An expedition to study seamounts in the Indian Ocean has discovered some new species, including some squid....

No details on the maneuverings, but I have it confirmed that current Provost and Academic VP of DSU, Dr Harry Williams, has been announced as DSU's next President.

In my (always humble) opinion, the best choice available to them.

Good luck, Dr Williams. I look forward to working with you in your new role.

Yet another interview with me. This one is audio, and was conducted in Rotterdam in October....

Funny: career fair fail....

... which he cast as if given in a speech by President Obama:

1. We have no partner in Afghanistan. The control of the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai hardly extends beyond the embattled capital of Kabul. He himself has just been returned to office in a presidential election in which voting fraud on an almost unimaginably large scale was the order of the day. His administration is believed to have lost all credibility with the Afghan people.

2. Afghanistan floats in a culture of corruption. This includes President Karzai’s administration up to its highest levels and also the warlords who control various areas and, like the Taliban insurgency, are to some degree dependent for their financing on opium, which the country produces in staggering quantities. Afghanistan, in fact, is not only a narco-state, but the leading narco-state on the planet.

3. Despite billions of dollars of American money poured into training the Afghan security forces, the army is notoriously understrength and largely ineffective; the police forces are riddled with corruption and held in contempt by most of the populace.

4. The Taliban insurgency is spreading and gaining support largely because the Karzai regime has been so thoroughly discredited, the Afghan police and courts are so ineffective and corrupt, and reconstruction funds so badly misspent. Under these circumstances, American and NATO forces increasingly look like an army of occupation, and more of them are only likely to solidify this impression.

5. Al-Qaeda is no longer a significant factor in Afghanistan. The best intelligence available to me indicates — and again, whatever their disagreements, all my advisors agree on this — that there may be perhaps 100 al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan and another 300 in neighboring Pakistan. As I said in March, our goal has been to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and on this we have, especially recently, been successful. Osama bin Laden, of course, remains at large, and his terrorist organization is still a danger to us, but not a $100 billion-plus danger.

6. Our war in Afghanistan has become the military equivalent of a massive bail-out of a firm determined to fail. Simply to send another 40,000 troops to Afghanistan would, my advisors estimate, cost $40-$54 billion extra dollars; eighty thousand troops, more than $80 billion. Sending more trainers and advisors in an effort to double the size of the Afghan security forces, as many have suggested, would cost another estimated $10 billion a year. These figures are over and above the present projected annual costs of the war — $65 billion — and would ensure that the American people will be spending $100 billion a year or more on this war, probably for years to come. Simply put, this is not money we can afford to squander on a failing war thousands of miles from home.

7. Our all-volunteer military has for years now shouldered the burden of our two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even if we were capable of sending 40,000-80,000 more troops to Afghanistan, they would without question be servicepeople on their second, third, fourth, or even fifth tours of duty. A military, even the best in the world, wears down under this sort of stress and pressure.

Sobering truths that our leaders seem unwilling to acknowledge....

Interesting: The researchers say they've found a vulnerability in U.S. law enforcement wiretaps, if only theoretical, that would allow a surveillance target to thwart the authorities by launching what amounts to a denial-of-service (DoS) attack against the connection between the phone company switches and law enforcement. [...] The University of Pennsylvania researchers found the flaw after examining the telecommunication industry...

by Ed Lewis

“To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so.”

- Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s book entitled “General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century,” 1851

What would Mr. Proudhon write today if he saw a country with possibly the strongest military force in the world headed by a man who is a warmongering idiot capable only of mouthing the words that his controllers want him to stick with?  Get real.  Any person who promotes and wants war in this day and age of government weapons of mass destruction has to be a complete idiot.  And, off course, the word “headed” is used loosely as the man doesn’t actually “head” the nation - he is just the head of the Executive Branch of government.  At least, that is how it is supposed to be.

Govern is an interesting concept, especially since most people mistakenly believe it is the job of the government to govern the people.  From the American Heritage Dictionary, we find:

Govern - (transitive verb) 1. To make and administer the public policy and affairs of; exercise sovereign authority in. 3. To control the actions or behavior of: Govern yourselves like civilized people. (My emphasis)

We also find in this dictionary the many definitions for “government”.

“Government - 1. The act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of public policy in a political unit. 2. The office, function, or authority of a governing individual or body. 3. Exercise of authority in a political unit; rule. 4. The agency or apparatus through which a governing individual or body functions and exercises authority. 5. A governing body or organization…” as:

Any American who loves the concept and practice of “liberty” should be scared to the very core of his being when government moves beyond its authority and does not adhere to the dictates of the true governing body - the sovereign people - resulting in a “ruling” body over people.

This is a hard concept to grasp but originally the American people - or any free people - are not governed by outside sources other than their Creator.  Each in a free society governs himself.  Because each of the people governs himself does not mean there is the absence of any form of political authority resulting in disorder and confusion or lacking in any cohesive principle or anarchy.

If we do not understand or come to understand that the sovereign - the people - have the responsibility of self rule based on the laws of God - the cohesive principles - while men forming the government are delegated only to protect this right of God given self-determination (political authority), liberty will not exist in this country - at least for 95 percent or more of the population.

Affect the laws of self-rule and any semblance of a Republic is lost to the emerging dictatorship or oligarchy government being created by those who would undermine liberty.

Because we have lost the concept of “liberty” to tyrannical legislation that has changed our constitutional government to sovereignty resting in elected officials and others, we have essentially allowed our country to be overthrown by greedy, lustful, and immoral persons lacking in integrity.

Now we have this power-mad person in the Oval Office making statements such as this one:  “Thousands of trained killers are plotting to attack us,” to which he added, “this terrible knowledge requires us to act differently.”

Well, he is right about one thing - thousands of trained killers are planning to attack us.  But it is the source of these thousands that are not mentioned by him, his staff, or his controllers.  The thousands are those of the different levels of government who now have the primary goal of enforcing de facto laws that, in fact, do not apply to the sovereign.  And, now more de facto laws are being added to “justify” terrorist actions by law enforcers.

This man - biologically speaking, anyway - has also on many occasions used one of his favorite propaganda (lies, in other words) phrases - protecting the freedoms against those who hate the freedoms we in America have.

What a pea-brain.  One cannot protect the rights of people by removing the rights of people.  When are the brain-dead majority of the American people going to wake up to this fact?  When are the brain-dead going to come to realize that the people who hate freedom are not those of foreign origin, except when one acknowledges the District of Corruption as being foreign.

The functions given the federal and state governments are to uphold the Constitution and provide protection against those who would invade our shores and/or infringe upon our rights.  Is this what the current and past administrations have done?

Is this what your state and local governments have done?

If you have any inkling of what is going on, you know the answers to these questions is “no, rights have not been protected but have been infringed upon by every level of government.”

So, you see, we are not having our freedom threatened by foreign countries - we are being threatened by the very organizations that are supposed to provide protection against infringement upon rights, whether from a foreign or domestic source.  And, just as the bush man said, we should behave differently but not the way he means.

Friends - and at least 95 percent of the thousands of people the writer has known during his life - internalized certain values, including those of respecting the rights and property of others - along with working for what one gets.  Integrity was instilled in us by family, friends, other peers, and only in a small way by the threat of “getting caught”.  In fact, people I have been closest to did not consider the possibility of jail as the block to harming another.  The usual reason for avoiding doing something to harm another person was “it’s wrong”.

Thus, one might say there were clear-cut lines of “right” and “wrong”.  But, what of now?

Here we have an administration - all the clods in government regardless of level of government or of position within the government - that openly and flagrantly takes the property of others under some guise or another.  By property is meant not only one’s land, buildings, automobiles, trucks, and money, but also his right to determine how to best live his own life for maximum enjoyment.

The government does this not only domestically but in other countries as well.  If a country has oil that is blocked from US oil interests, then the answer is to change the government of the country (kill the leaders in opposition to US Government’s intents) and put a person or group in place that will go along with oil interests backing and/or in the US Government.

Let’s turn the clock back for a moment.  People managed their own affairs.  What government there was small and non-intrusive on the people.  The laws to obey were the laws of God.  If one transgressed on the rights of another, the people made the judgment as to redress being due and what the redress was.

Most of the people settling this country had had enough of tyranny and lack of freedoms concerning spiritual beliefs and not being able to live as free men. Or, maybe they wished to start a new life with everything they could gain through their own hard efforts was theirs and theirs alone.

Eventually, enough in each of these colonists believed strongly in separating themselves from the rule of England headed by King George III.  They had a long list of grievances never resolved by the King.  Hence, the Declaration of Independence was written and separation from England declared.  The right to do so was fought for - and won (even though some try to convince people we are still under English rule).

Each colony in becoming a State maintained its sovereignty over the other states and, most important, the centralized government.  Certain functions were given the central government which can be boiled down to two - defend the shores of the states against all invasions, whether foreign or domestic, and to uphold the Constitution thereby protecting the Christian and God-given rights, whether enumerated or not, of the people.

The central government’s jurisdiction was limited to the District of Columbia and territories.  Each state’s jurisdiction was limited to the confines of the State but could not infringe upon the rights of the people.  The duty of the government established for the State was to uphold the Constitution and defense.  Thus, the people were sovereign over the central government, each individual state government, and each man and woman was sovereign to each other.

Now, one might wonder as we have seen the Constitution and the rights of man destroyed by the anti-Christian (including Ashcroft - he’s a fake Christian), anti-patriot forces in all levels of government exactly the necessity for a government if the government is intent on infringing upon human rights.  Or, asking in another fashion, if government makes laws that infringe on the rights of even one man or woman, then is it not an anti-constitutional act, which must fall into the category of treason?  We must ask then - do we need treasonous governments?

Consider for a moment the purpose for weapons of mass destruction.  Better yet, consider why they are even developed.  Is it for defense?  And, if so, why is such defense a necessity?  Is it because the people in one country want to destroy the people in another country?  Or, is it because leaders of countries want something some other country has?

While considering this, also think about this.  The people in this country are being told that Muslims (first, it was just Islamics hated but it spread to include all Muslims) hate Americans because of their freedoms.  We are a Christian nation founded on Christian principles so the “alleged” conflict between the two religions is often brought up - you know, the old religious war thing.  But, if this is so, why have Christians and Muslims lived in peace for centuries in Egypt with the only expulsion being Jews?

To bring up another relevant point, let’s say you are on a picnic with many of your family and friends on the 4th of July.  There are several other groups, one of which is close enough for you to see what they have.  Now, let’s say the group has an item of food or drink your group doesn’t have.  Is your first inclination to think - “Hey, let’s go over there and take their food that we don’t have”?

A bunch of us were having a military group picnic on one of the beaches In Okinawa.  Near to us was an Okinawan wedding party.  Well, a couple of the kids smelled our roasting hot dogs and saw us roasting marshmallows, something this group had not seen before.  The kids wanted some so a couple of us that knew a few words went to talk to the adults and see if it was okay.

It was and we worked out a mutually beneficial trade.  They shared their Okinawan food and drink with us and we shared ours with them.  Quite a deal.

The point is that neither group wanted to attack the other to get what they had.  We ended up having a great afternoon and evening sharing food, drink (saki for bourbon and beer) and many laughs in spite of the language barrier.  It is still one of my fondest memories for the past 36 or 37 years (I was either 19 or 20 at the time).

There was no “government” to tell us how to behave.  All that governed us were our respect for other people.

The founders of this country preached and practiced non-interference with other nations, just as most of us preach non-interference with other people.  We were at peace with the world as long as this doctrine was upheld, just as we remain at peace with other people when we do not interfere with their rights.  Other countries that were open to visitors accepted us, including those in the Middle East, now alleged by government to be the “deadly” enemies of our freedom (excepting Israel).

Our colonists who became the American people lived and traded with each other and other countries without any bad feelings developing that would have resulted in wars being declared.  Trades for goods were worked out.  Even though most of the world’s people were armed, arms were not used to take what they wanted.  Governing bodies have always done this, not the people.

Not so now.  American foreign policy today is nothing more than “Hey, you back my aggressive war-like actions against such and such country since we (my financial backers and companies I am associated with) need its resources and I will make sure you get my backing (or money) in your aggressions against such and such country.”  Or - “Don’t back us and we will assure you will be boycotted or bombed back to the Stone Age.”

Name a war that was not instigated by a government rather than the people.  Next, prove that the war was not the result of persons in government - or those who supported government financially, meaning major industrialists and bankers - wanting something that another country had and for the lust for power and control over other people.

Without centralized governments, People, I fervently believe that all people, regardless of country of origin, would be much further down to the road to world peace.  It is always leaders, whether political, religious, military or a combination of these that starts wars.  They are NOT started by the people who want only to live their lives in peace.

Thus, war machinery and weapons are developed for the governments to provide defense for themselves, not for the people.  The US Government does everything to protect itself, not the people.  Read for example, the final paragraph is EO 12333 issued by Reagan.  And when you do, remember the United States is only the District of Columbia and United States Citizens are “artificial persons” under the jurisdiction of the US Government.  This does not include the people of the many States.

The US Government protects itself because of the many invasions this country has made into the private affairs of other countries. It uses the people to defend its actions by promoting “patriotism” and “defending freedom”.  Invariably, when the bottom line cause for the attacks on other people is revealed, the reason is without fail related to major industrialists, especially defense contractors, oil suppliers, illegal drugs, and bankers that influence to the extent they effectively own the US Government.

If this country’s central government had never began interfering in the affairs of others - including the States that seceded from the union -there would have not been any need for probably 95 percent of weaponry developed.  Effort and resources could have been directed to improvement of mankind, including lawful birth control methods, rather than control and destruction.

If the assumed elite - but gutter scum scoundrels to me - had not wanted to control the oil and drugs in the Middle East and to aid Israel militarily and to the tune of billions of dollars a year in aide and equipment, there would not be any terrorist actions by Middle Eastern people against any American.

If the gutter scoundrels - elite to them - had not wanted, as another example, to control the oil and drugs in Central and South America, there would not be any of our people covertly - and occasionally overtly - killing leaders of other countries who do not go along with the present politico/military/industrialist coalition of the federal government.

Damn, People, put yourselves in the shoes of the other people.  How would you feel if suddenly a bunch of Chinese (and they far out number us) started invading your towns and cities, killing leaders and others at will because they decided Texas or California rightfully belonged to Mexico or because they wanted control of - darn, can’t think of a product I know is 100 percent American made - anyway, something we have they don’t?  Wouldn’t you get rather upset and try to take acts of retribution against them as a freedom fighter?

Now, consider this.  Do you hate other people because your first conscious thought of them was “I hate them” or were you taught to hate, primarily based on false information?

It is my contention that without learning to the contrary one does not care about races, religions, or anything else that keeps people separate.  (You are welcomed to prove hate for a specific type of person or belief is innate in people.)  If one learns based on false information, then what is learned is false.  The government knows this very well.  Thus, its words against Middle Eastern people - especially Muslims of the Islamic persuasion -excepting Israel which uses the same sort of hostile actions as the Palestinians.  The difference in terminology at to ‘terrorism” or “freedom fighters” - none except the US Government seems to want to be partners in crime with Israel.

Is all the false information about other countries because of and controlled by the US Government?  You can bet your sweet bippy it is.  It is called divide and conquer.  Besides, regular everyday people haven’t the need to run a propaganda campaign to justify its attacks on other countries.  Regular people could give a healthy crap about what people in other countries are doing.

To date, events credited to terrorists in this country were found to be - or highly suspected - works orchestrated by the federal government (including massive cover-ups) as tools to establish the New World Order and domestic tyranny over the American people.  The actions, along with wars, conflicts, and covert actions by the US Government, have also been used - at least since the build up to the Civil War - to instill fear in our people, to get the brain-dead to go along with removal of rights, and to cause fervor for the unconstitutional attacking of other people.

Here is a rule of thumb.  Anytime the government balks at or blocks independent investigations - or threatens people to keep their mouths shut - or suddenly one who is whistle blowing is killed under questionable circumstances - you can safely bet there was federal involvement in the act of terrorism or that a proper agenda would expose its hidden agendas.  Good God, People, common sense ought to tell you that.  But, alas and deep sigh - government schools are also wiping out common sense.

As a final observation of recent declarations by the Bush crowd of evildoers, how often have you been at a family gathering, a meeting of some sort, or at other functions with several people present where the topic became “You know, we people need to wipe out the government in Mexico.  I heard some of the people there have arms and they could use them against us someday.  So, we need to change its government.  Joe, why don’t you and a few of your elite killers go down there and take care of that SOB that let his people have guns.  It may someday attack us and we should do it first.  Let’s take them out.  And, don’t worry about any innocents killed - we’ll just call them ‘collateral damage’.”

Or, have often have you thought - “Hmm, my neighbor bought a firearm.  I think I had best get rid of him before he uses it against me.”

Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it?  Well, that is exactly the reasoning of the US Government, with the focus currently on Iraq, a country our treasonous government wants to attack come hell or high water.  It will then be followed by attacks on maybe 60 more countries, unconstitutional military operations that are going to make a few tons of money for defense, oil, and pharmaceutical interests, all of which are tied in extensively with the present administration.  The truth in this is, of course, hidden from a dummied down American who believes anything any corrupted SOB in government or its media puppets tells them.

Shoot, if I were another country, I would be preparing to the utmost of my country’s ability or other sources to get weapons not to attack America, but to defend against being attacked by it.  So would all Americans.   Say, wasn’t that originally the concept behind government weapons development we were told - to DEFEND, not attack.

Furthermore, do people sit around saying we have to have the oil in such and such country?  Not hardly.  Most people don’t even know where the gas they fill their cars comes from.  Ask them.  Shoot, ask the place you buy your gas.  Only the oil soaked US Government says this.

Most people I know talk about why the federal government has blocked extremely highly efficient alternate energy measures to petroleum or blocked vastly improved, highly efficient systems (300 to 400 miles per gallon in some cases or no petroleum derived fuels at all) for the past 40 years.

How about drugs and their legalization?  Now, before you answer, get the facts, primarily the facts concerning recreational use BEFORE government intervention and its push for getting people addicted compared to the number of users today.  And, try to find out how much money has been made by the federal government after forcing through armed acts of terrorism unconstitutional drug control measures on the people.

Then, answer the question of why countries the US Government intervenes in either have oil, natural gas sources, produce large quantities of controlled drugs, especially cocaine, or a combination of the three and - simultaneously - has a government blocking US interests.

I believe that without centralized governments acting as the governing authority, the majority of the world would be living in peace.  I believe it is the destiny of Mankind to do so.  There will always be exceptions.  No matter what those of the one world government is shoving down your throat, peace does not come at the end of a gun just because one group holds all the guns (the UN).

Peace comes when all people respect the rights of all other people.  Only the evil people directing and controlling centralized governments and their horrendous desire for increased wealth and power have caused major world unrest.  History bears this out.

My faith is that all people on Earth - regular everyday people - can live in peace and overall harmony but my reality tells me it will never come to pass as long as evil fills or controls governments, whether the governments are based on political, religious, military, or a combination.  It is that evil we must direct our attention to, not what the evil tells us to believe.

Thus, my conclusion is we need a central government for two reasons - to uphold the Constitution and to defend the God-given rights of Man.  In both, the current government - I should say “dumb-ya’s administration” since Congress and the Supreme Court is filled with cowards and traitors to their oaths of office - is failing miserably.  It is acting as an invader, committing treason by the hour by conducting acts of terrorism against the people of this country.

Thus, we would be better off - and certainly more secure - without it.

We can simply govern ourselves “like civilized people” - the way it is supposed to be.

 

Originally published at Liberty For All May 21, 2007.

 

Ed Lewis is a columnist at Liberty For All.  Contact Mr. Lewis at elewis@shighway.com.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid released a Senate version of the government health care overhaul, weighing in at a massive 2,074 pages. McClatchy news reports, "The Senate Thursday began what promises to be a bitter, lengthy battle over the future of health care in America, and taxes, abortion, affordability and federal deficits emerged as key flashpoints. Senate Democratic leaders expect the first test vote on their new $848 billion, 2,074-page health care overhaul bill will come on Saturday evening. Although Democrats are likely to get the 60 votes they need to move forward with the debate, the outcome is uncertain."

The Congressional Budget Office reports the bill will cost taxpayers $848 billion over 10 years, imposing a number of new taxes on everything from prescription drugs to Botox. Michael F. Cannon, Cato's director of heath policy studies, says the $848 billion only accounts for part of the federal government's share of the tab:

Private-sector mandates--the legal requirements that individuals and employers purchase health insurance -- accounted for 60 percent of total costs.  That suggests that if the Reid bill's cost to federal and state governments is $1 trillion, then the total cost is probably $2.5 trillion, and Harry Reid — like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — is hiding $1.5 trillion of the cost of his bill. Without a cost estimate of the private-sector mandates, Reid has not yet satisfied the request made by eight Democratic senators for a "complete CBO score" of the bill 72 hours prior to floor consideration. Fortunately, by law, the CBO must eventually score the private-sector mandates.  When that happens, the CBO will reveal costs that the bills' authors are trying to hide. The House passed its bill without a complete CBO score.  The Senate should not follow suit.

If history is any indicator, says Cato Executive Vice President David Boaz, the costs of the health care overhaul will inevitably spiral out of control:

Just look at the record: In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee said the entire Medicare program would cost $12 billion in 1990. The actual cost in 1990 was $98 billion. In 1987, Congress projected that Medicaid would make special relief payments to hospitals of less than $1 billion in 1992. The actual cost, just five years after the projection, was $17 billion. Similarly, Medicare's home care benefit was projected in 1988 to cost $4 billion in 1993, but the actual cost — again, just five years after the projection — was $10 billion. The government is running a trillion-dollar annual deficit already, and Congress and the president propose to create a new program that promises to cover millions more people with health insurance, drag currently insured people onto government programs, and save billions of dollars in the process. No wonder levels of trust in government are at record lows.

The Washington Examiner reports, "More than ten percent of the jobs the Obama administration has claimed were 'created or saved' by the $787 billion stimulus package are doubtful or imaginary, according to reports compiled from eleven major newspapers and the Associated Press."

At the height of the debate over the "stimulus" legislation, Cato ran a full-page ad in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, and other papers, signed by nearly 300 economists against the president's stimulus plan. Cato analysts discussed the plan's waste and consequences on dozens of leading news programs and talk shows.

Writing in the New York Times Online months after the legislation passed, Senior Fellow Jeffrey A. Miron asks, "Did the stimulus work?"

Two elements of the fiscal stimulus — cash-for-clunkers and the $8,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers — probably shifted significant activity from the fourth quarter and beyond to the third quarter because consumers knew these provisions would expire soon. Thus the stimulus plausibly shifted the timing of economic activity without necessarily improving the long-term path.

The case for additional stimulus is weak. If further stimulus occurs, it should focus on changes in policy that make sense independent of the recession. This means reductions in tax rates rather than increases in expenditure.

Budget Analyst Tad DeHaven calls the stimulus "political theater":

The Obama administration will continue to trumpet the number of jobs the stimulus package "created." It will brag that the government's efforts were not only successful, but that they were conducted with unprecedented transparency and accountability. But taxpayers and citizens should not buy into these claims. The stimulus jobs report is simply political theater: a charade intended to maintain public support for, or acquiescence to, Washington's multiplying encroachments.

• Why America leads the world in medical innovation.
• In the past eight months, the unemployment rate has jumped from 7.2 percent to 10.2 percent. Here's why.
• How delayed economic reform in India killed 14.5 million children. More details, here.
• Unintended Consequences: Could government efforts to redesign cities to make them more pedestrian friendly, concentrate jobs in selected areas, and increase mass transit actually raise C02 emission levels?
• Allan Meltzer, professor of political economy at Carnegie Mellon University, keynoted Cato's 27th annual Monetary Conference this week. In a Cato Daily Podcast, Meltzer discusses the diminishing independence of the Federal Reserve.

At the Internet Governance Forum in Sharm El Sheikh this week, there was a conversation on social networking data. Someone made the point that there are several different types of data, and it would be useful to separate them. This is my taxonomy of social networking data. Service data. Service data is the data you need to give to a...

... because I think that I might actually have a shot there.

The incumbent has been so ineffective as to be virtually invisible on the issues that matter to Delaware.

He (or she, I could never tell) needs to go.

My platform is simple:

1) I promise to triple the number of jobs created or saved in the district under the current stimulus programs.

2) I promise to double the number of people in the district receiving Medicaid benefits, even if that means providing completely free health insurance to some people now paying for it, just to hit my targets.

3) I am calling for the dsitrict to receive three times as much beach replenishment funding as it received last year.

4) I am not Mike Protack.

5) I am a firm believer in term limits, so I will pledge not to serve any more terms in the House of Representatives that necessary for me to supplement my State retirement with a Federal plan of equal or greater value.

6) Oh, and I'm not Colin Bonini, either.

and, finally:

7) I have a bumper sticker that is not lifted from the Old Testament:

"Use of a pig model to demonstrate vulnerability of major neck vessels to inflicted trauma from common household items," from the American Journal of Forensic Medical Pathology. Abstract. Commonly available items including a ball point pen, a plastic knife, a broken wine bottle, and a broken wine glass were used to inflict stab and incised wounds to the necks of...

by Rhys M. Blavier

Election Day 2009 has come and gone. Relatively speaking, this election was as insignificant as any off-year election is, as opposed to a mid-term election, but it still could have been an important year for the Libertarian Party, if we had simply bothered to show up. There were six elections / ballot initiatives which could have possibly been affected by the Libertarian Party… if we actually had a long-term strategic plan. As it is, some things happened for which it is notable that the LP had no role in. In no particular order, let’s look at where we could have had real impacts this year.

Governor’s Race - New Jersey: New Jersey voters tossed out their incumbent Democratic Governor, Corizine, in favor of Republican Chris Christie. It may have happened because Corizine is very unpopular with the citizens of his government-corruption prone state .While Christie’s election is not necessarily a bad thing, what made this election notable was that it swung on independent voters. Christie won 49% of the vote, Corizine won 44% and independent candidate Chris Dagget walked away with 5% of the vote.

Governor’s Race - Virginia: Republican candidate, Bob McConnell, with 60% of the vote, easily won election over his Democratic opponent, Creigh Deeds. For over 35 years, Virginians have consistently voted into office Governors of the opposition party to that of a sitting President, so this win might have seemed inevitable. What made this race notable for the LP is that it was again the independent voters who made the difference. In 2008, Virginia bucked its own tradition of voting for Republican presidential candidates and, instead, voted for Democratic candidate Obama.  In that case, Obama won because Virginia’s independent voters were pretty evenly split between Obama and McCain. This year, however, independent voters were 2 - 1 in favor of McConnell and we can see the results from that quite easily.

Mayor’s Race - New York: In this race, Independent candidate Michael Bloomberg won a very narrow victory against his Democratic opponent, the essentially unknown City Comptroller. The name of the Democratic candidate is not important. What is important is that even with spending approximately $100,000,000 (yes, 100 million) dollars of his own money, Bloomberg only won 51% of the total vote, only 5 points ahead of his Democratic opponent. This will be Bloomberg’s third term, which was only possible because he supported changes to New York City’s term limit law, which had limited mayors to only being able to be elected for two terms. A strong Libertarian presence could have raised the term-limit issue by speaking strongly for them.

House of Representatives Race - New York’s 23rd District: What can be said here that hasn’t already been said? In what was probably the most noteworthy race of 2009? For the first time in over 150 years, this district will not be represented by a Republican. The story is remarkable. The Republican Party chose Dede Scozzafava, an NRA-approved candidate who also was pro-choice and in favor of same-sex marriage. The Democratic Party chose an un-noteworthy sacrificial lamb, Bill Owens, because the New York state House has a one person majority and they didn’t want to risk losing that majority by running their state Representative in an “unwinnable” race. So what happened? The far-right stepped in and ran their own Conservative Party candidate, Doug Hoffman, against Scozzafava. Why? Because she wasn’t conservative enough to satisfy far-right extremists, like Sarah Palin and Dick Armey. I think that this race was probably the most important this year because for what it signifies.  The extreme far-right conservatives are not interested in Republican Party loyalty, they put political ideology above all else.  Hoffman had no knowledge of or concern for “his” district’s local issues, he didn’t even live in that district  In a move reminiscent of the worst examples of the “rotten boroughs” in British politics before the 20th century, the national leaders in the far-right conservative movement found someone whose only “qualification” was the purity of his ideology. Don’t worry though, if Hoffman HAD won, he promised that he would move into the District he would then be representing. Scozzafava eventually pulled out of the race and put her support behind the Democratic candidate.  The extreme conservatives didn’t simply put their own candidate in a roll to beat the Republican candidate; they chased a loyal Republican out of the Republican Party, itself. In the end, enough loyal Republicans still voted for her that Conservative Hoffman lost. The final tally? 49% to 45% to 6%. I told you, folks… they’re eating their own.

This race, more than any other, demonstrates the collectivist desires of the extreme far-right conservatives… Local issues are not important to them; they want nothing less than to fill Congress with extreme conservative political ideologues who will put the desires of the conservative movement above every other consideration. Ideological purity is their litmus test, and having elected officials who will do the bidding of political masters instead of serving the needs of their constituents is a model for a one-party state with a collectivist government.  We have seen such systems before and, trust me; their loyalty is NOT to their constituents… it is to their party.  The far-right conservative extremist movement is trying to lead America down a very dangerous road.

In addition to these for elections, there were two ballot initiates that need to also be included in our summary. The first of these was the vote to overturn the law which passed the Maine legislature that made same-sex marriage legal in Maine. Drawing an immense amount of support from OUTSIDE the state, the conservatives managed to overturn that law by garnering 53% of the public vote to repeal it. The other ballot initiative we need to make note of was the approval in Breckenridge, Colorado of a law which decriminalizes all personal possession of one-ounce or less of marijuana. State and federal laws are still in place but for the first time, a city has stood up and said “it isn’t worth the government fighting to enforce those laws”. And who was responsible for this victory? If you said the Libertarian Party, you would be completely wrong. The organization that was responsible for getting 71% of the voters to approve that law was the modestly named ‘Sensible Colorado’… 71 freaking percent of the voters approved this and the LP had no hand in (and, thus, get no credit for) this win. Both of these initiatives were about personal freedom, personal MORAL freedom. If we, as Libertarians, are not the ones who can stand up for the side of freedom, then who the hell needs us?

So, what lessons should the LP learn from these elections? A couple of things. One is that being an extreme far-right, conservative neo-Republican party will not win for us.   Those people are not disaffected, they are simply scared. They have their own machine and we would simply get swallowed entirely by them… and good-bye to the Libertarian Party. Another lesson is that independents really do matter. They might not be enough to win an election on their own, but that can certainly swing an election. In these elections we can all see the importance of a liberal movement. If we can mobilize it, we can win. The moderates, independents and liberals who turned out in numbers sufficient to elect Obama last year are the unmotivated and disaffected pool of voters we can turn to.  There is power there, strength that is simply waiting to be utilized.

The Republicans are feeling elated about winning the two governor’s races this year.  They are patting themselves on the back by seeing importance on the wrong victories.  While governors might be the Chief Executives in their state, they have no role in formulating national legislation.  The two House elections this year, both of which were won by the Democratic candidates, are much more significant in the larger picture of current American politics. What this says about the 2010 election possibilities is fascinating.

Candidates in reliable Republican districts will now be facing primary challenges from the far-right if they are not seen as being ideologically pure enough.  Why is that important?  Remember center-left Republican Senator Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island? He had to spend most of what he had in his campaign war chest to beat a far-right Republican opponent for the Party’s nomination.  After the primary fight, he didn’t have enough money left to effectively campaign for the Senate seat, itself, and he lost to the Democratic nominee.  We can look for more of this in 2010 as big money from national figures fighting for their far-right agenda will flood into the coffers of Republican candidates who aren’t seen as being conservatively pure.  Any primaries in which the far-right challenger looses will leave the winner with little or no money to campaign for the actual seat or office in question.

Since Obama’s election a year ago, he has turned this country’s very active liberal base into an unmotivated “lost generation” looking for someone to give them hope. THAT is where our future lies. WE need to be the ones who can break the American liberals out of their ennui, to rally and mobilized the untapped political power they represent. THEY are the people who can make or break elections. Those people are looking for leadership and hope. Now is the time to bring back Ed Clark’s Libertarian movement. Now is when we need his “low-tax liberals” to rise up again and take the Libertarian Party back from the neo-Republicans.   In every one of the elections I have mentioned here, WE could have made a difference, we could have made ourselves known again to the general public, we could have been leaders… and, to be politically viable, our future rest with being able to harness the unfocused liberalism which Obama has let wither away. The conservative extremists are destroying the Republican Party and the Democratic Party is showing itself to be incapable of leadership. There are holes being torn in American politics and, as nature abhors a vacuum, those holes WILL be filled. What we have to ask ourselves is, can we the party that fills those holes?

Since 1984, the LP has driven itself to an extreme end of the American political spectrum, an end that is mostly allied with the extreme far-right.  That is not what first attracted the general public to the idea of libertarianism.  It was the combination of the ideas of fiscal responsibility AND liberal social policies that first put the LP on the lips of the American people.  Both the Republicans and the Democrats parties are moving farther and deeper into their own ideological extremes.  I believe that any two-party system is going to naturally gravitate between polar opposites.  The reason that it is important for America to also have a centrist party is because there needs to be a party that can comfortably welcome people from the right, left and middle.  What makes the Libertarian party important is not conservative or liberal politics; it is our view of the role and function of government.  What we oppose is authoritarianism.  Personally, I am pretty far to the left while the political figure I know and admire the most is pretty far to the right; I believe that some government is necessary and she is an anarchist.  Where we find commonality is our shared belief that neither the Republican nor the Democratic Party are serving the American people. THAT is why we both share a belief in libertarian philosophy, and the day that we can get both my moderate right Republican father and my independent green (liberal AND vegetarian) sister to vote for our candidates is the day that we will know that we have arrived.

 

© Copyright 2009 by Rhys M. Blavier

 

Rhys Blavier’s passion is studying government, politics and The Constitution from an historical analysis perspective and then imagining how government can be changed to better serve its people.  He also believes that government should serve all of its people rather than just corporations and the wealthy. His personal motto is “Truth, Justice, and Honor… But Above All Honor” because, he says, you can have truth without justice or honor, you can have justice without truth or honor, but you cannot have honor without truth and justice. He also believes that there is nothing so sacred or controversial that it cannot be questioned and/or laughed at.

OK, it's tacky, and not really funny (neither were those T-shirts proclaiming that GHW Bush had wished that his wife had had an abortion before the nationa had an abortion for president), but is it really a reason to throw out the Old Testament?

Delawaredem thinks so, first noting that the significance of the Psalm is in Psalm 109:9--the next verse:

“Religious” conservatives have a new slogan that they are putting on bumper stickers and t-shirts.

“Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8″

What does Psalm 109:8 say?

“Let his days be few; and let another take his office.”

Well, that’s not bad. They are just praying for Obama to be replaced as President. Hey, I wanted Bush gone as President too, through his impeachment for war crimes. But let’s read the next verse that follows Psalm 109:8 which “religious” conservatives all so cleverly leave off the t-shirts and bumper stickers.

“Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.”

So, it is pretty obvious that anyone repeating, wearing, or using this slogan “Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8″ is actually calling for the President’s death in some form. And they want him to die sooner rather than later.

From this, DD goes on to reach the argument that we should--as a society--toss out the Old Testament. Seriously:

No, today I will turn my ire against the Old Testament of the Bible, the text that provides these “religious” conservatives with their murderous ideas in the first place. Let me ask you a question.

Has any other book been responsible for more death and destruction over the last 5,000 years that this one?

All sorts of depravity are justified by its text. Slavery, genocide, and murder. To this day, David Anderson opposes homosexuality simply because the Old Testament says it is an abomination. To this day, people use its text to justify their wrongful behavior. Revenge is justified by the Old Testament. Discrimination is justified by the Old Testament. Hatred is justified by the Old Testament.

Have any of you ever read the Old Testament from cover to cover?

Uh, yes, as a matter of fact I have. But where are you going with this DD?

So if you believe that Old Testament is still relevant today, you believe in a God that is giant dick, who condones and actually encourages murder, slavery and genocide, who believes that some of His own children that He created in His own image are actually abominations destined for eternal flame. I am content to follow the New Testament and his commandment that we love rather than hate each other. But I suppose if your political ideology rests on hatred, it is useless [sic] to have the Old Testament around.

Few lines down, MJ--who happens to be Jewish--politely, ahem, points out to Delawaredem that, uh, gee, guy, the OT also happens to be the Hebrew Bible.... And DD responds:

Yeah, something I did not think about in writing this is the Jewish faith, which is based on the Torah, which is the Old Testament. Indeed, I write this from a perspective of being a New Testament follower.

The difference I think between Jews and Evangelicals is interpretation. Evangelicals take the Old Testament literally. And from my experience with my Jewish friends, the Jewish faith and people do not. Certainly the Jewish faith does not believe in genocide and slavery. Other aspects of the Old Testament that I speak of you will have to address with respect to the Jewish faith.

But I am certainly not intending to invite the destruction of the Jewish people when I say throw out the Old Testament.

So let's see, we started with Psalm 109, condemned the Old Testament as brutal and genocidal, then backed off and said, essentially, that it's all right for Jews to have the OT because they don't actually believe its true the same way certain Christians do.

There are so many things wrong with this that I am at a loss regarding where to start.

How about we quote all of Psalm 109, for example, which is being mis-used both by the people who printed the bumper stickers and their critics who only quote two verses:

1 O God, whom I praise,
do not remain silent,

2 for wicked and deceitful men
have opened their mouths against me;
they have spoken against me with lying tongues.

3 With words of hatred they surround me;
they attack me without cause.

4 In return for my friendship they accuse me,
but I am a man of prayer.

5 They repay me evil for good,
and hatred for my friendship.

6 Appoint [a] an evil man [b] to oppose him;
let an accuser [c] stand at his right hand.

7 When he is tried, let him be found guilty,
and may his prayers condemn him.

8 May his days be few;
may another take his place of leadership.

9 May his children be fatherless
and his wife a widow.

10 May his children be wandering beggars;
may they be driven [d] from their ruined homes.

11 May a creditor seize all he has;
may strangers plunder the fruits of his labor.

12 May no one extend kindness to him
or take pity on his fatherless children.

13 May his descendants be cut off,
their names blotted out from the next generation.

14 May the iniquity of his fathers be remembered before the LORD;
may the sin of his mother never be blotted out.

15 May their sins always remain before the LORD,
that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth.

16 For he never thought of doing a kindness,
but hounded to death the poor
and the needy and the brokenhearted.

17 He loved to pronounce a curse—
may it [e] come on him;
he found no pleasure in blessing—
may it be [f] far from him.

18 He wore cursing as his garment;
it entered into his body like water,
into his bones like oil.

19 May it be like a cloak wrapped about him,
like a belt tied forever around him.

20 May this be the LORD's payment to my accusers,
to those who speak evil of me.

21 But you, O Sovereign LORD,
deal well with me for your name's sake;
out of the goodness of your love, deliver me.

22 For I am poor and needy,
and my heart is wounded within me.

23 I fade away like an evening shadow;
I am shaken off like a locust.

24 My knees give way from fasting;
my body is thin and gaunt.

25 I am an object of scorn to my accusers;
when they see me, they shake their heads.

26 Help me, O LORD my God;
save me in accordance with your love.

27 Let them know that it is your hand,
that you, O LORD, have done it.

28 They may curse, but you will bless;
when they attack they will be put to shame,
but your servant will rejoice.

29 My accusers will be clothed with disgrace
and wrapped in shame as in a cloak.

30 With my mouth I will greatly extol the LORD;
in the great throng I will praise him.

31 For he stands at the right hand of the needy one,
to save his life from those who condemn him.

Wow. This is some pretty grim stuff.

Note that the references in 109:8-15 are prayers for judgment against an evil person, someone who abuses the poor and curses [in the semi-magical sense] the righteous. OT scholars might explain to DD and our bumper-sticker owners that psalms and prayers like this actually represented an ethical and moral advance in the Middle East during the time in question, and that even Biblical literalists have difficulty reading abstract intercessory psalms as true pieces of history.

Somebody should also probably explain that the doctrine of Biblical Literalism and Biblical Inerrancy originate in the Reformation as a rejection of a professional clergy. The Catholic and Greek Orthodox Churches had always held the position that the Bible was not mere history, but a much more important document filled with allegory, spiritual meaning, and--most significantly--the need for interpretation. That's why the Catholic Church did not encourage Bible reading as such. The Literalists are essentially a political response: if the Bible means only what it says, and if the Bible is objectively accurate as history, then it does not need interpretation. Anyone who reads or hears the Scripture can understand it.

To some of us this sounds suspiciously like dumbing down the Bible by ignoring 1,500 years of Biblical exegesis of the NT and another 500-800 years on top of that for the OT. Evangelicals, however, developed the doctrine that the Fall of Man (original sin) so compromised human reason that we can only receive the Bible, not interpret it.

But is it time to give the OT the old heave-ho because the ancient Israelites were, ah, a rather bloodthirsty, genocidal lot?

Aside from the rather important question of cutting yourself off from one of the major intellectual sources of the Western Intellectual Tradition (which doesn't really seem to be much of problem for DD), what bothers me about his suggestion is that it is tantamount to saying that some documents, some ideas, are just to prone to misuse by some folks that those ideas ought to be eliminated from society.

Forget about the millions of Jews who have lived careful, blameless lives attempting to delve the meaning of Torah and Talmud.

Forget about the hundreds of millions of Christians who never seek to use the OT as an excuse for violent or petty behavior.

Instead, condemn the Book itself rather than the individuals you think are misusing it--sort of the way we are exactly NOT supposed to condemn the Quran or Muslims in general for the acts of some radicalized killers.

There are passages both appalling and beautiful in the OT, and a desert moral code that can chill you to the bone with its stonings and ritual killings. There is the Agedah of Abraham willing to kill his son at God's command, and the centuries old question of how that should be interpreted. There is fodder for those who want to ostracize or kill people over their differences: Middle Eastern tribes were not hallmarks of tolerance. There is even the complete redefinition of the OT by NT scholars who distorted the original meanings of the stories in order to prefigure Christ or create an intellectual consistency between Yahweh and the God of the NT.

There is also a huge missing link of Hellenistic Jewish religious material that ties together the latest books of the OT to the NT tradition.

But we need to get rid of it, DD says, because some people are too hateful and too idiotic to understand more than superficial, literal interpretations.

[What happened, I wonder, to the Earth's angular momentum when God made the sun stand still for several hours?]

This argument ignores the fact that thoughtful Christians have been dealing with the more gory and vengeful parts of the OT for decades, even centuries. Take theologian and novelist C. S. Lewis on--of all things--Psalm 109:

In his marvelous book, Reflections on the Psalms, C.S. Lewis observed:

In some of the Psalms the spirit of hatred which strikes us in the face is like the heat from a furnace mouth. In others the same spirit ceases to be frightful only by becoming (to a modern mind) almost comic in its naivety. Examples can be found all over the Psalter, but perhaps the worst is in 109 (p. 20).

Lewis suspects that it may be best to leave such psalms alone. But then he says that we must face “facts squarely.”

The hatred is there — festering, gloating, undisguised — and also we should be wicked if we in any way condoned or approved it, or (worse still) used it to justify similar passions in ourselves (p. 22).

Lewis refers to these psalms as horrible, devilish, cruel, hateful, and evil. He believes that Psalm 109 — and the poetry of its kind in the psalter — should point us back to the evil we carry within and teach us each how to behave with goodness, humility, and love.

Psalm-expert Dr Amy Cottrill of Birmingham Southern University makes two critical points about such Psalms: their bellicosity and their disconnect from mainstream Judeo-Christian thought:

The psalm writers clearly have no qualms complaining to God about their pain.

"These are people that believe God cares about their pain and suffering enough that in order to relieve you, God will kill the enemy," she said. "The psalmist isn't just expressing pain, he wants something done about it. The prayer is: `God, kill my enemy.'"

Psalm 109 calls for curses upon the enemy: "May his days be few; may another seize his goods! May his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow! May his children wander about and beg; may they be driven out of the ruins they inhabit! May the creditor seize all that he has; may strangers plunder the fruits of his toil! Let there be none to extend kindness to him, nor any to pity his fatherless children!"

In Psalm 58, the writer calls for the enemy to be punished: "The righteous will rejoice when he sees the vengeance; he will bathe his feet in the blood of the wicked."

The bad guys are portrayed as deserving of big-time vengeance.

"This is very bellicose literature," Cottrill said. "It's very violent. They are asking God to go kill their enemy."...

She finds them to be starkly different in worldview from the modern religious sensibilities of Jews and Christians.

"Most mainstream religious people do not think of God as a religious warrior," she said. "The psalmists did. To them, God is all-powerful, but God is also very personal, very close. They definitely feel they have access. Sometimes they barter with God, saying, `If I die as a result of this suffering, who is going to praise you?' That's a pretty bold view."

Moreover, consider the fact that serious evangelicals, such as the scholars who publish in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, have been coming to grips with the language in Psalm 109 and similar OT passages for a long time:

As Peter C. Craigie suggests, these "expressions of vindictiveness and hatred" cannot be "purified" simply because they are in Scripture, and they are the psalmist's "natural reactions" to evil and pain, and "the sentiments are in themselves evil." The sentiments may also be understood as a product of the limited perspective of the psalmist being an OT believer. William L. Holladay points out that the imprecations exhibit "a very different spirit" from the one set forth in the NT, partly because the OT understands the human nature as "the undivided self," and the psalmists are "wrong about the location of evil," not distinguishing the sinner from sin.

Thoughtful Evangelicals have recognized that this difficult exists not just in an academic theological sense, but in the day-to-day expressions of ministers in their pulpits:

It is notoriously difficult to preach on the Psalms. Some think, moreover, that it is inappropriate to try because the Psalms have a different, quite distinct function in the liturgy....

The Psalms are poems of particularity and must not be treated as a generic statement about the human condition. These are the words, tried and tested, by persons in a particular community and pertain only to those persons in that community. At the outset the preacher must resist privatized interpretation.

The ones who speak here are Israelites who carry with them and bring to expression the long experience and the myriad of remembered texts concerning their life with God. The Psalter belongs in the OT and is surrounded by ancient memories of rescue, treasured accounts of miracles and promises from God, durable commands that have been variously honored and violated, and hopes awaiting fruition. The Psalms are “thick” in the sense that all this accumulated poignant reality is present in the utterance of the Psalms; and the preacher must attend to all that thickness.

Or, consider again, conservative Catholic writer Mark Shea, discussing the concept of righteous anger provoked by horrible inequities [in a piece based on Psalm 109]:

As Christians, of course, we cannot give our voice to such cursing. Jesus has very clearly told us that we must love our enemies and bless, not curse, those who despitefully use us. But that does not mean the Old Testament curses are bad or without value. In them, if we know what we are looking for, we see outrage at evil in chemical purity and know it as a gift of God. For righteous anger is not sin if we use it as God intended: as fuel for the engine of moral action. Anger only becomes a sin when we do not put it in the gas tank of action, but instead pour it on ourselves and others and set it on fire. Then it consumes us. The use of anger, like the use of gasoline, is not to bathe in it and drink it, but to turn its energy toward pursuing the redemptive, active love of God.

The staggering depravity that provoked the curses of our Jewish ancestors (and our own curses above) deserves cold, implacable hatred. It is the only decent response of a child of God. But our hatred must be directed at the sin, not the sinner.

In other words, despite the willingness of political partisans to jump on this bumper sticker as evangelicals trawling for assassins, there is considerable evidence that Christians--Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical--have been seriously wrestling with language like this for years.

But that's all irrelevant, apparently, when the wrong people start using Biblical rhetoric: instead of trying to understand it, or contextualize it, we need to throw it out.

Frank Schaeffer suggested on the Rachel Maddow show that no Christians are reacting against this partisn political usage of Psalm 109. Consider the respones of The Beatitudes Society or the The Mattew25 Network. I hope to see more such voices.

I think that what Delawaredem misses is that there is a continuing battle for the soul of Christianity.

On the one hand are the Christianists, who think that their ethic should be government-enforced policy.

On the other hand there are the Christians who view their religion as a private but potent part of their lives, and who have a rich heritage of religious and political dissent for the improvement of the human condition rather than the imposition of ritual law.

And on the gripping hand there those who see within the Christianists the chance to finally strike a death blow at religion itself, by equating virtually all belief with insanity and fanaticism.

I do not believe DD is one of those people, but I do believe that his position aids and abets them in precisely the same fashion he has formerly accused me of aiding and abetting those who plot violence against the government or the President.

Shorter: I don't think that we only have a choice between David Anderson's Christianity and no Christianity at all.

Nose-spur warning: put down the coffee.



[h/t Kids Prefer Cheese]

Organizational Learning and Islamic Militancy (May 2009) was written by Michael Kenney for the U.S. Department of Justice. It's long: 146 pages. From the executive summary: Organizational Learning and Islamic Militancy contains significant findings for counter-terrorism research and policy. Unlike existing studies, this report suggests that the relevant distinction in knowledge learned by terrorists is not between tacit and explicit...

This is cool: Ghost imaging is a technique that allows a high-resolution camera to produce an image of an object that the camera itself cannot see. It uses two sensors: one that looks at a light source and another that looks at the object. These sensors point in different directions. For example, the camera can face the sun and the...

by Kevin Tuma

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There appears to be some sort of basic human compulsion that urges us to (a) amass wealth; (b) build larger and larger, increasingly hierarchical organizations; and (c) control other people's behavior even when said behaviors do not represent a threat to us.

Otherwise I am at a loss to explain the reality of modern society that corporations spend their time attempting to emulate the worst abuses of the State, while simultaneously courting the State to provide them with special status and structural advantages over their smaller competitors.

It intrigues me--and, quite frankly, disappoints me--that many if not most libertarians fail to see the reality that corporations do not represent the free market in action, but actually represent the overt use of anti-competitive State powers to distort the markets in their favor.

Corporate owners enjoy State protection from personal liability for the use of force or fraud.

Corporations enjoy due process rights as artificial persons equal to those guaranteed to US citizens.

Corporations never have to face the issue of inheritance because they are functionally immortal.

Corporations lobby the government for special tax breaks, tax credits, tariff protections, environmental waivers, anti-trust exemptions, and other welfare benefits not available to citizens or small businesses.

Corporations that manage to become "too big to fail" become entitled to life support taken from our tax dollars.

Senior corporate managers enjoy a virtual swinging door relationship with the segments of the government designed to regulate their activity, many moving into and out of those positions [complete with their stock options] every time the White House changes hands.

Corporations often actually lobby for forms of regulation that will suffocate their smaller competition, while being bearable for an organization with hundreds if not thousands of employees.

Corporations willingly accept the role as tax collector/whore for the State.

My point--between the Military/Industrial Complex, the Heatlh Insurance/Pharma Complex, and the other various forms of corporate governance.

Don't get me wrong: I do not favor the idea of simply expanding government regulatory powers in order to have one Leviathan replaced by another.

But at the same time it is important to realize that protecting corporations is far from protecting the free market.