

The solution, of course, is to return to sound money and get the government the heck out of the economy. I realize returning to sound money is impossible to do overnight, but I don't think it is too much to ask that we begin to pare down unnecessary fiscal obligations (like the bloated--and financially insatiable--defense budget). It is no coincidence that the largest "spike" in the chart coincides with the beginning of the War on Terror.

The Drumbeat for War Hits a Snare

Pardon the pun.

Remember last year when the Bush Administration, in conjunction with the British Government, were up in arms over the capture of fifteen British sailors in International Waters? The sailors were held for about two weeks amidst non-stop television coverage and, of course, requisite saber-rattling by the Americans and British.

Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, the UK Times Online has uncovered the lies that were used to stoke the flames for war. Although the Iran/Iraq boundaries were re-drawn by the coalition to cover where the incident took place, they made one crucial error: they forgot to tell the Iranians.

Additionally, according to the report, it was the British who first raised their weapons when sighting the Iranian gunboats. Iran has always maintained that they detained the British sailors because they believed the sailors were violating sovereign territory.

One has to wonder how much junk we are being fed in preparation for war with Iran. From manufactured incidents such as Iranian speedboats "harassing" American warships (1,2) to altogether phony incidents like the above, how can any spokesperson, official, or administrator have any credibility left?

McCain's Theme Song

Somewhere Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Max Boot, Bill O'Reilly, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, etc. are smiling as McCain & Co. take over the White House and their wildest fantasies are realized.

Our Overt Pro-War Candidate

All you really need to know about John McCain's position when it comes to foreign policy is summed up in the first sentence in this article from the UK's Daily Telegraph:

A John McCain presidency would take to a more forceful approach to Russia and China, according to senior foreign policy advisers to the Republican candidate.

The article goes on to describe America's favorite "war hero" as a "realistic idealist" when it comes to dealing with the above nations, concluding that McCain would abandon the unilateralist approach followed by President Bush when the US invaded Iraq.

But further isolating the United States from the rest of the world by refusing to talk to other world leaders (the hardline "we don't negotiate with terrorists" comes to mind) is neither realistic nor idealistic. Such practices will only exacerbate present conflicts.

Perhaps intensifying present conflict has been the plan all along. After all, absent some boogeyman, what chance does McCain have of winning?

As for McCain's candidacy, it remains puzzling to me that his campaign's greatest selling point is his rumored "toughness" when it comes to national security. In McCain, we have a man who ruthlessly bombed civilians during the Vietnam War and was (reportedly) subjected to years of enhanced interrogation techniques. His combat experience, coupled with over 20 years in the US Senate becoming an expert in American foreign policy, are the soundbites we hear most frequently when promoting McCain. Dare we ask what has McCain learned?

In short, well, nothing. McCain has supported every American foreign policy blunder--Democrat-led or Republican-led--from Bosnia to Somalia, without protest. He supported sanctions on Iraq and favors increasing sanctions on Iran. Given America's history of sanctions on Iraq, and the fact that those sanctions contributed to anti-American sentiment, how can McWarmonger fail to understand where increased sanctions on Iran will lead?

Again, this may be McCain's plan. Even though he claims to "detest war," he needs a boogeyman to win. Russia, Iran, China, North Korea, etc. will all do just fine.

Further, McCain has learned nothing from his years of being subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques. Although he spoke out against the United States' usage of torture during the Republican presidential debates, he recently voted against a bill that would have implemented one interrogation standard for all prisoners. I guess it isn't torture as long as the person strapped to the board is a little brown man with a turban on his head.

If all that remains of the Bush Administration is a bunch of bad jokes with worn-out punchlines, what are we to expect of a McCain Administration, one that promises even more widespread, belligerent saber-rattling? Will McCain's "heroic" past insulate him from criticism when conditions further deteriorate under his leadership?

What's needed is more interaction with supposedly hostile nations, not less. By promising to confront China and Russia, McCain is making the same mistake American leaders have made by becoming involved in the affairs other countries since the end of World War II: the misguided belief that America knows what's best for the world. America has become a nation of meddlers, not peacekeepers. I can't name one country where American military presence has brought peace and prosperity to the downtrodden masses, can you?

By voluntarily removing itself from the role of the world's policeman, and instead promoting a foreign policy of commerce, trade, and interaction between all nations, America can restore its reputation as a world leader. Over 55,000 Americans (and countless Vietnamese) lost their lives in Vietnam attempting to stem the flow of communism, and we left the badly damaged country after over 25 years of occupation. Today, US-Vietnamese relations are much better, with citizens of both countries free to interact and trade with each other. Why do we hesitate to apply the lessons learned to Russia, Iran, and North Korea?

I don't buy into the hype and history used to buttress McCain's presidential qualifications. Essentially, in McCain we are just re-packaging the same shit sandwich offered by the Bush Administration, only this time it comes with the guarantee that only a bona fide war "hero" can offer. I just don't see how someone who willingly murdered civilians can be promoted as the world's peace broker. Like so many other government policies, an interventionist policy will only achieve the opposite of its intent.

Ventura / Hannity '08?

A wonderful clip of former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura on Hannity and Colmes last week. Ventura's frankness is commendable--anyone who can make Hannity shift in his seat that often is doing something right!

Almost immediately Hannity tries to corner Ventura on his belief in 9/11 "conspiracy theories," which Ventura logically refutes. I particularly enjoyed when Ventura asked, "two planes, three building collapse at free fall speed. Does that make any sense?"

Of course, if Ventura's name still maintained the political clout it did ten years ago, his questioning of 9/11 would be political suicide. It seems one of the unwritten rules of politics is one must never question the state, for the state knows what's best for you and is never wrong.

Ron Paul Questions General Petraeus

A poignant reminder of the kinds of questions General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker should face, if we had elected officials with enough courage to ask them.

It's a shame that Congressman Paul's other questions will not be answered, but good for him for entering them into the record regardless. That neither Petraeus nor Crocker would comment about the Administration's Constitutional authority when it comes to expanding the war into Iran serves as a grim reminder of the kinds of henchmen employed to carry out our misguided foreign policy.

Good for Ron Paul for asking the tough questions and maintaining his composure in the face of the absurd answers offered by Bush's minions.

Petraeus Points to War with Iran

...according to Pat Buchanan, that is.

I found Buchanan's analysis to be equal parts scary and confusing, particularly where he warns us not to be surprised when Bush appears on television one day soon, announcing,

"My commanding general in Iraq, David Petraeus, has told me that Iran, with the knowledge of President Ahmadinejad, has become a privileged sanctuary for two terrorist organizations – Hezbollah and the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard – to train, arm and direct terrorist attacks on U.S. and coalition forces, despite repeated promises to halt this murderous practice.

"I have therefore directed U.S. air and naval forces to begin air strikes on these base camps of terror. Our attacks will continue until the Iranian attacks cease."

Anyone care to refute Buchanan's claim?

The troubling part about Buchanan's article is where he analyzes the questions General Petraeus faced while on Capitol Hill. Specifically, when Senator Lieberman, who clearly desires war with Iran, asked about the role of the "Iranian-backed special groups" as it pertains to the "murder of hundreds of US soldiers and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians" Buchanan fails to clarify for the reader that the majority of the Iraqi (puppet) government is Shiia. I'm confused as to how a special group, supposedly backed by the Shiia government in Iran, can be responsible for both the the murder of thousands of Iraqis as well as attacks inside the Green Zone.

But I'm probably missing something, right? I mean, who has a greater stake in a stable Iraq--Iran, Iraq's neighbor, or the United States, a country situated thousands of miles away? Need we look beyond the fact that the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, arrived in Baghdad recently amidst (as Justin Raimondo puts it) "hugs and kisses" while our own President has to arrive "in the dead of night, out of fear for his safety?"

Regardless, it is not exactly a stretch to suggest that the Bush Administration has been salivating over the prospect of a conflict with Iran for years. Buchanan's analysis of an Iranian conflict and its subsequent impact on the US Presidential race is also accurate, even though I maintain conflict in the region will continue irrespective of who becomes our next President.

Misguided Blame

Don't blame the airlines, blame the FAA.

News that American airlines had no choice but to ground the almost half of their 300 MD-80 aircraft due to "safety concerns" this week continues to dominate the media. Concerns over the aircraft's wiring caused the FAA to order mandatory safety checks.

The question is old, but it is worth repeating. When it comes to safety on board aircraft, who has more at stake--a large, government bureaucracy that has no penalty for failure, or a company's whose very existence (profit) depends on the trust of its consumers?

If you really want to increase airline efficiency and lower costs, press for the abolition of the FAA.

China and Tibet

Although the coverage has softened over the past couple of days, the criticism of China's "aggression" in Tibet has already revealed much about the American attitude towards the affairs of other nations.

We are lead to believe that protesters are everywhere, united in the common goal that is Tibet's freedom. Actors such as Richard Gere have taken center stage, spearheading the campaign to recognize a free and independent Tibet. Protest tactics have ranged from regular street demonstrations to disruptions of the ceremonial passing of the Olympic Torch.

This week, Congress predictably passed a (non-lawful) condemnation of the Chinese government, calling on the Chinese to release Tibetans imprisoned for non-violent demonstrations. The article also alludes to the possibility of the United States boycotting the opening ceremonies of the Olympics in Beijing, although President Bush has yet to commit to a position on the matter.

There are several issues buried within this resolution. First, and perhaps most alarming, is the fact that American hubris cannot be questioned. As evidenced in the 413-1 vote (care to guess who casted the dissenting vote?), Americans, through their elected officials, have taken it upon themselves to cast judgment on the affairs of another sovereign nation. Does anyone seriously think the Chinese are incapable of resolving their own internal issues without American influence? How would Americans react if the Chinese government voted to condemn our treatment of, say, illegally detained prisoners of war at Guantanamo Bay?

Second, there is the contradiction of American "nationalistic" principle. Presumably, the Chinese government desires to prevent the emergence of a free, independent Tibet, and to maintain control over the region as part of a unified Chinese state. The relationship between China and Tibet is complicated, to say the least, and the history of the conflict certainly exceeds the tenure of the United States' role as the world's arbiter.

Perhaps the best parallel to draw here is the secession of the Southern States prior to the Civil War. Southerners saw the election of Abraham Lincoln as an affront to their way of life and a prelude to war. Consequently--or constitutionally, if you prefer--Southerners seceded from the voluntary union between the states.

While I realize I am doing a major disservice to two major incidents in world history by summarizing them in two brief paragraphs, I don't think the parallel can be ignored. In order to remain consistent in their beliefs, then, protesters, as well as Congress, would also have to rescind any previous support for the Union during the American Civil War. After all, what right did those Yankees have to invade an independent, sovereign nation? Needless to say, I'm not holding my breath for any resolutions condemning northern aggression in the Civil War.

Finally, there is the feel-good gesture of Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, et. al. calling on the United States to boycott (at least) the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games. Following in a long line of altruistic government action, the idea seems to be gaining some traction, at least among the political elite. To further stoke the flames of controversy--and a rule that will certainly draw the ire of pro-Tibet people--the International Olympic Committee (IOC) issued a statement that said (in part), "...Athletes are free to express political views, but face sanctions if they indulge in propaganda."

The issue of how to determine patriotic acts from propaganda notwithstanding, why have the games become a political venue as opposed to a celebration of human achievement? Further, what right do non-entities such as the IOC and governments have to suppress individual expression?

That's what makes Ron Paul's opposition to the condemnation of the Chinese government's "aggression" in Tibet so meaningful. His lone "nay" vote is consistent with his steadfast commitment to individual liberty as well as his belief in a non-interventionist foreign policy. While other politicians and protesters are using the Tibet "crisis" as a political soap box to profess their altruistic belief in an American-dominated world, their actions are easily exposed for the logical inconsistencies that they are.

"What Petraeus Wants, Petraeus Will Get"

Apparently that's what Bush's philosophy is on Iraq, according to TIME.

Conventional wisdom suggests siding with President Bush and General Petraeus on this one. After all, as the Commanding General in Iraq, who is better qualified to make decisions about the future of the fragile country? If Bush cannot rely on his "commanders on the ground," as he often refers to them, then upon whom can Bush rely?

I disagree with conventional wisdom on this one for one simple reason: Generals are not policy makers. They're warfighters. Their job is to conquer and destroy, not rebuild and mend relations between residual warring factions. Somewhere in the bizarro land that has become our foreign policy, career killers have become experts on reconstruction.

And so it goes with today's dog-and-pony show. General Petraeus will field questions from mainstream Presidential candidates while the media hopes to catch a glimpse of the next Commander in Chief's philosophy for Iraq (and beyond). Although I'm certain the media will subject us to countless renditions of Clinton's and Obama's "anti-war" rhetoric during their questioning period, I won't be at all surprised to hear all three mainstream candidates echo Bush's erroneous mantra that they will provide whatever the General needs to "win the war."

California Free R1de

(From the Orange County Register)

California's toll road program has its fair share of violators...the majority of whom are government employees. Taking advantage of a program that was originally designed to protect law enforcement officers, many government employee's now enjoy immunity from traffic tickets via the Department of Motor Vehicles "confidential" license plate program.

The linkbeneath the road sign lists the "top 20" offenders. Ironically, the top person on the list works for the department of corrections.

I think Lew Rockwell sums it up best (From LRC blog):

Almost one million California cops, judges, prosecutors, and other high-paid parasites have special license plates that make them immune to road tolls and traffic-ticket cameras. Need I mention that these free-riders on the taxpayers make far more, and work far less, than the people they serve (for dinner)? Hooray for the libertarian Orange Country Register for exposing this outrage. It is just the sort of comprehensible crime that can subvert the coercives, especially at a time when they wants more taxes. Makes sense: the people are poorer in the recession, so make them poorer still so the ruling class can continue to live in the style to which it has become accustomed--the high-pay, high-pension, no-ticket, no-toll style.

In DC, things aren't much different. Of course, we don't have many toll roads, but the "do as I say, not as I do" motto still applies to our police. One thing that I'm starting to notice is how often police officers violate simple laws, such as illegal parking. Walk down any street in DC--especially during sporting events--and you're guaranteed to see a police car illegally parked.

I'm certain most people would agree that police need special privileges due to the dangerous nature of their jobs. But that's a dangerous position to have, especially when that belief extends to cover traditional rights such as gun ownership. Simple traffic violations are easy to ignore and write off as a "benefit" police (and other government workers) enjoy, but that slope is a slippery one, and the taxpayer never benefits from such practices.

Proof Positive the War(s) Will Continue

For anyone who has reservations about the true motivations within our government, this article should answer them. The assertions made within the article would be laughable if they were not true.

Anyone who tries to convince you that marked differences exist between the parties should be laughed at for their naivete. Sometimes life imitates art, and I would submit our elected official's actions outlined in this article as exhibit A that government cares not about the individuals they send to war.

Shamless Book Plug: Murray N. Rothbard's For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto

I'll preface everything I am about to say by acknowledging that there are far better reviews available for this book. See here, here, and here for examples.

It is no secret that there are many different strands of libertarianism. In fact, a running joke is that you will not find two libertarians that agree on everything. Rothbard, Mr. Libertarian, through this book, outlines the basic tenets of what it means to be a libertarian and, more importantly, conveys his vision of the effects of a truly libertarian society.

For a New Liberty will challenge every preconceived notion you have about existing government programs and services. You will scratch your head, furrow your brow, and perhaps laugh out loud at some of Rothbard's ideas and principles. But through it all, Rothbard's consistent logic, steadfast devotion to individualism, and commitment to the market economy will evoke deeper thought.

As stated above, the book covers every area of the individual-versus-society conflict: education, involuntary servitude, the welfare/warfare state, inflation and business cycles, government and business, streets and roads, police, law, courts, environmental concerns, and war and foreign policy. Rothbard finishes his book with a strategy for liberty, wherein he outlines society's transformation from our present situation to one in which the individual is superior to the state.

The book's central theme is presented on the very first page. Known as the "non-aggressive axiom," the libertarian creed is defined as follows: no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. Using this axiom, Rothbard brilliantly displays how the government is the most egregious violator of the principle, through practices such as taxation, conscription, usurpation of property rights (eminent domain), and other "accepted" statist ploys. Central to combating these practices is the belief that no conglomerate non-entity (i.e. the State or "society") should, by virtue of its existence, contain with it any more rights and privileges than the individuals who comprise it. In other words, a group of people is not entitled to any more rights than each individual in the group.

Of particular interest to me was the section on involuntary servitude. Every government has a shameful history of coercing its citizens into serving the means of the state. Obvious examples of this practice include the military draft and slavery, but Rothbard also challenges the notion of "contractual" military service. As a former military officer, I believed (as do many) that I was obligated to serve out the balance of my contract with the military, which was six years. In exchange for my military service, I received scholarship and a steady paycheck. But the question I never asked was: what if my employer (the US government) subjected me to circumstances with which I disagree? What options do I have at my disposal as an employee, and how do those options compare with the options available in other sectors of the workforce--public and private?

A good example to use here is an officer (or enlistee) being sent--against his or her will--into war. Many service members are on lists, and when their number comes up, they are expected to fill the open job overseas...be it in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere. The underlying assumption is that, because you are "under contract" you are subjected to the whims of the military, and that "you knew the risks when you signed the contract."

Rothbard debunks this mentality in two ways. First, he asks whether or not there is another organization that can use the government's weaponry to physically force someone into service. Unsurprisingly, the answer is no. Once a person is forced to work against his or her will, the government (or organization) is enslaving that person, and that person should be allowed to leave. Rothbard concedes that penalties will be incurred on the part of the individual for breach of contract (i.e. blacklisted from similar corporations, loss of pension rights, etc.) but the act of leaving a job should never be met with involuntary servitude (as it is in the military). Rothbard's belief--and the libertarian position--is that breach of contract is a moral default, but it is not a legally enforceable obligation.

Second, Rothbard challenges the idea that the military is a particularly important occupation and, as such, demands some form of coercive mechanism that other employers do not enjoy. To make his point, Rothbard compares the military to another, equally dangerous (and arguably more important) occupation: police officers. Every year men and women join and leave the police force without incurring some form of contractual obligation. Moreover, individuals leaving the police force are not subjected to the draconian punishments inherent in the military. No police officer is threatened with imprisonment, fines, or being "shot at sunrise" for "deserting" his or her post as a police officer. As yet, I am unfamiliar with any form of conscription undertaken to combat insufficient amounts of police. If the idea of a police officer draft sounds silly to you, why isn't any insistence of a military draft (or contract fulfillment within the military) met with equal disdain?

My favorite section of the book--and the one guaranteed to elicit the most vocal response from critics--is Rothbard's discussion of road privatization. Rothbard's contention is that the problems facing travelers can be solved by allowing market forces to dictate the rules, and that government bureaucracies have failed miserably to make the roads safer, cheaper, or more efficient. To quickly summarize Rothbard's solution, I'd compare it to our present situation with cell phone providers. Callers are allotted a certain amount of minutes every month during "peak" periods, with free nights and weekends. Similarly, road companies would charge higher tolls for use during peak periods, say during traditional "rush" hours. The "higher" prices would cause several things to happen; namely, more carpooling, use of public transit, or variation in working schedules for individuals insisting on driving their own cars. The residual effect of more people taking advantage of the above options would be lighter traffic volume, meaning a faster commute.

While reading this section and Rothbard's proposals, I was reminded of a conversation I had with a friend last fall. We were waiting for the gates to open to the FedEx field parking lots, and we both took note of the packed cars surrounding us. I remember making a joke, saying something to the effect of "if you ever want to force people to carpool, all you need to do is follow the template provided at football stadiums." While I'm sure people complain non-stop about what they perceive to be exorbitantly high prices for parking at football stadiums, that doesn't stop them from coming. The owners of the parking lots, as private individuals, have determined a method to maximize revenue for the amount of space available for parked cars...and individuals have responded by carpooling. The stadium, and the parking lots, are always full...despite the complaints.

The above anecdote is not an endorsement of private road companies charging high prices for use of their roads, however. FedEx field is a bit of an anomaly in that traffic patterns and available space is fixed, whereas private highways and city streets are completely unpredictable. Rather than endorse a government monopoly over roads, I'm suggesting--as does Rothbard--that we let private individuals (and not an inefficient government monopoly) determine the most efficient way to manage our highways. The outcome will be safer, less congested highways.

Overall, For a New Liberty is a lucid representation of the libertarian philosophy and its application in solving the (seemingly) impossible problems in today's society. This book will challenge every one of your beliefs, and cause you to question traditional methods for solving problems. No one who has ever questioned government's motives, practices, and procedures can afford not to read any of Rothbard's works. For a New Liberty is an excellent introduction to--and reference manual for--libertarianism.

Wal-Mart and Mrs. Shank

Last week the Internets and cable news shows were abuzz with the story about an older woman who had suffered brain damage as a result of an auto accident. The woman, Debbie Shank, who was not at fault in the accident, sued the trucking company and won. After all legal fees, medical expenses, etc. were paid, Shank was left with approximately $417,000 in a trust fund to pay for future living expenses. Her employer, Wal-Mart, sued Mrs. Shank for $450,000.

Wal-Mart has long been a favorite target of (mostly Democratic) ire. One pundit, Keith Olberman, named Wal-Mart his "worst person in the world" several times last week because of its actions. The widespread news coverage of the situation reached as far as facebook, where some of my friends joined the group "Debbie Shank has paid enough."

I don't deny the sadness involved with Mrs. Shank's unfortunate situation. Certainly no one would take any form of pleasure in seeing a woman's life ruined because of one accident. I wholeheartedly sympathize with the Shank family, and I think the charitable organizations that are cropping up to support her future expenses symbolize the inherent goodness in everyone.

However, I do think Wal-Mart was wrong to acquiesce in this instance. By abandoning their pursuit of the money they paid to cover Mrs. Shank's medical bills, Wal-Mart inadvertently opened themselves up to future cases involving high medical costs. The result of establishing such a precedent will be higher medical premiums for all Wal-Mart employees.

For a much better analysis of the case, see J.H. Huebert's article (via LRC).

Quite predictably, the media focused on the emotions of its viewers and failed to present any factual refutations to Wal-Mart's case. By presenting Wal-Mart as the big, bad money-grubbing capitalist institution wringing every last dollar out of a helpless woman, I'm guessing the media captured widespread support for its anti-Wal-Mart stance. Particularly troubling is the argument that Wal-Mart should abandon its case because "it's not like they need the money anyway."

As Huebert notes, by abandoning its pursuit of its lawful claim to Shank's money, Wal-Mart has committed the Randian sin of "the sanction of the victim." In other words, by not recovering the money it is contractually obligated to collect, Wal-Mart has mistakenly endorsed itself as an evil institution. Wal-Mart's primary duty is to provide the best quality health care at the lowest possible price to all of its employees, not to improve its image through acquiescence.

There is a more subtle point to be made here, however, and it is this: individuals who subscribe to the belief that the collective is the proper way to fulfill human need ultimately end up using the collective (in this case, Wal-Mart's health plan) to fulfill individual needs. The result of such actions is higher premiums for everybody. In contrast, when individuals are allowed to define, pursue, and achieve their own needs (i.e. Wal-Mart's pursuit of profit) the collective benefits in the form of lower health care premiums.

Rather than dwell on the unfortunate circumstances facing Mrs. Shank for the rest of her life and fingering Wal-Mart as an institution seeking to compound her woes, I would like to see Keith Olberman and the rest of the Wal-Mart critics instead focus on the real heroes in this case: individuals voluntarily donating to Deborah Shank's cause. Before succumbing to their emotions and lashing out at "evil" institutions for that institution's lawful pursuit of their property, the anti-Wal-Mart crowd would be better served to think through the entire case...and hopefully understand that they are indeed serving their collective brethren by supporting Wal-Mart.

Oh The Irony!

According to the Associated Press, the United States military is paying upwards of $153 million per month in fuel prices. The article happily avoids the root cause of higher fuel prices...and instead uses the opportunity to *suggest* more war! Whatever happened to Wolfowitz's promise that the war and subsequent reconstruction of Iraq would pay for itself in oil revenue?

There are several darkly comedic points made throughout the article, ranging from shamelessly militaristic to downright bizarre. My favorite part comes near the end, when Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (D-MD) suggests the military pursue alternative sources of energy to power the heavily armored vehicles in Iraq. Anyone else envisioning an Abrams tank with one of those cute little hybrid stickers on it?

I also enjoyed the irony involving the Defense Energy Support Center, an agency that purchases fuel on the open market through "private and government-owned oil companies" for use by the military. The agency then sells the oil to the military at a fixed price, which hovers around market prices on Main Street. Kuwait, one of the few countries in the region selling oil to the US at a discount, is naturally one of the agency's best customers. However, the benefits of lower-priced fuel are not fully realized by the military because the discount is eaten up by "administrative costs and fluctuations in the market."

Predictably, the usual myths surrounding the high price of fuel were mentioned. Between Senator Carl Levin lamenting the Iraqi's "putting tens of billions of dollars in the bank while the US spends tens of billions rebuilding their country" and Rep. Gene Taylor's allusion to Kuwait's disingenuous attitude after being "liberated" by the US, no one should be surprised when our present situation takes a turn for the worse, as some experts suggest.

Of course, the author fails to mention the pink elephant in the room: US military presence in the region. Instead, it is taken as fact that the US military is a necessary commodity to ensure a strong Middle East...whatever that means. That the author fails to even entertain the idea that US military presence is a contributing factor to regional instability--and instead promoting even more intervention as the solution (!)--tells you all you need to know about the arrant war propaganda emanating from our "reputable" news sources.

Ron Paul Confronts Ben Bernanke

Although the topic is grim and admittedly boring to most, I still enjoy watching Congressman Ron Paul interrogate/lecture Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. In the clip below, Ron Paul (again) demonstrates why he is the only Presidential candidate who truly understands economics and the disastrous effects the Federal Reserve's policies will have on the economy.

It's a pity that the Paul/Bernanke question-and-answer periods are limited to such short blocks of time. Congressman Paul's line of questioning was beginning to get to the core of Bernanke's flawed economic policies, despite Bernanke's re-phrasing of Paul's questions.

During the first part of the clip, Congressman Paul alludes to increasingly intimate relationship between big business and government, a philosophy defined by Benito Mussolini as "fascism" or "corporatism." Certainly, given the recent bailout of Bear Stearns and the Treasury's proposed increases in Federal Reserve power, one would be hard pressed to make an argument to the contrary.

For a more in-depth examination of the parallels between the notorious fascist governments of the 1930's and 40's, see Lawrence W. Brit's article, "Fascism Anyone?" or, for a prettier version of the same article, see here.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with Congressman Paul's opinions on other issues, he deserves your attention when it comes to economics. As a man well-versed in the writings and teachings of the Austrian School of Economics, his advice and analysis deserves a much larger audience.

Peter Schiff / Glenn Beck

(From March 2008)

I generally don't like Glenn Beck's show, but overall he does seem more open to at least listening to alternative explanations to our economic crisis. To be fair, I did not--nor have I ever--read anything Beck has written (as he alludes to in the clip below)...so my opinion of Beck is far from final.

Schiff's appears about two minutes into the clip. Beck and Schiff go back and forth talking about the residual effects of the housing crunch, then Schiff delivers what I think is the most important line in the interview. At about the 4:50 mark, Schiff explains that Americans are seeing their wealth evaporate, not because the Chinese are eating more food, but because the Fed is printing more money.



I apologize for the Phil DeCarolis advertisements before and after the clip. I don't know who DeCarolis is or what he stands for, and right now I'm too lazy to investigate.

Good for Chelsea Clinton

She's right--it is none of your business.

What right does the public have that grants them access to Bill Clinton's private life? Public official or not, whatever happens between two private, consenting adults is between those two adults and not the public.

Jesse Ventura Speaks Out

The former governor of Minnesota, Jesse Ventura, recently appeared on Larry King and weighed in on several things, notably the Presidential race. Link via Huffington Post.

I haven't watched the entire interview yet, but Ventura always makes for good television. It's a pity that the news media essentially assigns him the role of the obscure, mysterious relative at a family reunion: always entertaining to listen to, but never to be taken seriously.

Admittedly, I do not remember much about Ventura's tenure as Minnesota's governor. In retrospect, considering Minnesota's heavy Democratic influence, Ventura's election should be considered nothing short of incredible. Of course, he enjoyed a high amount of name recognition because of his wrestling career, a theme that no doubt resonated well with younger voters. I watched a few of his debates, read a few things about him in the local newspapers, but was far from a Ventura activist.

However, whenever Ventura's name comes up I am reminded of two things: an exchange with a single mother in rural Minnesota during his gubernatorial campaign, and his appearance on "The Big Idea With Donny Deutsch" in 2005.

I remember being shocked at Ventura's callousness during his exchange with the single mother on the campaign trail. The single mother had asked whether or not a Ventura Administration would support increased child support payments for single mothers. Ventura said no, then asked the woman a rhetorical question (I'm paraphrasing) "Why should the government finance your mistake--what about the other, more responsible people who chose to wait until they could afford to have children?"

Granted, Ventura's categorization of the woman's decision to have a child as a "mistake" is a little harsh. That was my initial reaction--how dare Ventura attack that poor woman for having children! After all, this wasn't some staged WWF interview, this was real life--how could he say something like that? Ventura wasn't known for political tact; in fact, Ventura's Wikipedia page has a lengthy section devoted solely to controversy.

Such naive diagnosis confuses the larger issue, however. Instead of examining Ventura's reasons for opposing increased child support, I chose to get upset. Of course, in my wise old age (ha) I understand why altruistic programs like increased child support payments for single mothers only makes the existing problem worse.

The second Ventura memory I have is more recent. Ventura was doing an interview with Donny Deutsch, and Deutsch asked Ventura for his perspective on the War on Terror. Ventura said he believes Bin Laden has accomplished his objective, and we need to look no further than the usurpation of individual liberties as proof of this fact. Ventura recalls President Bush's post-9/11 admonition that Americans should continue their present lifestyles (and go shopping), for to alter our way of life was to concede victory to the terrorists who attacked us. With a National ID card on our doorstep, increased security at all government buildings and public transportation depots, security cameras everywhere you go, etc. it is difficult to disagree with Ventura's analysis.

It'd be refreshing if one news station took a gamble and installed Ventura as a permanent analyst on one of their shows. While Ventura's political leanings are more centrist than libertarian, his criticism of both parties--and government in general--would be a welcomed reprieve from the reality TV-like "debates" over present candidates.

Banking, Economics, and Consequences in Seven Paragraphs

A concise, accurate missive by Ron Paul from Lew Rockwell's website. As the economic crisis deepens and its affects become increasingly widespread, Paul's Presidential campaign--and his sage advice in years past--will hopefully find a larger audience.

The annoying moniker "doomsday economists" has mistakenly been applied to principled individuals such as Peter Schiff, Murray Sabrin, Ron Paul, etc. who repeatedly speak out against government intervention in the economy. One has to wonder just how bad conditions will have to get before the aforementioned doomsday naysayers will be proven right in the public eye.

It is a shame that, during these unstable times, people are seeking shelter under the false security umbrella of socialism. Millions of people will vote for some form of socialism in November, and I'm guessing the majority of the public supports some form of financial intervention. And guess what? Between the oil company hearings, the Treasury's calls for increased Federal Reserve control in financial markets, and the Fed irresponsibly lowering interest rates, people are going to get what they asked for. Unfortunately, the consequences of a mismanaged economy do not discriminate (save for the extremely wealthy).

Given the above, the great H.L. Mencken warrants mention:

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

Indeed, Mr. Mencken...it's too bad that responsible people also have to go down with the ship.