Paulistinian and Proud

If you don’t care about Ron Paul, you may as well stop reading now.  I’m a “Paulistinian,” and I don’t care if anyone thinks that I’m a nutter whose vote is worthless.  I’m not, and it’s not.

I got off of work early tonight, and I decided to come home and look for something interesting about which I may write this evening, and of course Fox News never fails to disappoint.  I can almost always count on them to provide me something that either makes me chuckle, makes me angry, or makes me wonder if I lost IQ points by reading it.  My only exception for this rule, generally, is for Judge Napolitano, although frankly I don’t trust anyone who works for Faux News.

Anyway, I found this little gem as this top headline this evening (this morning for you in the US).  Apparently, Herman Cain is the man to beat now.  I was completely unaware that he’d won a straw poll, but I guess he did.  He walked away with the (unbeknownst to be me) coveted title of “Florida Straw Poll Champ.”  I don’t really follow Herman Cain much because, honestly, I couldn’t care less.  I thought that he answered articulately and somewhat engagingly in the last “debate,” but I’d never vote for him.  The notion that a man who was once chairman of a Federal Reserve branch might be an honest individual who is going to rein in the blowhards in Washington is laughable.  Would that it were funny.

You know what is even funnier?  Ron Paul (you knew it was coming) wins straw polls like they’re going out of style.  He won the CPAC straw poll, the California straw poll, the Republican Leadership Conference straw poll, and he statistically tied Michelle Bachmann in her home state of Iowa.  I could list more, but I won’t belabor the point.  How much media attention did any of these wins receive?  The media noticeably blacked him out after Iowa.  Good Lord, even Jon Stewart noticed and had to point it out!  IT’S NOT JUST THE RON PAUL SUPPORTERS WHO NOTICE IT!

It has become appallingly obvious that the media and the establishment are terrified of this man.  In the last debate – I hate to even call them debates, because they’re just showcases for the pre-selected establishment favorites to parade around like trained monkeys – Ron Paul received less than five minutes of speaking time, according to www.endoftheamericandream.com, with only Gary Johnson receiving less time. Once again, we can see that Fox News is the most slanted source.  Check out the article here.  Fortunately, CNN was far fairer with its time distribution, but it can hardly be said of any major news outlet that they give Ron Paul much airtime, in comparison with other candidates.

What really goads me about the situation is the blatant double-standard.  You can bet that if Rick Perry or Mitt Romney won a straw poll, the media would all but declare the primaries over and unnecessary, handing the nomination to the winner.  The headline for the Fox News article makes it quite obvious, to me, that they are desperate to prevent Ron Paul from becoming a top tier candidate, which he is quickly becoming.  If Ron Paul wins a straw poll, it’s because that’s all he can win.  Don’t for a second believe that he’s electable!  Oh no, he’s just a nutty old man with a loyal band of kooky followers.  It could never be because people are actually listening to and buying into the message.  People simply aren’t interested in freedom, peace, or prosperity.

I found another article in The New American, “Ron Paul and the ‘Conservative’ Media’s Double Standards,” which proved to be rather interesting.  The writer makes a great point, one which hadn’t especially crossed my mind before now: if Ron Paul doesn’t win the nomination – and the media is bound and determined that he won’t – the Republican party will lose all of his supporters and, to my way of thinking, a large number of independents.  Ron Paul is far more popular among that much-courted group than any other Republican candidate.  In fact, if they and the Ron Paul supporters walk, we may as well hand the election to Obama.  Whether or not the media wants to admit, there are a lot of people who support Ron Paul, and that number is growing all the time.

Ron Paul supporters are not crazy.  We are not kooks.  Oh sure, there are likely some extremists in there, but it’s unfair to judge an entire group by a few members.  Isn’t that what we’re taught, not to judge a whole group based on the actions of a few?  The fact of the matter is that a good number of Paul supporters are well educated about Austrian economics, the US constitution, and the principles of liberty.  They will not vote or another candidate, because no other candidate can deliver what Ron Paul can: a solid voting record and a willingness to buck the norm.  I speak for myself and probably countless others when I say that if Dr. Paul doesn’t get the nomination, I will write in his name.  I will accept no substitute for true liberty.  There is no greater cause for which we might fight than our liberty.

I keep hoping that the media will stop this foolery, but I won’t hold my breath.  That means that it is up to the people to spread the message and to fight for their causes themselves.  You know, there is something inspiring about that idea in and of itself.  We do not need the mainstream media.  If even one more person can be brought to the light of truth and freedom, then we have succeeded, because that one person can turn around and spread the message to another, and another, and so on.  That is how we will win this fight.  We will not win it because the establishment is with us; they will be vehemently against us.  Rather, we will win it in the arena of ideas, and we will fight tooth and nail for every victory, no matter how big or small.  Let the ideological revolution begin.

Check out the New American article here.

Yes, I Do Believe Someone is Poisoning Our Precious Bodily Fluids

Has anyone seen the movie “Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb?”  It’s an old favorite.  Gotta love Peter Sellers and George C. Scott.  I’m not going to give a full synopsis on the movie here, but there is a general, Jack D. Ripper, who has gone mad and believes that Communists are trying to poison everyone with fluoride.  The movie was made in 1964 and, at the time, everyone was pooh-poohing the notion that fluoride might be detrimental to one’s health.  Public fluoridation was considered one of the greatest breakthroughs in public health of the 20th century.  Is it possible that this might not be so true after all?

In short, yes.  Even the American Dental Association (ADA) and the Center for Disease Control (CDC) are now saying that fluoridation is bad for you, based on new findings.  How many Americans have heard about this in the mainstream media?  I don’t watch TV, as a somewhat general rule of thumb, because it angries up my blood too much.  As far as I can tell, there haven’t been any major press releases about this subject, and I know a fair few people who still think fluoride is a good idea.

I’m in my early late twenties, and like most folks my age, I got fluoride treatments when I was a child.  I never really thought much about it.  It was just part of going to the dentist, like getting that nasty salt spray all over my face and having the dental hygienists ask awkward questions while their fingers are in my mouth.  I’d heard my grandfather complain about fluoridation once or twice, but I dismissed it somewhat, thinking, Well, that’s Grandpa.  He hates everything.  Turns out, Grandpa might have been right.

Overall, the incidence of tooth decay (caries) has been on the decline in the Western world for quite some time.  To some degree, this has been contributed to the amount of fluoride consumed.  However, it would seem that this might not be exactly correct.  The decline in tooth decay appears to be universal.  However, water fluoridation is not.  Many countries in Western Europe do not fluoridate water.  Many fluoridate salt, but many do not.  Germany discontinued water fluoridation in the 1970s.  It would appear that most of the benefit derived from fluoride comes from topical application rather than internal ingestion.

In fact, there is a lot of evidence that suggests excessive fluoride ingestion is actually quite bad for one’s health.  Fluorides have the potential to cause bone cancer, lower IQ rates in children with excessive fluorosis, harm the gastrointestinal tract, interfere with healthy function of the thyroid, poison the kidneys… The list is actually quite extensive.

Granted, I’m not sure what the numerical value would be for excessive exposure to fluoride.  It likely varies from person to person, based on weight, age, and other factors.  Still, if a material is known to be toxic, is that really something you want to put into your body at all, even in small doses?  I sure don’t!  There are enough toxins floating around in the world without purposefully ingesting one more.  And here’s another thought: if fluoride is so dang good for us, why is there a warning on the toothpaste warning us – especially children – not to ingest it?  To me, that indicates some knowledge of the fact that fluoride can be harmful.  So why is it okay to drink it down with gusto, but swallowing it with toothpaste is to be avoided?  Sure, the dosage may be higher in toothpaste, but I drink a lot of water every day.  Surely I would wind up drinking down a similar amount, if I consume at least the minimum amount of water required for optimum health (which I do)?

Here’s another issue to consider, particularly from the libertarian bent: is it right for an outside authority to decide what is put into my drinking water without informing me or giving me a choice in the matter?  Although I know a fair few people who have some knowledge of fluoride, I suspect that we’re in the minority.  I doubt that most Americans think too much about the fluoridation of drinking water.  (Please correct me if I’m wrong about this.)  Nonetheless, does that mean that people don’t have the right to decide if they want to take a medication or supplement?  Hardly.  Everyone has the right to decide what goes into his or her body.

The last point we might consider is that dosage seems to be a real issue with fluoride.  It seems like it might be difficult to regulate exactly the correct amounts of fluoride being given to people.  Okay, pump it into a town’s water supply.  Is it evenly distributed to all homes in that area?  Can the dosage be affected by the house or municipal plumbing?  Is there anything in the pipes that might react harmfully with fluoride?  Honestly, I don’t know the answer to any of these questions.

I am fortunate enough that I can opt out of drinking fluoridated water.  I don’t currently live Stateside.  In fact, I live in a country where drinkable water comes from a bottle.  Most of our bottled water is fluoridated.  My husband and I choose only to purchase water that is not fluoridated.  Incidentally, the two brands that we prefer are more expensive.  When we return home, we intend to outfit all of our faucets with reverse osmosis filters.  We are lucky.

Many Americans – especially now – don’t have the means to opt out.  What happens if you are a family on limited means, unable to breastfeed your new baby, but don’t want to prepare the formula with fluoridated water?  By the way, the powers-that-be are now recommending that you don’t prepare baby formula with fluoridated water.  In any case, the ability to opt out shouldn’t be only for those who can afford it.  Wouldn’t it be so much better if local governments were giving people a say in whether or not their water is fluoridated?  Could this really not be put to referendum?  Let people make an informed decision for themselves!

All of this said, I think there are a lot of strong arguments against fluoridation of the water.  If people want to supplement with fluoride, let them make the decision to do so.  Compulsory medication of any kind is too problematic.  I am attaching a list of links here at the bottom.  I encourage all readers to peruse both sides and come up with your own conclusions.

The Fluoride Action Network
The Context: CDC and ADA Advice Against Fluoride Use
American Dental Association Fluoride Information Section
CDC Community Water Fluoridation Recommendations
Scientific Facts on Fluoride

State Bankruptcy and Government Default

I’ve never been a fan of California.  Any state that can house Lindsay Lohan and the Kardashians within 30 miles of each other must have something horribly wrong with it.  Aside from Hollyweird, though, it doesn’t seem like there is much of anything doing, business-wise, in Cali.  California isn’t the only state that’s in an increasingly hopeless financial situation.

I’m thinking of my home state, Illinois: Land of Lincoln, where Chicago thinks that it’s the real capitol.  Seriously though, Illinois has been in a terrible financial situation for a lot of years.  Our politicians aren’t exactly known for being honest – the last two, Governors Ryan and Blagojevich, have wound up in the pokey for being so corrupt that even the Chicago machine couldn’t hide it.  I suppose it’s not exactly surprising the Illinois is going down by the head.  Unfortunately, these two sad sack states are also joined in the financial nether regions by New York and Michigan.  Together, these four states comprise about 25% of the US GDP and are home to about 25% of the population.  Not exactly encouraging news.

A month or so back, everyone was wringing their hands and sweating about the possibility of the federal government defaulting on its obligations.  To my way of thinking, that was hardly the massive crisis which the media made it out to be.  For one thing, it wouldn’t be the end of the world if the government were forced to cut back and make choices about which bills to pay.  The fact is that we can’t afford the world police state, corporate welfare, and welfare for the citizens.  It’s not possible.  Besides that, America has defaulted before, whether or not the media makes that known.  In 1933, we defaulted when President Roosevelt devalued gold (back then, our currency was very definitely tied to gold) from a little over $20 an ounce to $35 an ounce.  WWI bonds issued during the Wilson administration, which were redeemable in gold coin, were not honored by the Roosevelt administration.  Congress passed the resolution, and it was upheld by the Supreme Court.  The bonds were only redeemable in paper currency.

What’s my point here?  Well, part of  my point is that is not unheard of or impossible for a government to default.  The Illinois state government has been in what I would consider a state of default for quite some time.  Businesses have gone bust in Illinois due to lack of repayment by the government.  According to the comptroller’s office last year, Illinois was about $5bn dollars in the red.  Who wasn’t being paid?  The state university, schools, child care and rehab centers… The list is extensive and getting longer all the time.  The problem gets worse when you figure in the fact that the state is borrowing to pay on the debt that it already has.

So what happens if the states – any of them – start going bankrupt?  What happens if nobody will loan them the money to eke out another week of meeting payroll?  Well, more than likely they’ll be put into receivership with an accountant overseeing budget cuts and tax hikes.  The accountant will be overseen by a judge.  It would not be entirely dissimilar to what happens when a corporation goes into bankruptcy.  In an attempt to stave off insolvency for another few months, Illinois decided to raise the income tax rate by 66% and the corporate tax rate by 45%.  That’s about an $800 per year increase for someone on a $40K salary.

The inconvenient truth of the matter is that it is possible for states and federal governments to go bankrupt.  Printing money will not solve the problem but rather serve to make the end all that much more painful.  Honestly, I think there is a quite a strong possibility that, rather than the federal government going bankrupt overnight, which is what the media and the yay-hoos in Washington were threatening, the states will slowly start to go bankrupt one-by-one.  Assets, such as roads and bridges, would be sold off or privatized.  Pensions will not be paid out.  The state employee unions will howl, but if there’s no one to pay the bills, well…

Although I am not certain that this is the way that things will go, I certainly think that it’s possible that the defaulting of America will come from the state level rather than the federal level.  It would be somewhat similar to what the EU is experiencing now, I’d expect.  It will be impossible to float the entire economy if state after state is falling into the net.  And that is when things could get really ugly.

Here are two articles that cover the subject of the states’ bankruptcy in greater detail: Four Bankrupt States and Illinois Bankrupt.  If you Google it, you will come up with plenty of information concerning the topic.

Lovely Day for a White Wedding

An old acquaintance of mine got married over the weekend.  We used to have a similar circle of friends back in university.  The wedding was extremely well attended, and I’m sure everyone had a lovely day.

So what’s the catch, you ask?  Well, as far as I’m concerned, there isn’t one.  However, there are a good many people in our country who would have loved to deny my friend the right to run off to the chapel because she married her longtime girlfriend.

I guess I can (try to) understand why people, based on religious or moral ground, aren’t fond of the idea of gay marriage.  Actually, that’s a lie.  I don’t really understand why people are so worried about things that don’t affect them.  In my mind, it’s like being worried because the guy next door rides motorcycles without a helmet or never buckles his seat belt; ultimately, it is no concern of mine and has no impact on my rights in any way.

I doubt that many people would argue that marriage is a religion- and culture-based exercise.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with the government.  Churches perform marriages.  It is the church’s decision whether or not they wish to include or exclude people from this activity.  They have the right to an opinion.  However, forcing a church to carry out or to ban same-sex marriages is not something supported by natural rights or, in my mind, the U.S. constitution.  The individuals comprising the congregation alone have the the right to determine what they will or won’t do.

People say that gay marriage hurts the moral fiber of our society, but I’m honestly not sure how.  Some make the argument that gay people, especially gay men, are more promiscuous than heterosexuals.  For one thing, I have met a lot more slutty straight people than gay people.  Perhaps this stereotype would not persist if they were allowed to marry.  Secondly, I find it hard to believe that gay people will make a bigger mess of the institution of marriage than heterosexual people have already.  The divorce rate (overall) for first marriages in America is around 41%.  For second marriages, it is more like 60%.  And for those lucky sods who are brave enough to have a third go at it, the rate for third marriages is a whopping 73%!  Age at the time of marriage also seems to play a large role in whether or not the marriage will succeed.

I will go a little bit further with this idea about divorce.  Those who try to say that gay couples who have or adopt children are ruining the fabric of society must not read all that much.  Marriage, in fact, seems to be the single greatest predictor of whether or not a family will live at or below the poverty line.  The vast majority of poor children in America – white, black, or otherwise – come from single-parent homes.  Children raised in single-parent homes are also at greater risk in school, as well as with the law.  Given this set of information, one might think that it would behoove us as a society to allow the maximum possible number of individuals to marry.

The fact is, most gay people I’ve met are the product of homes with heterosexual parents.  The sexuality of the parent, apparently, has no impact on that of the child.  So why do people think that gays who marry are going to turn out gay children – or affect their own?  It’s nonsense.

I suppose, in my ideal world, marriage would be an entirely religious issue and the government would be completely uninvolved in any marriage, straight, gay or whatever.  Marriage is a very personal choice that exists between the two people who have decided to enter into it.  Who am I to say someone should or shouldn’t marry?  Who is anyone else to say whether or not I should or shouldn’t marry?  At the end of the day, why do any of us care about something that is none of our business?  Can’t we just be happy that there are still people in the world who believe in love?

There are lots of places that you can look for information about how marriage affects our society.  I recommend starting here at the Heritage Foundation.  I don’t necessarily agree with them on all points, but this section provides some compelling information about marriage and poverty in America.

Oh, What Became of the Likely Lads?

Although it’s a little bit late, I just stumbled onto a great article at the Mises Institute about inflation, fiat money, and the UK riots.  I paid some degree of attention to them, primarily because I have an Englishman who is very near and dear to my black old heart.  Frankly, and I mean no offense when I say this, I am completely unsurprised that those riots happened.  For one thing, it seems to me, in my careful observation of the English that, for all we outsiders seem to think they’re a lot of gentlemen in bowler hats, they’re really just ornery brawlers descended from barbarians.  They enjoy conquering and plundering – it’s part of their history.

Of course, the other thing to keep in mind is that England, financially, is in dire straits.  When the recession/depression first began, the UK had greater debt per capita than the US, which is a bit of an accomplishment, really.  That was pre-QE 1,342, though.  The numbers may have changed since then, although if this article is any real bellwether of the British situation, I rather doubt that conditions have improved.

My near-and-dear Englishman has told me repeatedly how tough England is and how much people tend to be out for themselves.  Now, I know that people can do terrible things and be incredibly cruel and self-centered, but in my naive little heart, I still believe in the general goodness of man.  I have found this to be generally true among most North Americans, US and Canadian alike.  Not so with the English.  Again, I hate to make generalizations, because it certainly doesn’t speak for all English, but by-and-large, they are incredibly distrustful of their fellow citizens.

I was brought up to trust your friends and neighbors and to distrust the government at all costs.  The government, I was told, would always try and infringe on you in whatever way was to its greatest benefit.  It seems, alas, that this is more true today than it was when I was a child.

Unfortunately, like the rest of Europe, England seems to have been corrupted by the government safety net.  Single mothers are given council houses in which to raise their children.  The council houses that I have seen and been inside in the UK were all bigger than the houses bought and paid for by private individuals.  Most all Brits I’ve met have had ambitions to get a job either working for local government or in some other state-funded position.  Why?  Job security.  Because England manufactures virtually nothing.  Even Cadbury has been bought by the American food company, Kraft.  England’s economy is anemic, and no amount of propping up by the government will change that.

It seems now that the government, due to lack of funds, is no longer able to continue propping up its socialist state.  Austerity is here.  It’s frankly not hard to imagine why people are rioting who have always had the safety net available to them.

But you know what?  There are other reasons why they should be rioting.  The Bank of England, like the Fed, has opted to keep interest rates low until 2013.  Inflation is running rampant throughout the British economy, and it is eating the sterling alive.  One thing I will give many English credit for – they are better savers than Americans, as a somewhat general rule of thumb.  God forbid that the few lucky who are lucky enough to have stable jobs and put aside a bit of money for a rainy day not have their hard-earned dosh gobbled up by the failed policy of the central bank.  Sadly, the pound has gone the same way as the dollar, losing about 6% to inflation annually since the 1930’s.

Unfortunately, with the Bank of England following Ben Bernanke’s lead (or vice versa), it doesn’t seem like things are going to be getting any brighter for the beleaguered Brits anytime soon.  In fact, with the specter of Greece and the slide of the Euro looming large just over the Channel, it seems like England is suddenly in a position to lose a lot more value out of its currency.  I wonder if Gordon Brown wishes that he had kept the other half of the UK’s gold reserve, instead of selling it off to China…?

To read the Mises article by Andy Duncan, click here.

 

UPDATE:

I just stumbled across some information concerning the UK debt-to-GDP ratio.  If one doesn’t include financial sector intervention and things such as pensions that will have to be paid out at a later date, it was about 61.4% of the GDP as of July 2011.  However, if you include pensions and financial sector intervention, it is 148% of the UK GDP.  Financial sector intervention would be defined as bailouts that were given to Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyd’s, etc.  I don’t know why in the world this wouldn’t be calculated into the equation, but for some reason, it’s not being reported as widely.

With all of that taken into account, the UK is in worse financial shape than Greece.  I’m fairly positive that none of the mainstream media outlets are reporting the debt with the interventions factored in.  Were that the case, I expect this map would be so red, you’d think a herd of swine had just been slaughtered atop it.

Ex-Pats, Dual Citizens, and Taxes

This will have to be a quick post, unfortunately.  I haven’t had all that much time to write lately, but this subject is near and dear to me, as I have been an ex-pat for most of my twenties.

The IRS does indeed attempt to tax citizens for money earned abroad.  To the best of my knowledge, this is all income earned after $90,000 American per year.  Fortunately, this excludes a good number of people working overseas.  However, it still irks me to no end that I have to send in all of my paperwork, in spite of the fact that I pay income and residency taxes in the country where I currently reside.  Should those fortunate enough to be earning above that $90K threshold really have to be taxed twice?

This is the link for the original article that got my goat on Mises.  The IRS is nuts, and unfortunately, they’re known for making people’s lives hell.  If there are any expats out there, I believe the IRS has a form, 8802, that can potentially enable you to get out of paying taxes overseas.  I haven’t done all of my homework on this yet, so don’t quote me on anything, though.  Once I have the information, I will update this post with the “certified” correct info.

There’s a First Time for Everything

Apparently, some pundits do admit when they’re wrong.  I just read this article in The Daily Mail by Max Hastings about his wrongness regarding the benefit of the Eurozone.  Well, at least he’s admitting he was wrong!  Give it a read – it’s really interesting!

Round One, Fight!

I was just scouring the news for any updates regarding the latest NBC News Republican primary debate, which took place on Wednesday evening.  I watched a few of the Ron Paul clips yesterday my time (I’m overseas, so I’m a little bit ahead of the folks at home), but I noticed today on, of all places, Dlisted.com, which is one of my favorite snarky, extremely inappropriate celebrity gossip sites.  It’s not generally a place you would expect to see Republican presidential candidates, that’s for sure.

It’s not much of a secret that I’m strongly in favor of Ron Paul winning the Republican nomination and then kicking Obama’s butt.  I am realistic about his chances, but regardless of your level of agreement with the good doctor, you have to admit that he is a gentleman, he is intelligent, and he makes some extremely good points about an awful lot of things.  In my opinion, he is frankly the only real honest man among the entire group of presidential hopefuls.  He might be one of the only honest men in Washington.

Getting back to my original point, I was surprised to see this photo up all over various news outlets.  It looks like Governor Perry got a little hot under the collar about Dr. Paul’s recent campaign ad, “Trust,” which can be viewed here, at Paul’s campaign website.  Normally, Rep. Paul keeps things exceptionally cordial during debates.  He’s not exactly know for flying off the handle or even really making much of an attack towards his opponents.  I don’t think that’s his personal style.  Still, I’ve read by multiple commentators – most of them fans – over the years that say they think Ron Paul needs to toot his own horn a bit more and call people to the carpet on their voting records.  It seems that he and his campaign are following that advice, and things are suddenly turning a bit heated!

It seems fairly obvious from the photos, which were snapped during a time that the cameras weren’t rolling, that Perry wasn’t too happy about some of the remarks Paul has made concerning Perry’s political history.  Personally, I wouldn’t care much if Rick Perry was annoyed about having to hear the truth, but I’m no fan of the Guv.  In any case, one or several of the the things said must have drawn Perry’s ire, because he can be seen grabbing Dr. Paul’s wrist and pointing in his face.  There is an additional photo of John Huntsman standing between them which, in my mind, is far more intriguing.

Some of the Paul fans are calling it “assault,” which I think is a little bit strong.  I will agree that Perry is taking an aggressive posture, but it certainly doesn’t look like he’s going to hit Paul or anything like that.  The fact that Huntsman decided to step between them for some reason is, however, somewhat telling.  While I understand that politics often gets heated, it doesn’t seem professional or appropriate to come at a man who is: A. in his seventies, and; B. who, despite his propensity for telling the truth about issues and candidates, has never done so in a nasty way.  It seems the Guv may be having a hard time with “Texas straight talk.”

So far, the only commentary I’ve found on the side of the Paul camp seems to indicate that they think Perry is worried.  I think that’s plausible.  Perry’s camp claims that they were “discussing policy,” although I’m not quite sure I believe that one.  Perry doesn’t look happy in the pictures, and it seems like Paul was forced off of his podium.  I suppose the only people who will know for sure exactly what took place are Paul and Perry.  Still, I seriously doubt that they were discussing the merits of the various sports teams or inquiring after each others’ families.

One thing I will say is that things are getting interesting, and I will be anxious to see how this all plays out.  I’ll also be interested to see if this makes the evening news.  It seems like Internet and print media have gotten onto it.  Time will tell.

If you are interested, the Washington Times ran an article with the commentary from Perry’s camp.

Mad as Hell

Sometimes I like to rant.  This is going to be one of those nights.

I am so angry about the way everything is going in my country right now.  I am expatriated for the moment, and part of me is incredibly excited about kissing U.S. soil again.  The other part of me is in fear that I’m going to have to watch everything I say, constantly defend and justify my choices and actions to people who will never even be affected by those decisions.

I want to have an herb garden!  I want to eat organic food that isn’t poisoned by antibiotics and growth hormones and pesticides!  I want to be able to buy raw milk from an Amish man if that’s what I feel like doing!  I want to put reverse osmosis filters on every tap in our house!  I don’t want my children, when they come, to be poisoned by the food I give them and the water we drink.

I think other people should be able to roll a joint if they want to!  In fact, I think all drugs should be legal!  I think prostitution should be legal, although I personally am strongly opposed to and disgusted by it, for reasons I’m not even sure that I fully comprehend.  I don’t think people should be punished for taking actions that don’t harm anyone but themselves!  Come on, look how well Prohibition worked out!  Portugal has legalized all drugs, and the addiction rate has actually decreased!  If we took drugs off the black market, the price would come down, and the drug-related crime would decrease!  Imagine!  People on the border wouldn’t have to worry about drug-related crime in their backyards!

You know what else makes me mad?  It makes me mad that we’re spending money on ridiculous “non-military military actions” or whatever it is that we’re calling going to Libya and bombing everything to ground.  How in the world can we justify what’s being done and call it “humanitarian” when the very people that we’re trying to protect are dying?!  Moreover, how is it that my liberal (read: Democrat) friends can magically justify Libya, which was not approved by Congress, and trash Bush until the end of time over Iraq and Afghanistan?  At least he had Congressional approval, even if there were no weapons of mass destruction!  I’m not lover or defender of Bush, but at least that was done right!  How is it that these people can howl about Bush and give Obama a complete and total pardon for an unconstitutional aggressive action?! Oh right, I forgot: this time it’s humanitarian!  Yeah, buddy, when somebody bombs my house to the ground, I’m sure going to wave up to the drones and say, “Hey guys, thanks for looking out for my best interests!  That was really humanitarian of you!”

And speaking of the troops, isn’t it about time that we left Germany, Korea, and all of the other countries we’re hanging out in?  Let’s look at Germany.  The war has been over for about 66 years, and yet Germany could still be considered an occupied nation.  Oh, but wait.  Germany doesn’t want us to leave, because all of the money our soldiers spend there is good for their economy.

Korea.  Wow.  Korea.  Although technically they’re still at war, North Korea rarely does anything more than rattle their chains and shoot evil glares over the DMZ.  North Korea is a nation of malnourished (and often starving) people using Cold War-era equipment.  Some of their tanks haven’t even had gas in them for years.  South Korea, by contrast, is a technologically savvy industrialized nation.  Do NOT tell me that they can’t take care of themselves.  They can.  We don’t need to be involved in the affairs of Koreans or Germans or anyone else.

I could go on and on and on about all of this.  It just drives me crazy that people can’t or won’t wake up and see what’s happening.  We’ve allowed our liberties to be slowly eroded, and now we’re at the juncture where mentioning them feels like doing little better than paying lip service to a United States that is desperately gasping out its last breath.  Are we really going to let our great experiment fail?

I don’t have all the answers.  There is no perfect answer.  I write letters to my reps.  I am writing this blog.  I want to home-school my kids and grow as much of my own food as possible.  I want Ron Paul to be elected and, although I don’t agree with him on every issue, we have to start somewhere.  For those of us who are liberty-oriented, we can’t sit around and wait for the “perfect candidate.”  Dr. Paul is a damn good one, and he’s the only person out there who is honestly trying to do what he thinks is best.  He is the smartest of the lot, and he actually cares about liberty and not just the power of the presidential position.

We have got to start doing things that make sense.  Sociology tried to teach me that there is no such thing as common sense, but I don’t believe that.  Common sense tells me that we can’t spend ourselves into prosperity or force peace by making war.  True republics are not fostered by aiming guns at people and telling them what to do.  Real liberty comes from choice.  We have the choice right now to make a REAL change or face the consequences.  I love my country, and I love the people.  I love the Constitution.  But dammit, the government really makes me angry.

I want more people to get mad.  In the words of Howard Beale in the 1976 film “The Network:”

“We know things are bad – worse than bad!  They’re crazy!  It’s like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don’t go out anymore.  We sit in our house and slowly the world we’re living in is getting smaller, and all we say is, ‘Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms.  Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radios, and I won’t say anything.  Just leave us alone!  Well, I’m not going to leave you alone!  I want you to get mad!  I don’t want you to protest, I don’t want you to riot, I don’t want you to write to your Congressman, because I wouldn’t know what to tell you to write.  I don’t know what to do about the Depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street.  All I know is that first you’ve got to get mad!  You’ve got to say, ‘I’m a human being, goddammit!  My life has value!'”

I am mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore!

Gibson Raid

I’ll make this one short, but I just stumbled onto some articles about Gibson guitar company being raided by U.S. Marshals over their importation of exotic rosewood and ebony.  Apparently, the company uses it for the fret boards, and the trade of this wood is heavily restricted, as it is considered scarce.

From what I have read so far, it seems that most other guitar companies will use these woods, too.  Gibson was raided before in 2009 and is still fighting a legal battle over that raid.  Additionally, a government brief given to them at some point during those legal proceedings informed them that they ought to just move production to Madagascar.  Wow.

Now, I will freely admit that I know very little about importing scarce wood, but by all accounts, it seems like Gibson has been in compliance with the laws of the countries from which it imports, as well as the U.S. import laws.  I’m also mildly concerned that the U.S. government has nothing better to do than harass a company which employees hundreds of Americans and makes fine, hand-crafted instruments from good materials.  Even more disconcerting is that the government has basically told them to get out!

This is tyrannical and an unnecessary harassment of a company that, unlike many, actually wants to stay home and provide jobs to its own citizens!  Incredible.

Here is an article from The Financial Times, or you can just Google it.  There are many articles about this ridiculousness.