Why Bush is no friend of the free market

...and why protectionist trade measures inevitably backfire, doing more harm than good. It's almost frightening to see how many billions of dollars and countless jobs America has lost because the president or some Congress-critter wants to buy a few more votes. To say nothing of the ongoing total destruction of any semblance of US credibility in the world.

The US gov't simply is not acting in the best interests of the country or people it rules over. What, then, are we to do about it?

Your family owes the gov't $510,678 (plus interest)

Yep, that's what your household owes. You didn't think that all those social programs were free, did ya? That's your share of the $57,800,000,000,000 ($57.8 trillion) in unfunded obligations run up by our esteemed representatives in local, state, & federal gov't.

That amount has gone up about 20% just in the past couple years, and is increasing at the rate of about $25,000 per household, per year. How much does your household make?

As first reported in USA Today and covered in Liberator Online, here's what you're shelling out for:

Program..................................Liability per household

Medicare.................................$263,377
Social Security..........................$133,456
Federal debt.............................$42,538
Military retirement benefits.............$25,443
State-local debt.........................$16,395
Federal employee retirement benefits.....$14,256
State-local retirement benefits..........$13,257
Other federal............................$1,956

Total....................................$510,678 per household

Expect costs for Medicare & SS to balloon even more within the next 5 years as the Baby Boomer generation retires & gets cranky. Sheesh, this gives a whole new meaning to "Baby Boomer"!

This is, needless to say, unsustainable in the long term without some very drastic benefit cuts and/or tax hikes. If we move to a socialized medicine system, as seems at least somewhat likely the next time the Dems are in control, expect things to get that much worse, that much sooner.

We could, of course, cut most of our losses now, by privatizing SS and switching to medical savings accounts (MSA's). Unfortunately, that would require two things that Congress is sorely lacking in: brains and courage.

I was born in 1971, and if I continue to live a fairly healthy life and don't meet an untimely end, I might expect to possibly live to see the year 2050. While I eagerly look forward to the advances in science & technology that should happen in that time frame, I am beginning more and more to fear for the political and economic future of this country. As an optimist though, I have faith in human ingenuity, but we may still be facing much unnecessary pain and hardships in the coming decades. We'll see.

How far we've fallen....

The brutality and war crimes being perpetrated by the U.S. military are reminiscent of Stalin's USSR, or Hitler's Germany. Anyone involved in these incidents needs to be punished, swiftly and very severely. And that includes command personnel.

One of the worst passages from the above link:

The worst incident that I was privy to was in late November. The prisoners were protesting nightly because of their living conditions. They protested the cold, the lack of clothing, the rotting food that was causing dysentery. And they wanted cigarettes. They tore up pieces of clothing, made banners and signs. One demonstration became intense and got unruly. The prisoners picked up stones, pieces of wood, and threw them at the guards. One of my buddies got hit in the face. He got a bloody nose. But he wasn’t hurt. The guards asked permission to use lethal force. They got it. They opened fire on the prisoners with the machine guns. They shot twelve and killed three. I know because I talked to the guy who did the killing. He showed me these grisly photographs, and he bragged about the results. “Oh,” he said, “I shot this guy in the face. See, his head is split open.” He talked like the Terminator. He shot this guy in the groin, he took three days to bleed to death.” I was shocked. This was the nicest guy you would ever want to meet. He was a family man, a really courteous guy, a devout Christian. I was stunned and said to him: “You shot an unarmed man behind barbed wire for throwing a stone.” He said, “Well, I knelt down. I said a prayer, stood up and gunned them all down.” There was a complete disconnect between what he had done and his own morality.

Come on, you unAmerican thugs posing as soldiers. The U.S. is better than this!!

Addendum: The Pentagon seems to be moving forward with plans to do away with Geneva Convention anti-torture provisions in the Army field manual. Link 1, link 2, link 3.

The Catholic Church as an economic monopoly

Here is an interesting page which reviews an article comparing the Reformation and Counter-Reformation to economic moves by a new firm trying to break into a monopoly market. There are quite a few things in life that can be viewed in fresh terms from an economic perspective. A religious movement, though, is not typically seen in that light. (Other than perhaps taking a look at televangelists and their fortunes....)

The problem with gov't-funded science

One of the complaints against leaving science to "the market" is the unreliability of funding, depending on the health of the market or the whims of those who control the purse strings. Another is that privately-funded science funds might be squandered on pet projects, or science that only benefits a select few (i.e. the company that develops it & brings it to market).

Those arguments are, however, mostly meaningless when it becomes apparent that the alternative, gov't-funded science, is at least as bad in those respects. At least privately-funded research can lead to new services or products that are of use to society. One could argue that basic (as opposed to applied) research is also of benefit to society, and perhaps there is a case to be made for gov't funding of basic research.

But with gov't-funded science, as with gov't-funded anything, the purse strings are controlled by Congress, a greedy, demagogic, self-interested, irrational body that acts like a 5-year-old in a candy store with unlimited money. As such, it should come as a surprise to absolutely no one that the funding priorities of Congress might not match up with those of actual scientists & engineers.

Or so you'd think, but apparently it did come as something of a surprise for NASA's top management, who with much wailing and gnashing of teeth are now complaining bitterly to Congress that they must now cut funds on their pet projects to fund Congress'.

While I support much of the genuine science & engineering that NASA does, they need to do a better job of budgeting to account for the inevitable changes in the political wind. They also should do a better job of prioritizing their commitments, keeping in mind that there will always be additional demands being made by their kid-in-a-candy-store overlords.

The xtian right, in a nutshell

The above link is one of the most succinct summaries of what exactly the Xtian Right is, and what they stand for. Or more precisely, what they stand against. The above article is good because it is a statement of facts, not a teeth-gnashing ad hominem. Give it a read and let me know what you think of it.

How to deal with lawyers

While I normally frown upon the gov't treating adults like children, here's a judge whom I'll let get away with it, at least in this case. The case involves two bickering lawyers who can't seem to agree on even the most trivial matters. So how did the judge resolve it? Good ol'-fashioned rock-paper-scissors.

Granted, it's not as good as the method sometimes used a couple centuries ago--namely, a gun duel. But they are lawyers, so you have to treat them appropriately.

One small victory for good and freedom:Gay marriage Constitutional amendment defeated

In a highly unusual instance of doing the right thing, the Senate defeated passage of a Constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage. While I am not gay myself, I have at least two big reasons for being opposed to a gay-marriage ban.

First, while my marriage is heterosexual, it is also interracial. One thing that has been very obvious to me about the gay marriage debate is that the same arguments used in opposition to it are virtually identical to the arguments used in opposition to interracial marriage 40-50 years ago. I suspect that similar arguments were also made against interfaith and interethnic marriages in the more distant past.

The second reason is that this is simply the right thing to do. The bible-thumpers and religious homophobes may disagree (and may not like being called homophobes, but that's exactly what people with those beliefs are), but their sense of good has been overriden by religious dogma--dogma which states ever so emphatically that it is good, that it has a monopoly on morality and defining what's good. But actions always speak louder than words, and the actions of those working to ban gay marriage are screaming with venom, "I hate you!"

Our Constitution was always intended to be a document which protects the rights of the individual while limiting the power of the state. Most of the amendments to it have been to further those goals, with the notable exceptions of Prohibition and the income tax. The former was later repealed, and well, we can see the results of the latter. A Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage would be another step in the wrong direction. It would be saying that all Americans are not equal and do not enjoy the same fundamental liberties as others. It would say that a majority sees fit to restrict the freedoms of a minority because they find that minority's actions personally distasteful, even though those actions do no harm to others.

Had this atrocious piece of crap actually passed and become part of our Constitution, do you really think that those who favored its passage would stop there? I don't. Why wouldn't they then want to go on and ban other forms of marriage that they found to be against their personal religious beliefs? Interracial marriages were illegal once, and the reasons cited were the same; why wouldn't these same people push to outlaw it once again? Why not outlaw civil marriages, too? In one stroke, that would eliminate both interfaith marriages, and marriages by anyone who's not religious. Outrageous, you claim? Now, yes. But once the country has acclimated to a ban on one form of marriage, it will be ready for others. And future bans will be much easier, once the precedents have been set.

Repubs and the religious right need to get the hell out of America's bedrooms, and stay out. How consenting adults live and love, is none of their business.

Addendum: This blogger has a funny--and scary--post about what marriage laws would be like if such laws strictly conformed to biblical standards. Yikes!

Happy Devil's Day!

Feeling a bit fiendish today? Maybe it's because today is Devil's Day--a once-a-century occurence. Today's date, 6/6/6, is the "number of the beast".

Of course, for those of us who choose to live rational lives and regard stuff like this as superstitious nonsense, today is just another day like all the others. I think even many xtians would attach little or no significance to this date. There are, though, some highly superstitious types out there, especially of a more fundamentalist bent, who may regard this date with ominous foreboding. These are probably many of the same people who thought the world was going to end at the turn of the millenium (because don'tcha know, god likes nice round numbers to end worlds on), and who forbid their kids from trick-or-treating because they think Halloween is a satanic holiday.

On the chance that you actually know any such people, give them a devilish grin and be sure to wish them a happy Devil's Day.

Addendum: Look out, Satan has taken over Blogspot! While trying to publish this, I got numerous "connection reset" browser errors, as well as several Blogspot "sorry for the inconvenience" errors. When I finally succeeded, there were six copies of this post. I deleted five of them. I've gotten numerous more errors just trying to edit this post to add this addendum, and this addendum mysteriously disappeared once....

Innocent? Prove it!

Our airports have, for several years now, been miniature police states, in nearly every sense of the word. One of the hallmarks of a police state is that innocent people are accused of heinous crimes for arbitrary (or no) reasons, using secret evidence (i.e. hearsay) that can not be challenged. As a result, in a reversal of our once-honored "innocent until proven guilty," hapless victims of the Securitate (aka Homeland Security) are presumed guilty, and must prove their innocence. Which, even worse, may still not let them off the hook.

The above article is yet another example of what happens when "national security" is allowed to trump pesky Constitutional concepts such as due process.

What's the difference between a conservative & libertarian?

It's probably true, though some libertarians feel uneasy admitting it, that among libertarians, there are a bit more former conservatives than former liberals. It's probably easier for a Repub to warm up to cultural liberalism than it is for a Dem to accept free-market economics. Plus, the GOP probably is a bit more egregious at violating their claim of being pro-free market than the Dems are at violating their claim of being pro-civil liberties. So, among those libertarians who were formerly of a different political persuasion, a majority probably come from the conservative side.

Because of libertarians' support for free-market economics, liberals often have a hard time distinguishing between the two. This damning piece should highlight some of the differences.

some ideas for possible LP/libertarian commercials: #1

This is the first of several occasional ideas for commercials or advertisements for my party of choice, the Libertarian Party. This first one would build on the Advocates' "Operation Politically Homeless" theme. In its entirety it's about 2:45, a bit long for a single commercial, but perhaps it could be shortened or broken into smaller parts.

Middle-aged guy: "For years I've voted Republican. I have strong concerns about the economy, and it's proven knowledge that a gently-regulated free market is the best way to go. I had thought that Republicans also supported the free market. But even with a Republican president and Congress, federal spending has gone through the roof. There's more pork than ever! This is wasteful spending that our kids, and their kids, will be paying for long after we're gone. And corporate cronyism? That's not a part of capitalism!"
20-something guy: "Any way you look at it, the war on drugs is a failure, and has been since its creation. We spend hundreds of billions of dollars on feel-good, 'tough-on-crime' laws that only make the bad effects of drug use worse, while shredding the Constitutional rights of everyday citizens. Support for the drug war I expected from Republicans, but I thought the Democrats would stick up for protecting our rights and for compassionate, sane legislation. Unfortunately, they seem to think it's more important to pander for votes than to stick up for principles."
Black guy: "I grew up in the inner city. All my life I watched businesses flee my neighborhood, leaving unemployment, higher crime, and dependency on welfare in their wake. So I decided to do something about it. I opened up my own business. Then, I found out why the businesses were leaving: political corruption, outrageous taxes, and so much red tape you couldn't hardly run a business. All the while, the same Democratic politicians who created this mess keep preaching about how they support the little guy. It's hypocrisy!"
Woman: "As a practicing member of a minority religion, I always thought I should be voting Republican, because they're the party that's supposed to be concerned with religious liberty. Instead, they've been all but taken over by far-right religious extremists, who want to impose their specific brand of religious belief on the rest of the country, to the exclusion of any others. Their idea of religious liberty just means they want the right to force their particular religion down everyone else's throat!"
Announcer: "Tens of millions of Americans have grown jaded and disillusioned with the two major parties. Tired of corruption, weary of pork-barrel spending, and wanting a party that still stands for something, they find themselves politically homeless. To those Americans, we want you to know that there is a place for you. There's a party that supports both a free economy, and the civil liberties that are our nation's most defining and successful traits. A party that supports and will stick to the principles of freedom--freedom of commerce, and of self. Come home to a party you can feel good about again. We're America's third largest party, and first in principles. Come home, to the Libertarian Party."