New Clear Skies

Environmentalism vs. Capitalism?

2010-02-25T10:05:00.003-05:00

This semester, I am taking both an environmental policy studies course, as well as one on international business practice. In my e.p.s. class, economics are actually brought up quite frequently. Many people feel that environmentalism and capitalism are conflicting ideals, and therefore stand in the way of the other's progress...

...Or do they?

The trouble is that capitalism is often automatically subconsciously linked with "dirty" industrialism. This is no longer the case, as air & land quality standards have increased dramatically over the last century. While the industrial sector is still not a "clean" field, it is no longer spewing deadly toxins over our children. However, the subconscious link is still there because many people see capitalists as apathetic about environmental issues. True, the primary goal of a capitalist entity is to earn profit and many environmental ventures are not profitable...But perhaps that is where to start.

The "Green" movement has been the icon of the unspoken partnership between capitalists and environmentalists. From household cleaning supplies to environmentally-friendly hybrid cars, there has been a mass of technological advances which have proven profitable AND represent a step towards a healthier Earth. The trouble is that many environmental-tech proposals for various industries simply aren't profitable, and so they won't bother with development. Many folks are quick to demonize the corporate heads for this, but those folks should (and must) accept that a company has to earn profit in order to survive in the global economy. Instead of proposing large-scale environmental overhauls, environmentalists should focus on ventures that will not only secure the local environment, but will also create jobs/profit. The PurGen One Project is a perfect example of this (Visit http://www.purgenone.com/ for more information. Also, see http://stoppurgencoalplant.org/ for some oppositional views). The overall goal of the plant is to create jobs, earn a profit for SCS Energy, and help reduce the air pollution that still haunts the Greater NY area. Despite having some legitimate flaws which can be studied and improved, it's a step in the right direction for all of us. Until we can learn to make solar/wind energy systems more efficient, we must work with the resources we have. We cannot rely on empty standards set by the U.N. for emissions in respective countries. This is completely unfeasible in countries like India and China, who are in a sort of mini-industrial age and are economically developing at an incredibly fast rate. Instead, we should focus on aiding ALL sectors of national infrastructure, not just one or the other.

In studying this, we can see that environmentalism and capitalism do not have to remain "fields of opposition". There are numerous proposals which might not be perfect, but nonetheless stand to improve not just the quality of our wallet space, but also the very air we breathe.

The State of Things

2010-01-18T06:14:00.002-05:00

Hey, everyone. Sorry for the long hiatus; final exams and winter break yanked me away from writing for a while there. I thought I'd take a moment and reflect on what's been happening around us recently.

California is considering legalizing marijuana not just for medical use, but also recreational. Well, it's about damn time. There are many issues in the political realm which create completely understandable debate. I have never and will never be able to comprehend why marijuana is still illegal. It has not killed one person in the history of its usage. It's national decriminalization could bring billions of dollars in tax revenue. It's not terribly different than alcohol prohibition. It's okay to smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol (which, combined, claimed over 400,000 lives in 2000; Source: http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30), but marijuana remains illegal. California is taking the first step towards what could (finally) be an end to one of the most hypocritical policies of our government. It makes me very happy that California is remembering the wonders of capitalism, and that common sense just might rule the day.

Gay marriage is up for consideration in NJ and NY. After all these years, gay folks might finally have the freedom to do what they should have been free to do all along. Too long has the government stuck it's nose into peoples' bedrooms. Too long has Congress suppressed individual freedom because of their religious and "moral" scruples. What they had truly forgotten (or perhaps ignored) is that our country was founded on the principles of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Throughout history, our society has, sadly, been selective on who that applies to. But hopefully, that era will end soon.

Obama is proposing a tax to "recover" the bailout money. Those of you who have read some of my previous articles probably can guess how I feel about this one. OK...So the administration spends over $800 billion on an absurd bailout scheme for companies that completely ignored the warning signs from Wall Street analysts (and, in my eyes, don't deserve to continue operating. I know they won't be disbanded, but this proposal has no punishments of any kind for their irresponsibility). The money still isn't even close to being fully utilized. And now they want to levy a tax on those companies for accepting government help? Other than massive layoffs, we've seen almost no change in the business practices of these companies. That tells me that they're still financially in the toilet, because if they had the money to pay back the government, the government wouldn't need to impose a tax. Something stinks on this one. I'm not quite sure what to make of it, but I'll keep reading. Warren Buffett had some good thoughts on this one: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/billionaire_CP8lVyYIT9iq5Z1jWPcy4H

The war stumbles forward. *Sigh*.

So there's some good and bad, like always. Such is life, I suppose.

Now that my winter break is over, I'll be posting a bit more regularly. Thanks for reading, folks.

The Continuing Antifederalist Thought

2009-10-18T11:39:00.015-04:00

"Anti-federalism" is an interesting word. What's interesting about it is that the word "anti-federalism" has all but been replaced by the word "libertarianism". In its essence, the word signifies a desire to stop the expansion of government. Modern libertarians in our country are pursuing the exact same ideal. If you do a search on the term "anti-federalism", you'll find that nearly every resulting site contains information about the 18th century scholars who opposed the Constitution in favor of the Articles of Confederation (which gave more power to the states instead of the Fed). However, I don't believe that anti-federalist thought stopped with the ratification of the Constitution.

Strangely, the term "anti-federalism" isn't quite correct. The dictionary defines "federalism" as "the distribution of power in an organization (as a government) between a central authority and the constituent units". This was precisely the goal of the Anti-Federalist Movement in the 18th century. So, in fact, they should have been called the "Anti-Government-Expansionists", because while federalism was indeed aligned with their goal, the expansion of the Fed was not.

Anyway, back to the point...

It can be said that libertarians are the contemporary equivalent of the anti-federalists. Why? Because we too believe in the minimization of government role in our daily lives. The threat as the anti-federalists saw it was the Constitution without a bill of rights (which was indeed later written). When a Constitution including a Bill of Rights was passed, their organized movement was essentially finished. However, their stances on the expansion of government were not. The only thing that has changed is the threat. It is no longer the Constitution itself which threatens our liberty, but the government which has evolved from that era. Tax after tax, foreign military action after foreign military action...If our founding fathers saw what the Fed looked like today, they would likely vomit. Instead of maintaining the intended distance between their intentions from our own personal ones, they now have their hands dipped in health care, the automobile industry, international defense policy, and our wallets, to name a few. The only duty that the central government was supposed to have (as far as tax dollars go) was to ensure that our civil liberty and security are upheld. That's it. These days, they seem to want to find any excuse to spend more of our taxes on pork.

Let's compare gov't localization and centralization.

The original duties of centralized government, as previously stated, were to guard our borders, ensure justice, and secure our personal liberties. In this, they have been very successful. Our military is one of the most powerful on the planet, public roads and schools are in good shape, and we are certainly a free-minded people. However, there is heated debate (that has been rekindled this year) about whether or not Keynesian economics is the answer to financial crises. Supporters of KE will say that the free-market is slow to recover from such crises, and that it promotes financial instability at home. However, we have seen how KE has historically been a drain on nations' private sectors, and how concentrated government control on a nation's economic structure can lead to decreased civil liberties. There is also the issue of forcing every citizen to pay into certain expenditures and activities with which some of us might not agree. This is unfair and unnecessary.

Now in most localized governments, things run a lot smoother. Most politically-conscious folks have seen, met, or know personally their locally elected representatives (mayors, county freeholders, etc). Local officials live in the area which they govern, and as a result, they are much more knowledgeable of the financial needs and social culture of that area. There is also a great deal less red tape when we try to get something done locally, as opposed to going through the state or federal government (every American has experience on that point!). Local taxes generally go toward what they're supposed to, like the town's schools, road maintenance, etc. Our federal taxes, on the other hand, go towards lining Congressional pockets, damaging private businesses, sticking our nose in other nation's affairs, fighting prodigious wars, and the like. Which would you rather pay into?

The reason we liberty-loving people so vehemently resist the Fed is because we see what they have become. We see how they try, year after year, to influence more aspects of the country's infrastructure. While it may have been given a new name, the anti-federalist tradition will not subside as long as the government continues its own tradition of monetary waste and international interference.

Awww, She Gave It Away.....

2009-10-13T01:33:00.002-04:00

The same woman who said that Cuba has a great health care system. Thank you, Comrade Waters!

I thought it was funny that she was more cautious about using the word "socializing" than she was about saying "the gov't taking over your companies". As if the latter were less threatening.

This Is What I Come Back To...?!

2009-10-09T10:14:00.002-04:00

Hey, everyone. Sorry for the massive gap in posting; school had me held up pretty tight for a while there. The beginning of the semester is always rough.

So I come back to the arena and I find this in my news byte: Obama has just been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

I actually got a little nauseous when I read this. It says he won it for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." Strange, because one of the biggest themes of his Presidency has been antagonizing the Middle East.

What the Nobel Prize Committee just proved to the world is that if everyone (the media) likes you, you can win the Nobel Prize.

Cult of Personality

2009-09-24T18:29:00.002-04:00

When a ruler tries to enamor well-versed adults through the media, it's one thing. But when public schools start doing this to children, it fills me with an indescribable rage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zrsl8o4ZPo

Every schoolteacher who participated in this activity and the superintendent that condoned it should be fired.

Spirit of Debate

2009-09-23T17:06:00.004-04:00

I had a great exchange this week with some of my pro-universalized-health buddies. I posted a terrific article by my friend-in-bloggage, Stephen Smith, and got quite a response from folks regarding whether health care is a privilege or a right. I stated my belief that it is a privilege, not a right. Here's the conversation that ensued. You decide who won:

Friend 1 - Using that logic, many rights you have as an American citizen would also be considered a mere privilege. The article states that "people have the right to desire whatever they want, but this does not grant them a right to the thing itself, no matter how much they may want or even need it." If that's the case, then you can throw your right to free speech out the window. You can also forget about your right to vote.

Me - The author is talking about goods and services, like computers, health care, gun permits, drivers' licenses, higher education, etc. You're referring to inherent traits of democracy. Voting and free speech are not goods and services, as they cannot be traded or bought. They are something that is fought and died for.

Health care is something that people buy. Therefore, it is a good/service. Analogically, if my car breaks down and my mother is sick in upstate NY and I have no other way of getting to her, I cannot up and demand a competitively-priced car from the government, declaring it as my right just because my own car broke down. You see where I'm coming from?

Friend 2 - why do firefighters put out fires?

Me - I know where you're going with that question, and no, we do not have a RIGHT to having them put out a fire in our houses. We do, however, pay taxes which in turn pay their salary. Therefore, firefighting is indeed a community service in which we are all entitled because we already pay into it. The same applies to the police.

If health care should be our right, then why aren't electricity, faucet water, and natural gas our rights as citizens?

Friend 2 - all of those things you named should be rights!

Me - Then you know what, I want the government to give me a new Ford Focus. 'Cuz it's my right. Cars are necessary to our survival, right? They're not goods, no sir. How about a Blackberry while we're at it? Or a PC? You can't just demand a convenience as your right.

Friend 3 - this author is a jack ass!. Healthcare is something that we want because we think it is "REALLY NIFTY?" Everyone has a right to good health, whether it be better educated on nutrition etc or the very desperate who need help in paying the ridiculous amounts of $$$ to save their lives or their loved ones. You guys are losing me on this "debate"

Me - Read all of the arguments in this thread carefully, and you'll understand exactly why it's a debate.

Do I think it's f-ed up that insurance companies drop cancer patients? Absolutely. But socializing it is NOT the answer. Making me pay for health care for people who destroy their own bodies (hard drugs, smoking, etc) is absurd, and I won't stand for it. That's why I say what I say. We need to address the existing problems, not destroy the private insurance industry.

It's like I said before...If health care, which is a good/service, becomes a right of the people, then what's to stop us from demanding a tax-funded cellphone service? It's certainly a great tool in case of emergencies, just like health care. So what's stopping us from demanding it as a RIGHT, regardless of how it might perform compared to say, Verizon (http://cell-phone-providers-review.toptenreviews.com)?

Friend 2 - so, you agree that everyone should have healthcare except for addicts? how many people are destroying their bodies from drugs/smoking as a percentage of the population? certainly not close to a majority. shouldn't we enable the addicts get help instead of letting them get sick? the NY quit-smoking hotline is doing very well i hear. isn't it better for everyone that everyone is able bodied and can work, allowing more people to actually contribute to the pool of taxes?

and seriously, no one believes the straw men you keep throwing up with 'tax-funded cell phones', 'govt cars', etc. anyone with some common sense can see why healthcare is different and separate.

did you know, illness causes 50% of all personal bankruptcies?

Me - 1) Why? Why different and separate? Isn't health care an investment, like a car or a computer? Don't people buy policies to fit their circumstances? You're bringing sentimentality into this issue, and that's the problem with so many people involved in this debate. People will immediately say "Well I was injured and had to pay $___ thousands of dollars! I shouldn't have to go broke paying my med bills!" And they're right. But they're ignoring glaring abuse by folks which creates that fear in doctors, making them recommend excessive treatment and driving up prices. It's a vicious circle; let's work on THAT instead of destroying half of the insurance industry. Eliminating frivolous lawsuits are the first step.
2) Why should I have to pay the medical expenses of people who abuse their own bodies? Maybe you're that kind and have that money to spend, but I'm not and I don't.

Friend 2 - you already do pay for the medical expenses of people who abuse their bodies, in the form of horribly overpriced health insurance to offset the other people in the system.

oh, and here is my point all wrapped up for you: http://www.metafilter.com/84232/A-very-good-article-on-health-care-economics#2700979

Me - And you could have picked a much better article to make your point!
-The Federal Reserve is one of the biggest antagonists of the economic crisis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0NYBTkE1yQ...Yeah, I want that f-ing moron managing my money. Also read "Meltdown" by Thomas Woods).
-The police don't stand guard outside our houses, so they're not protecting anything.
-The weather service is horribly inaccurate.
-The FDA does nothing to protect us (http://www.cspinet.org/new/200606271.html).
-Almost every corporation uses UPS/Fed-Ex, because they're faster and more reliable. Personal warehouse work experience on that point.
-There's a new story at least once a week about how inefficient our national defense network is.

There was more to the convo, but these comments comprised the actual debate portion. I'm glad to see that there are still many people out there who might disagree with me, but who still think about their positions and do some research before engaging in debate. I wish there were more people like that in Congress!

The Rabbit Hole

2009-09-21T17:10:00.003-04:00

Well, it's that time again.

I don't think anyone can deny that unemployment, although (unfortunately) a necessity, is a form of legitimized redistribution of wealth resulting from a lack of controlled spending/lack of savings by individuals. While this system exists, it draws funding from federal coffers. But how long can we keep supporting it? Our nation, though wealthy, does not have an infinite supply of taxpayer money. Jimmy McDermott states that his bill won't add to our deficit, but then again, every politician with an agenda makes that claim.

We have to step back and ask ourselves...How far down the rabbit hole are we willing to tumble before we realize that welfare, no matter what form, is not the answer?

Can't Hurt To Hope

2009-09-19T16:33:00.003-04:00

Obama has an opportunity now to correct a great deal of global errors he has made in his tenure as President so far. I doubt he will listen to reason, as the 2,000-watt international lobbyist stereo system drowns out our freedom-loving dial radio, but this is a perfect chance to announce to the world that we will no longer tolerate the status quo. We must cease and desist our position as the "police state". It is killing us both at home and abroad. The wars have cost us nearly $908 trillion. WE COULD HAVE FLOWN TO THE MOON AND BACK 900,000,000 TIMES WITH THAT MONEY. Let that sink in for a bit.

Our policy of intervention not only hurts us financially, but diplomatically as well. We are one of the most hated nations around the world, and why not? We've been sticking our nose in everyone's business since after World War 2. This is not just with respect to our military; many studies on the effects of foreign aid show that it doesn't help at all...Sometimes it even makes matters worse.

The world needs to solve its own problems...God knows we've got plenty of our own.

Amazing

2009-09-15T11:41:00.002-04:00

Read the entire article here. It's incredible how the delusions of recovery are still reigning supreme in the White House.

A Bit Off, But A Start

2009-09-14T10:24:00.004-04:00

Sen. Baucus has released his idea for an amended health care proposal. For the most part, it's an improvement, but there are still a few kinks I'd like to see worked out:

1) The cost is still far too high. "Under $900 billion" could mean $899 billion. I don't believe that the resources they intend to use for funding will amount to that much over 10 years. Even Maxie said that that amount was too high in Obama's proposal, so his plan isn't changing that at all.

2) Cuts to Medicare and Medicaid and changes for eligibility. Senior citizens and young cancer patients will shit all over him for that clause.

Other than that, this is a big improvement over the prior proposal. Baucus has changed the management landscape from a gov't-controlled program to one that is run by non-profit organizations. Takes our prodigious gov't out of the equation, and gives nice tax advantages for those org's, too.

If our country insists on having universal health care, at least this proposal will remove a great deal of gov't influence and will increase our taxes far less.

Can I Play With Madness?

2009-09-14T00:58:00.002-04:00

When will he stop? When will he realize that every fiscal move he's made since his inauguration has hurt this country? That instead of healing the global economic crisis, he's rubbing salt on it's wounds?

This new tariff not only harms China, but ourselves as well. By percentage, we're increasing the tax on Chinese imports almost 900%. So not only is he risking damaging the already fragile relationship we have, but he's also dropping a bomb on the Chinese economy. We might as well have just placed a sanction on them. It probably would have yielded less confusion.

It's like he can't help himself lately. He claims that he wants to mediate between the two sides and find common ground, but his actions speak entirely different tales. For instance, he hasn't invited Republicans to the White House to discuss health care reform since the Spring. What a great mediator!

I wouldn't be surprised if the Chinese do indeed retaliate financially. They'd be entirely justified, and maybe the slap would teach Obama a lesson about respect and cooperation.

I Hate To Say It...

2009-09-14T00:56:00.001-04:00

...But he's right. Time to come home, boss.

Wrong Message

2009-09-12T23:33:00.003-04:00

I am saddened by the outcome of the protests today. I had an image in my head of intelligent people standing together, protesting against economic injustices in a sane manner. Instead, I see images (even from my most trusted news sites) of people screaming "Socialist! Communist!" and holding pictures comparing Obama to Hitler and Osama bin Laden. I am saddened because this is exactly what DIDN'T need to happen.

The greatest cause of the growing rift between conservative America and liberal America is misinformation. Stereotyping has taken a stronger grip on both sides; conservatives appear as moronic redneck conspiracy theorists, and liberals are immediately accused of being "socialist commies". I know this is true because I hear it in nearly every political discussion I have with Dem and Rep friends/family. The media (which you all know I love so much >_>) is heavily to blame for this, but the people at these protests are also instigating the stereotypes. Many of them are horribly uneducated and prove it themselves by carrying signs of Obama with a Hitler moustache.

Don't get me wrong: I'm happy that people finally banded together and stood up to government waste...But I know what impression it's going to yield, and I'm afraid it will split Congress even further...

I wish Ron Paul and Jeff Flake would start speaking up.

A Word on Conspiracy Pundits.

2009-09-11T12:47:00.002-04:00

Every year when 9/11 rolls around, there's always that batch of conspiracy theories and New World Order warnings that shower on us from the blogosphere, networking sites, even the mainstream media at times. I'm awfully sick of it, and I'll tell you why.

Did the government know more than they told us on 9/11? Sure, why not. Do they know where Osama is? Absolutely (although they can't get to him for diplomatic/political reasons). But think about this...The multitude of men and women working for our government/military have families themselves. And I'm pretty sure that not all of them are evil sadists. Given these reasonable assumptions, do you really think they would allow the government they work for to murder 3,000 people? And for what? Just to waste 5,000 more lives and $908 trillion? Give me a break.

Now to the good stuff: the NWO theories. These are the cream of the insanity crop. It's defenders will say that every event since the Kennedy assassination is nothing short of a buildup to institute a "New World Order" (in the style of 1984 from what I see) in which a totalitarian regime will take over the world. I think these people have been reading too many comic books. One group efficiently ruling the world is ludicrous in itself, but I'll break this down on a much smaller level: let's look at just our country. We are the most armed citizens in the world (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0709-03.htm). Also take into consideration how small a percentage of the populace our military is compared to say, North Korea or Estonia. Then, throw in the Oath Keepers and those members of our military with hearts and minds who would never EVER follow an order to round us up into death camps. It'll never happen.

So let's ease off on the H.G. Wells fantasies for the day, mmkay? Enjoy your freedom!!

Sky is NOT the Limit

2009-09-09T19:02:00.003-04:00

The first paragraph says it best: If this decision goes through, our government will be wide open to corporate infiltration.

There is a simple and very significant reason why corporations are limited in their donations to candidates for any office: to minimize sway over officials on any given issue. If a tobacco company, for example, can make limitless donations to a Presidential candidate, and that candidate gets elected, then our new President will most assuredly be "pro-cigarette". The same goes for any corporate lobbyists. Make no mistake: politicians are very receptive of money (perhaps even considered bribes in some cases), especially if that money will aid them in succeeding in elections. The reason the Supreme Court has been fighting to limit donations for over a century is self-explanatory. Corporate financing of government operations will undoubtedly lead to the disintegration of democracy and any chance of voters wielding the influence our forefathers envisioned.

The Party of Values

2009-09-09T19:01:00.000-04:00

http://www.breitbart.tv/ca-assemblyman-caught-on-hot-mic-offering-lewd-details-of-affair-with-lobbyist/

I'm...Too Sexy For Public Health Care

2009-09-09T18:58:00.002-04:00

No surprise.

Wise Words From an Era Forgotten

2009-09-07T17:04:00.003-04:00

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
---Thomas Jefferson

Bad Impressions

2009-09-07T16:36:00.003-04:00

More fuel for my undying hatred of the mainstream news.

Every corporate news organization (except Fox, which is unfortunate because they're just as misguided on many other topics) is spreading nothing but misinformation about our movement. At this point, it is purely malicious. There can be no debate about that. They do not take any account on how many Democrats have shown up to the tea parties and other protests. Of course not! It would destroy their credibility. Sadly, most people have their daily news reports spoon-fed to them by these ignorant cowards. Yes, cowards. Every time a free-market capitalist, libertarian, or an anarchist has debated a Democrat or Republican pundit, they have soundly annihilated them. Because of this, most of these news media asshats are afraid that they'll look like fools and Americans will get wise to White House antics.

p.s. - I love this guy.

People should always be sure to read from independent news sites. Even if they're biased a certain way, they are done by the last investigative journalists left on the Internet, so you can be sure they're more accurate. There are many of these sites, just look them up on Google. I recommend the Associated Press, which is essentially the news before it gets edited.

Make a Stand

2009-09-05T14:06:00.003-04:00

The Oath Keepers are marching on Washington next Saturday. Read about it here.

We'll make them hear us all the way down Independence Avenue! Be there, and join the fight.

Funny Talkin'

2009-09-03T20:23:00.002-04:00

Sorry about the lack of posting; school's been starting up again and it's been tough finding some time to write.

I've been noticing a language trend in the media lately regarding the health care proposal. They insist on referring to it as "universal" health care, or "health care for everyone", etc. instead of calling it what it is: socialized. It's not the right thing for our country, but there is nothing evil about the term. It's not even a political-correctness issue; it is what it is...Or is it?

What's likely happening is that many older people would think ill of the term "socialized", as it brings back memories of the Red Scare and propaganda of the Cold War era. So, this may be a communication tactic to avoid such insinuations. However, the problem with that lies in the semantics behind the aforementioned terms they're using instead. Those terms make it sound wonderful: Health care for everyone! Yay!!! And most people who support the health care proposal have not and will not do any research on it's consequences whatsoever (I only know one friend who actually did). So they'll absorb the information provided by the government like sponges...And why not? "Universal" health care sounds terrific! Everyone's covered? No tax increase? No trillion-dollar price tag? No horrors of socialized health care like in the UK? Awesome!

Unfortunately, the deeply-rooted costs of the proposal are being hidden behind crafty false labels which enable the media to drum up support while simultaneously shutting out the crazy right-wingers.

Michael Moore: A Douche Story

2009-08-30T10:56:00.002-04:00

So Michael Moore is releasing a new movie entitled "Capitalism: A Love Story". From watching the trailer, I can conclude that this is yet another poorly-substantiated work from a very disenchanted individual who should probably be living in China.

I have always chafed upon the mention of Michael Moore's name, simply because he's a douche. He's not a douche because he has an opinion; he has every right to express it. He's not a douche because he confronts political opponents; this is also the right of the citizens which they govern. He is a douche because he distorts statistics and historical facts to meet his own ends. That is the WORST kind of activist. The sad part is that millions of people actually buy into his bullshit! The first movie of his that I watched in full was "Bowling for Columbine". I watched as he portrayed guns as the ultimate evil and the killers of children. He made Charleton Heston look like the Devil, even after Heston successfully rebutted most of Moore's complaints. At no point in the movie did Moore cite any professional studies regarding the effect of gun presence on the populace. This is probably because if he showed the results of such a study, it would prove him wrong (see Florida r.t.c. laws 1987-present)

The same is illustrated in the trailer for his new movie. He walks along Wall Street, harassing corporate officials at each major building he passes...Without any substantiated fact or even an attempt at such. This man is the bane of intelligent discourse. He is an irresponsible asshole for putting out biased misinformation regarding America's issues, and I believe he does it solely for profit. If he actually gave a shit about and believed in liberalism, he would defend it with research and facts. But, he never does, so I'm inclined to believe that he is just another "celebutard".

He also just recently jumped on the bandwagon with Rep. Diane Watson saying that Cuban health care is amazing. I would LOVE to see some testimonials to that from Cubans who don't have a gun pointed to their head.

John Stossel already pummeled Moore's utopia, but I would love to see Moore debate someone like Murray Rothbard (were he still alive) or Lew Rockwell. It would be a show for the ages.

Our Economy

2009-08-30T02:06:00.002-04:00

Getting better since 2007.

I'm glad the Fed's delusions are at least happy ones.

Race Bait

2009-08-28T16:26:00.002-04:00

Yet another sad example of prominent black folks in our country using race as an excuse to avoid confrontation about the Democrats' failed health care proposal. Leftists are running out of any meaningful defense to intelligently-presented debate. It's depressing how stubbornly they refuse to admit that this proposal will weaken our country in every way possible.

Hallway Health Care

2009-08-26T07:52:00.003-04:00

This is a fucking abomination. And the Obama administration wants to emulate that?

Money for Nothing

2009-08-24T10:59:00.000-04:00

The sad part? They'll get it.

The Case for Voting

2009-08-22T13:03:00.002-04:00

I had a debate with a friend from school the other day about the reasoning behind not voting in government elections. He claimed he's never voted in an election because he feels his vote doesn't make any difference. That argument, I felt, was silly and contradicted the basic principles of democracy. Of course everyone's vote counts! If everyone thought like that, there would be no demonstrable voice from the public, giving way to authoritarianism once again. However, there is a much more logical and thoughtfully presented argument for his side: perhaps abstaining from voting might help to fight the government's bureaucracy and expansion. My buddy-in-bloggage Stewart Browne wrote an essay about the subject on "Strike the Root" here. I did some thinking on the subject, and thought I'd offer a rebuttal to the general argument regarding the issue.

Votes are Voices. As I stated before, voting gives people a voice that could not come through other forms of government. I am and will always be a vocal opponent of government abuse and bureaucracy, but I AM a fervent supporter of democracy in it's purest form. But that's a much deeper argument for another day, hehe. (ahem) Anyway...

Where there is a lack of democracy, there is authoritarianism. This has been demonstrated innumerable times throughout human history. If we surrender our votes, we give up all right to be heard by government officials. The percentage of voting among citizens is already the lowest in America's history, and we are seeing the effects of it everyday. Because we are no longer in control, our politicians are doing whatever they please without any concern for what we, the people that elected them, think. Some might argue that anarchy/absolute independence can be achieved if we "leave" the system, but history has proved that the inactivity or discontent of a populace provides the perfect opportunity for dictatorship.

I firmly believe that most people call themselves Democrats or Republicans because they were brought up that way and simply buy into ideologies without reading into them. I was raised by both a staunch conservative and an old-school liberal hippie. I didn't really buy into either of their philosophies, but I did agree with fiscal conservatism and strong social freedoms. So I did a little research, and discovered libertarianism. How many people do you think actually look into the philosophies they claim to agree with? Sadly, not many. Discourse with Democrats and Republicans is completely stale, because most of them simply regurgitate what the mainstream media feeds them. Their parties' respective reigns have ended.

My point is: libertarians now have the fiercest momentum this country has seen since probably the American Revolution. Ron Paul's campaign was the match that lit the fuse: he brought a light upon us that was unprecedented. So you see, the trick is not to abstain from voting, but to continue the push into Washington's bloodstream. It's already begun...More and more people are beginning to recognize our philosophy for what it is: a step towards TRUE "power to the people".

The more people that know about us, the stronger our movement will get.

The stronger our movement gets, the more libertarians will be elected.

The more libertarians that are elected, the closer we get to personal freedom.

But this can only be done if we truly believe in democratic process, which means voting. Let's start at the base, and work our way up. Even if it takes 100 years...If it spells the end of government expansion, it'll be worth it. We'll take some heavy losses, granted, but no victory comes without defeats.

A Radical Change in Position

2009-08-20T17:49:00.002-04:00

Well, this is new. Only a month ago, the President himself said that the goal of the proposed health care reform is to get everyone covered.

I Got Your Probe Right Here.

2009-08-19T12:45:00.002-04:00

What balls they have.

How 'bout a probe on congressional spending?

Incalculable Suffering

2009-08-17T15:01:00.003-04:00

Nature listens to the UN, you know.

It's so funny when they try to look useful.

Saskatoon Scramble

2009-08-17T10:23:00.003-04:00

Another example of just how "healthy" and "optimal" socialized health care is.

We've had a good step forward in the health care debate...They're thinking about removing the "public option" language. Granted, this will piss off just about every Democrat in the country, but at least we won't be forced to pay for others' privileges. Even if they kept the public option but included a private one, that would be an improvement.

English Dystopia

2009-08-16T07:34:00.004-04:00

Oh noes! It seems the UK conservatives' Utopian image of health care is coming apart at the seams.

Here is another aggregator with information on how awful British health care is. Whenever someone tries to tell you that socialized health care is the best in the world, let them take a look.

Voices Devalued

2009-08-15T12:11:00.003-04:00

It's sad...In many articles I read about the Obama administration's response to criticism and protest over the health care plan, they accuse corporate insurance rivals of "sending" people to protest at conferences and town meetings. Similarly, they accuse protestors of merely attempting to incite riots instead of making intelligent discourse. And the worst part is that the media caters to this line of thought. Naturally, 85% of media corporations are liberal-leaning, but I don't believe that liberalism is synonymous with dishonesty. And the same applies to conservatism.

So why is the media allowing this bullshit? Why are they focusing on the few protests where people have begun screaming and pushing, when the vast majority of protestors are calmly and collectively stepping forward to voice their concerns? Like I said before, considering the media's leftist slant, I can understand why they're trying to push favor towards Obama, but there's a line. This is blatant disrespect of journalistic integrity.

Bottom line...Protesting has all but lost it's reverence and value. This nationwide debate has ruined the image of people banding together to voice what they believe to be right. Now they're treated like hired thugs.

Hypocrisy of the Year

2009-08-14T22:56:00.004-04:00

Fast forward to 2:07.

This is the same woman that's been calling protestors "un-American" this month.

Some Simple Numbers

2009-08-12T12:31:00.005-04:00

Number of cancer patients, either current or recovering, in US - about 12 million.

Aggregate cost of cancer treatment/aftermath in 2008 - $228.1 billion.

Projected cancer patients in 2020 - 18.2 million.

You do the math. And this is just cancer; I didn't even account for the other major diseases.

National debt as of today - $11.7 trillion.

Cost of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars - $897.2 trillion.

I wonder if Obama and Geithner have even seen these numbers. Or even care.

Sources:
1) http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-03-13-cancer-boom_N.htm
2) http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
3) http://www.cancer.org/docroot/MIT/content/MIT_3_2X_Costs_of_Cancer.asp
4) http://www.nationalpriorities.org/

4 Months to Save the Planet

2009-08-12T12:31:00.001-04:00

Yeah. And the world will end in 2012.

White Lies

2009-08-12T00:01:00.003-04:00

You WISH that AARP had your back.

You WISH that seniors would just lay down and accept this bill that blatantly discriminates against older patients.

You WISH that all of us were sheep and weren't protesting night and day to stop a bill that will condemn cancer/long-term disease patients to death.

Well...guess what.

Lost Cause?

2009-08-10T12:40:00.003-04:00

I'm not sure what our gov't is hoping to achieve through talks with North Korea. So far, they have demonstrated a complete unwillingness to work with other nations and to listen to any incentives offered by the UN to dismantle their nukes. So why are we bothering?

Here's the thing about North Korea. The people there have no voice. Their only real face-to-the-world is Kim Jong-Il, who is a 100% grade-A nutcase. The concerns of his citizens don't matter to him. All that matters is that North Korea looks tough to everyone else. We'll never reason with them, because the only voice we hear is that of fanatical jerkoffs who like to brag about their inflatable 10-inch dicks. I've said this many times: they won't use their nukes, because half the world would come crashing down on them if they tried.

So let's focus on our own shit and leave them to their devices. I'm sure Ms. Clinton has better things to do.

I Am An American

2009-08-10T12:13:00.003-04:00

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/08/unamerican-attacks-cant-derail-health-care-debate-.html

Protesting is "un-American"? Really? Well, I'll be damned. Because I'm pretty sure protesting is how our country was founded.

It's funny how the media only shows the noisy, obnoxious town meetings and ignores the other 98% of the country's political forums. The county freeholders and local city meetings by me in Jersey aren't loud and violent. And I'm sure they're not in 98% of the rest of the country. But you'll never hear that in the (liberal) news.

This lady is really delusional. She actually believes that this health care bill will have every American citizen covered and secure. Whether it does or doesn't (it won't, because the Fed can't afford it...unless they raise taxes, of course ;) ), they could drum up so much more support by simply removing the language in the bill that strips private insurance options from employers after the bill takes effect. Outlawing our right to choose between private and public insurance is outright authoritarian.

Ms. Botox, YOU are the un-American one here.

Epiphany

2009-08-08T22:25:00.002-04:00

Check out the National Priorities Project link on my sidebar. It's really amazing/scary.

I just discovered that as the amount of money we've spent on these two ridiculous wars since 2001, we could have given every American citizen $3,000.

How's that for a stimulus?

Whores.

2009-08-08T11:03:00.002-04:00

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/07/31/us/politics/0731-sotomayor-vote.html?em

I'm not a Republican, but given the comments and votes of the other 31 Senators...Why do I get the feeling that the 9 voting "yes" only did so because they want to get re-elected?

Quite a hooker behavior if ever I saw one. Especially in light of approving an active bigot (Ricci v. DeStefano) and anti-free-marketer (Granholm v. Heald) to the Supreme Court.

Health Care Reasonings

2009-08-05T12:37:00.003-04:00

To nationalize or not to nationalize...

Health care certainly needs reform, that's for sure. The way it stands, people wait on line for hours, insurance often won't fully cover life-saving treatments, and many people can't afford insurance at all. I have a number of friends who's insurance companies essentially dropped them when they needed serious treatments because they were too expensive.

However, I'm not sure nationalizing health care would make any difference. In fact, it will likely make matters worse. I read countless stories of the horrors of socialized health care from Canadians and Europeans alike. Waiting for endless hours to see a doctor, only being allowed to see certain physicians who might not necessarily be the best, and being led along by gov't bureaucrats who don't know jack-shit about medicine. I sympathize with people who can't afford insurance, but we have to remember...Health care is a privilege, not a right. The same way that Social Security money is a privilege earned through years of work. In an ideal capitalist society, we have to work for what we have. Nothing is handed out. Unfortunately, we live in a partially socialist society where redistribution of wealth takes the form of welfare and unemployment (necessary evils, but evils nonetheless).

Another problem with this bill is the destruction of competition. One of the most important aspects of our economy, the one which keeps it alive and fighting in an unstable global market, is competition. The consumer has choices; there is no legal monopolies. However, if this bill were to be passed, it would destroy any incentive companies had to stay with a private plan. Most employers would drop the private plans in a heartbeat for the gov't plan. So, what happens to the private insurance industry? Stocks will plummet, their revenues will dry up, and they'll have to fold.

So much for creating jobs.

Welcome!

2009-08-03T20:45:00.007-04:00

Hey there, everyone! This is my new blog, spawned from the demise of "Stay Out Of My Wallet!". I'll be dishing out liberty in mass quantities from a Jersey boy's perspective. And I'll throw some other good stuff in there, too.

I love to hear from people. Let me know if there's anything I can do to improve the site.

I hope you enjoy your visit. Come back soon!