Why Detroit Will Remain A 3rd-World Country

In the early 1980's the Chinese government, mostly because of citizens starving to death, decided to liberalize their economy.  They did this by opening some "Special Economic Zones" on their east coast.  These would be places where businesses and individuals would be left the hell alone to make money and provide for themselves as best they could (relative to the rest of China, of course). 

The experiment was a huge success, and has changed the world. 

Here's Wikipedia:

Special Economic Zones of the People's Republic of China (SEZs) are special economic zones located in mainland China. The government of the People's Republic of China gives SEZs special (more free market-oriented) economic policies and flexible governmental measures. This allows SEZs to utilize an economic management system that is more conducive to doing business than in the rest of mainland China.
Since 1980, the PRC has established special economic zones in Shenzhen, Zhuhai and Shantou in Guangdong Province and Xiamen in Fujian Province, and designated the entire province of Hainan a special economic zone.

Here's a chart showing the changes in GDP in each economic zone. 

Xiamen is where I used to go as a Quality Control supervisor, and is probably the most hog-stomping example of free-market capitalism I've ever seen.  The government doesn't care how rich you get, as long as you don't get too powerful.  Therefore people are clawing all over each other to get in. 

This is what Shenzen looked like before the government got out of the way, circa 1978.  The main industries were fishing and harvesting bamboo.  The city had 30,000 people and not a single traffic light:

This is Shenzen now.  There's a good chance that the device you're using to read this was partially manufactured in Shenzen. 
(Some of you may be offended by this picture, as there is now more income inequality in Shenzen than 30 years ago.  Despite pulling millions and millions of people out of bone-grinding poverty, the people who accomplished this miracle are condemned by many because they are now filthy, stinkin' rich.)

 
So what's the difference between the SEZ's and the rest of China?   Back to Wikipedia:

1. Special tax incentives for foreign investments in the SEZs.
2. Greater independence on international trade activities.
3. Economic characteristics are represented as "4 principles"  (See 4-7)
4. Construction primarily relies on attracting and utilizing foreign capital
5. Primary economic forms are Sino-foreign joint ventures and partnerships as well as wholly foreign-owned enterprises
6. Products are primarily export-oriented
7. Economic activities are primarily driven by market forces

SEZs are listed separately in the national planning (including financial planning) and have province-level authority on economic administration. SEZs local congress and government have legislation authority.
Leong (2012) investigates the role of special economic zones in liberalizing the Chinese and Indian economies and their impact on economic growth..... The presence of SEZs increases regional growth but increasing the number of SEZs has negligible effect on growth. The key to faster economic growth appears to be a greater pace of liberalization.

Liberalization, of course, is being used in the old-school sense of the word, meaning "leave people the hell alone".  The American sense of liberalization means "how many ways can the government f**k with your life".   

You have no idea how much better off the Chinese are in these SEZ's.  It's a brand new world for them. 

Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, in a city that's just as screwed up as pre-reform China:

This week, Senator Rand Paul, who is likely running for president, suggested that Congress act to pass legislation which would declare Detroit an economic “freedom zone.” That is to lower taxes in Detroit to near 0% levels, spurring business activity and development.

We at "Against Crony Capitalism" wholeheartedly agree with this idea. We even called for something similar last year. Unleash the market in Detroit and the city will bloom.

Few cities have been as ravaged by inept governing and crony capitalism as Detroit has. Because of decades of mismanagement and neglect, what was once one of the great cities of the world is now a rusting heap. But it need not remain so.

Detroiters are now presented with an incredible opportunity in the proposed Freedom Zone. In the face of despair and economic ruin, they can show that the city which spawned Joe Lewis can become a contender on the world stage – again.

Seems a bit optimistic given where Detroit is now to imagine the city solvent, never mind thriving. But if the power of the market were unleashed in the city, if Detroiters and entrepreneurs from across the country and around the world could realize the simple benefit of keeping almost all of the fruits of their labor in the city, Detroit would roar back to life.

Michigan would see massive wealth inflows. The young and ambitious would come from the coasts instead of the other way around. People would actually WANT to buy homes in the city. If Detroit truly became a nearly tax fee zone, with services engineered through the market, the ambitious and smart, not to mention moneyed, of the world will come.

Here's why Detroit won't see these simple, common sense reforms take place in my lifetime.

1.  The current president of the United States is a class warrior.  He has persuaded a majority of us that it's better to keep everyone down than to allow entrepreneurs to get rich  (and in the process make all of us better off).  They'll never to allow an entrepreneur to increase his wealth by 10,000% if it increases the well-being of the rest of us by only 10%.  We now have a zero-sum mindset. 

2.  Detroit's government is full of bureaucratic parasites, goldbrickers and featherbedders.  Worse than most.  The city has 40 people who do nothing all day but write checks by hand.  They still have a blacksmith on staff, just in case departments that haven't had a horse in 50 years need to have a horse shoed / shod / given new horseshoes.  (Sorry.  I don't know the tenses of the verb "to shoe). 
Chinese bureaucrats are some of the worst people in the world, but they could easily be commanded by decrees from Beijing.  If they resisted, they were propped against a wall and shot.  Detroit's parasites have more autonomy than China's. 

3.  Any possible improvements to Detroit will be burdened with race-based set-asides. 

4.  Detroit hasn't hit rock bottom yet.  The city is still getting money from Uncle Sugar without having to change anything. 

Great idea, Mr. Paul.  But they'll never do it.

 

Why the Repulblican Party Should Be Very, Very Afraid

This is why we fight.... Last night, John Spivey and I got to speak briefly at the first Ron Paul/Campaign For Liberty meetup since the 2012 Republican convention in Tampa. 

At the Tampa convention, Ron Paul's supporters were declared losers in voice votes that they obviously won.  Some of their state delegations weren't seated.  The Republican Party made it very, very clear that the Paul supporters weren't welcome.  Hell, they actually want the government to spend less money !!   

Note to readers in the UK and elsewhere.... Congressman Ron Paul (now retired) was a libertarian with a small l.  He championed all of the same values as the Libertarian party, but usually chose to remain a Republican.  Republicans have been in power longer, have more money, and are on the winning side of the "wasted vote" fallacy. 

(The wasted vote fallacy goes like this.... "I can't possibly vote for the Libertarian candidate.  If I don't vote for the Republican, the Democrat will win.")

There is a growing Liberty movement within the Republican Party.  Unfortunately, it is aligned with the champions of bloated military budgets, gay/lesbian hatred, corporate subsidies, import quotas, the drug war, and the Noah's Ark preservation society. 

Ron Paul lost his bid to be the Republican nominee for president in 2012 because of the blatant dishonesty of the Republican convention process, and perhaps because the majority of the delegates were drunk enough to nominate the godfather of ObamaCare, Mitt Romney. 

Back to what happened at the meeting....

After listening to Jeremy (the group leader) describe a horrifying Republican party convention where Ron Paul delegates and supporters were intentionally kidnapped and driven around Tampa for 3 hours by treacherous bus drivers who had no intention of taking them to the convention site, plus hundreds of incidents of parliamentary skullduggery, and thugs separating delegates from their groups, plus blatant disregard for the will of the delegation,  I got my chance to address the group.
 
I told them what their philosophical, economic, and political brothers in the Libertarian party had been up to.  I thanked them for working so hard for liberty.  And then I couldn't help myself.... I asked the group if any of them STILL voted for Mitt Romney, despite being treated like Zoo Dirt by the Republican Party.
 
Only two men raised their hands.  (I suspect that those two masochists enjoy having their wives spank them with hairbrushes, being made to clean the toilet with their toothbrushes, all while being told that they've been naughty, naughty, naughty.) 

Then someone asked how many people voted for the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson. 
2/3rds of the people in the room raised their hands.
Some of these people were delegates to the Republican state convention and national convention! 

Rand Paul (Dr. Ron Paul's son) will not be the Republican nominee for president in 2016.  The Republicans would nominate a cocker spaniel before they would nominate a small-government chip from the Ron Paul block.  Someone like Chris Christie or Paul Ryan will get the nod. 

And once again, THE Libertarian party will be waiting for the Republican Liberty Movement voters with open arms, along with promises that they won't be kidnapped and driven around Tampa for three hours. 
 
We're on the winning side.  Gary Johnson for president, 2016. 

 

Libertarian, Quite Contrarian - by Caroline Gorman

My friend Caroline Gorman posted this on Facebook the other day.  It's about how some small government types will sometimes use symbols from the Confederacy, just to show that they, too, are rebelling against Washington.  Or are being iconoclasts.  Or just want to be controversial. 

I went to a school whose fight song was "Dixie".  I started playing that song (drums) in marching band in the 5th or 6th grade.  Then I went to Ole Miss, where the fight song was "Dixie".  Transferred to Delta state, where the fight song wasn't "Dixie", but we played it a lot just because we were in.... Dixie. 

For the benefit of the Brits, Aussies and Kiwis who visit this site, "Dixie" was the fight song of the Rebel/Confederate army during the U.S. Civil War. 

I played the drum part to "Dixie" after every touchdown, field goal, extra point, blocked punt, and kickoff for about 12 years.  I've played it in parades and during basketball games.  Some level of racial sensitivity kicked in about 1984, shortly after I left school, not just at Ole Miss, but at colleges across the deep south, and you never hear the song any more.  Therefore, I think I may have played the pro-slavery war song "Dixie" more times than anyone now alive.  I've also carried my share of rebel flags, so I was interested in Caroline's take on Confederate symbols.  (BTW, now that I've put away that childishness, you won't catch me within 20 feet of a rebel flag.  Symbols don't mean what you think they mean.  They mean what OTHER people think they mean.) 

Here's Caroline:

Background: Jack Hunter, director of social media for Senator Rand Paul, was ‘outed’ in mainstream news outlets as, variously, “a fan of the old Confederacy,” (Slate), someone who said “John Wilkes Booth’s heart was in the right place,”[1]“anti-Lincoln,” (Chris Hayes, both) and related slurs. It’s unclear why this became news now, since Jack Hunter’s past as an outrageous radio personality named The Southern Avenger is certainly no secret. In any event, all of these slurs were taken as indicators of the number-one accusation: that Jack Hunter is a racist.

In response to this, libertarians jumped in to defend Jack Hunter. My Twitter and Facebook feeds were crowded with libertarians who wanted to assure me that they’d “never met a nicer libertarian” than Jack Hunter, that he was “a pillar of the libertarian community,” a “real lover of liberty” and most importantly, a nice guy. Or at least, he had been nice to his white fellow libertarians. Then came the proliferation of articles in his defense. A post on Lew Rockwell added some venom, as usual, but nothing substantive, again as usual.

But the most stereotypically libertarian – and flagrantly wrong reaction – was fromTom Woods and his scathing article on ‘Sweetie Pie Libertarians.’

Tom Woods’ argument reads as a brilliant, brave stand for intellectual freedom against ‘zombies’ and other intellectual light-weights. He begins with a blazoning “Now there are perfectly good reasons one might have to oppose the Lincoln regime.” And then he lists several. Then he turns his attention to the Sweetie Pie Libertarians, those who cravenly rush to be in the good graces of “Mr. Nice Media Person, sir.” These Sweetie Pie Libertarians are “policing the thoughts” of the brave, noble libertarians, in a cowardly, backward attempt to be “more attractive.” These Sweetie Pie Libertarians are just caving in to public opinion. Fortunately, we have big strong brave men like Tom Woods to stand up to the Establishment and tell it like it is!

Tom Woods, answer me this question: What does wearing a luchador mask with the Confederate flag on it have to do with a rational, intellectually honest exploration of the historical issues concerning the advent of the Civil War?

Answer: Absolutely nothing.

Jack Hunter’s use of Confederate symbolism had nothing to do with bravely questioning standard histories. He was taking a side in identity politics – and on the side of violent racists and bigots (note: even if, for some reason, you think that the Confederates weren’t violent racists and bigots, note that in the 150 years since then, that symbol has been used by violent bigots from the KKK to the murderers of James Byrd, Jr., - which means that symbol is now a symbol of racism).

I thank Tom Woods for his article. He entirely missed the point about why Jack Hunter should not work for a politician, or anywhere that he has a chance to put his racist views into action, but he did highlight another problem in the libertarian community.

He exemplified the‘Libertarian, Quite Contrarian’ Syndrome.

What is the "Libertarian, Quite Contrarian" Syndrome? It presents in the form of people who, if told to do one thing, will do another. These people are more predictable than zombies. Zombies at least have desires of their own (well, one desire: delicious brains). The Contrarian Libertarians don’t know what they want until they hear what they’re not supposed to want. They are individuals! They do what they want! Which is always, without fail, the opposite of what you are telling them to do.

Libertarian, libertarian
Quite contrarian
How does your movement grow?
When they say yes, you say no
They go left, you go right
Always spoiling for a fight
They say up,
you say down,
Turn that argument around!
They say red, you say blue
You can’t tell me what to do!

How is this relevant to the Jack Hunter situation? Jack Hunter, and the libertarians who support using Confederate imagery, just want to do something controversial. They want to use that word because they’re not supposed to. They want to say inflammatory things. And they want to pretend it’s brave.

Using Confederate imagery has nothing to do with historical revisionism, with individual rights, with states’ rights, with anything libertarian. To use the Confederate flag is to prove, supposedly, that you support freedom – by using a symbol of a time when human beings were enslaved.

Instead, using the Confederate flag is a perfect example of the dark side of individualism: relentless contrarianism. This contrarianism has nothing to do with questioning standard histories (perfectly admirable), taking a moment to reconsider childhood lessons (absolutely necessary) or understanding that few issues areas clear-cut as we would like (I wish more people understood that).

The use of Confederate symbolism which has swirled around the libertarian movement and the more populist elements is only a base childish desire to do something ‘naughty,’ dressed up in libertarian colors. Let’s stop protecting these people just because they know enough to use the language of liberty to justify their immaturity.

The irony is that being a Contrarian Libertarian is about as anti-individualistic as you can get. It also involves the same actions they so disdain in the mainstream media: race-baiting, kneejerk reactions instead of measured debate, and a profound acceptance of authority.

Because if you’re wearing the Confederate flag to prove that Civil War historical revisionism is necessary, you have lost. You have let the mainstream media put you in one of two boxes – for or against the Civil War. For or against the Confederacy. If you want to dislike Lincoln, go for it. If you want to question the cause of the Civil War, go for it. But accepting that questioning the traditional account of the Civil War equates to supporting the Confederacy (and wearing a flag is a pretty blatant symbol of support) is accepting their rules.

Why don’t you take the unusual third position of opposing the Civil War and opposing the Confederacy?  Of exercising your intellectual freedom to question the traditional Civil War narrative while also refusing to emotionally ‘take sides?’ That would be truly individual, and truly unusual!

Caroline K. Gorman is the Chair of the Travis County Libertarian Party in Austin, Texas. She also serves on the State Libertarian Executive Committee and is heavily involved as an activist at the local level.

A Libertarian in Republican Clothing

Interesting things are happening in the Republican and Democrat party. 
Someone didn't get all the memos and emails, and it's creating some turmoil.

This raises an interesting hypothetical question....

You can apply the Ron Paul filter to almost any social or economic issue - gay marriage, ending the drug war, ending the Fed, reducing our debt, eliminating needless cabinet-level positions and departments, privatizing our disaster of a school system, legalizing gambling, bringing the troops home to defend our borders, ending aid to dictators, and on and on and on. 

You'll find a gaggle of faux opponents from both halves of the Congressional aisle on one side of the issue, and you'll see Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson on the other side.  Daddy Paul and Gary Johnson have a higher ACLU rating than anyone else running for president, and this includes the Obamessiah.  National Journal ranks Paul as one of the most economically conservative congressmen, but then declares that his votes on foreign policy (giving money to dictators, going overseas to blow shit up, etc.) aren't conservative enough for him to be considered an economic conservative !!! 

The Libertarians want to leave people alone. 

Therefore, they are extremists.  Go figure that one out. 

The pics came from Libertarian Reddit. 

A history of Rand Paul's failed filibuster against The Patriot Act

I'm going to get out the winch, the chain hoist and the halter. 
It's time to drag the dead horse out of the shrubbery for another beating. 

There is no difference between the Republican Party and the Democrat Party. 

There are some individual outliers, but the goals of the two organizations are identical.  They continue driving the national car down the same road.  They stop at different gas stations, they frequent different chain restaurants and hotels.  The road map does not change. 

Senator Rand Paul is an exception. 
Remember back in 2008 and earlier, when the Unconstitutional Spying On Americans Act Patriot Act was reviled by almost every Democrat politician in D.C.? 

Rand Paul tried to filibuster the renewal of this vile piece of totalitarian crap. 

He failed.  Why?  Because of Senator Harry Reid. 

Here's a timeline, courtesy of Young Americans For Liberty.  Hit the link to see the videos.



2/3:

• Rep. Ron Paul says in a video update that the Congress plans to extend some of the worst clauses of the PATRIOT Act as “quietly as possible.”

2/9:

• Sen. Rand Paul posts a video and a statement stating his strong opposition to the extension and applauding the house for initially voting it down.

2/14:

• The House passes a ten month extension, sends it to the Senate.

2/15:

• Sen. Paul writes a "Dear Colleague" letter explaining to other members of Congress his concerns with the extension.
• Sen. Paul threatens to filibuster the bill, so Sen. Reid makes a deal with Sen. Paul to pass a 90 day extension and promises to have at least a week of debate and an open amendment process on the bill before the extension expires.
• The Senate passes a 90 day extension 86-12, sends it to the House.

2/17:

• The House passes the 90 day extension 279-143.

86 days pass and the PATRIOT Act is once again taken up by the Senate.

5/23:

• Senate invokes cloture on another extension 74-8.
• Sen. Mike Lee tweets he could not vote due to weather delay, but that he would have voted "no."
• Sen. Paul speaks on the floor in opposition, introduces 8 amendments.
• Sen. Paul tells reporters he will "drag [the debate] out" if he doesn't get the debate and votes he was promised.

5/24:

• Sen. Paul stages a 7-hour fillibuster on the Senate floor.
• Sen. Reid speaks on the floor, going back on his promises to have an open amendment process and lumping the PATRIOT Act extension into a small business bill.
• Sen. Paul issues a statement criticizing Sen. Reid for his deceptive tactics.

5/25:

• Sen. Paul speaks again about the need for honest debate on the PATRIOT Act extension.
• Sen. Mike Lee speaks in support of Sen. Paul.
• Sen. Reid takes the floor and launches baseless accusations at Sen. Paul, claiming that he wants to put guns in the hands of terrorists.
• Sen. Paul responds, calls Sen. Reid's claims offensive and insulting, and defies Sen. Reid by calling for a vote on 3 of his 8 amendments. Sen. Reid objects and prevents roll call votes on the amendments from happening.
• Sen. Paul appears on Freedom Watch to explain his opposition to the bill.

5/26:

• The Senate votes 79-18 to move forward with the extension.
• Slate reports that Republicans are blocking Sen. Paul's efforts.
• A White House official accuses Sen. Paul of threatening national security.
• The Senate debates and votes on two of Sen. Paul's amendments.
• The PATRIOT Act passes the Senate 72-23 and is signed by President Obama minutes before it is set to expire.

That's why we won't see the end of the Patriot Act within our lifetimes.  The fix is in. 
You can vote for Republicans until your arm withers.  They won't repeal ObamaCare.  The fix is in. 
Please consider the Libertarian Party in 2012. 

Legislative maneuver of the week

Y'know, Senator Rand Paul just might be for real. 

On Wednesday, Paul, with little notice, attached an amendment to the small-business re-authorization bill. The amendment, which chastises President Obama for his actions in Libya, urges members to adopt the president’s own words as “the sense of the Senate.”


To make his point, Paul quoted, in the legislative language, from Obama’s 2007 remarks on the subject: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” According to Paul’s office, “the measure aims to put the Senate on record affirming Congress as the body with constitutional authority on matters of war.”

GOP sources tell National Review Online that Paul’s proposal flummoxed Reid, who does not want his members to have to weigh in on Obama’s dusty quote about congressional authority, even if the vote is only to table the measure.

From Hot Air:

If you’re Boehner or Cantor or Allen West or Mike Pence, how do you vote in order to simultaneously (a) support the Air Force and Navy while they’re executing a mission, (b) protect the GOP’s hawkish credentials, (c) express your doubts about the utility of the mission and how it’s being executed, and (d) challenge Obama on his absurd hypocrisy about the president’s military prerogatives, especially given the contempt he’s showed Congress thus far? Tough vote. So tough that I wonder if Reid’s tempted to vote on a resolution in the Senate just to force Boehner to take it up and choke on it.

I'm starting to like me some Rand Paul. 

Rand Paul's reading list

I've got high hopes for newly elected Senator Rand Paul, despite his unfortunate alignment with the Boehner Boehlout Roehpublicans. 
Every time I've heard him speak or read his interviews, I come across familiar, comforting phrases and concepts. 
I think the guy is libertarian to the core. 

I just picked up a copy of his new book, The Tea Party Goes To Washington. 
The "suggestions for further reading" in the back look like they were written by someone trying to get more Karma for his Libertarian Reddit account. 
Seriously.  Nobody's reading list is this perfect.  Well, there are a few outliers....

If you're looking for a good place to start learning about the libertarian philosophy and movement, you could do a lot worse than this list.  Man, can you imagine discussing this stuff with Dr. Ron Paul around the dinner table every night? 
Here's what he lists under "Must-read classics in the cause of liberty":

• The Road to Serfdom, Friedrich A. Hayek
• The Conscience of a Conservative, Barry Goldwater
• Human Action, Ludwig von Mises
• Conceived in Liberty, Murray N. Rothbard
• Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand

Some of you might quibble with the inclusion of Barry Goldwater, but I think Goldwater gains admission to the pantheon of great libertarians because of his firm stance against the theocrats of the religious right.  His quip that "Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass" was some sound advice that fell on deaf ears. 

Rand Paul's next reading category proves that he is, after all, his daddy's boy:

• The Revolution: A Manifesto, Ron Paul
• End the Fed, Ron Paul
• A Foreign Policy Of Freedom, Ron Paul

The Foreign Policy title is almost unknown, but I wish more Libertarians would check it out.  It took some guts to write that thing at the time Dr. Paul wrote it.  His advice that the U.S. should mind its own business wasn't and isn't popular among Republicans, Democrats, Defense Contractors, or anyone else whose wealth depends on us periodically going overseas to blow up brown people. 

Next, he lists some economics titles:

• Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse, Thomas E. Woods Jr.
• The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal, Robert P. Murphy
• Broke: The Plan to Restore Our Trust, Truth and Treasure, Glenn Beck
• Economics in One Lesson, Henry Hazlitt

Why do Libertarians concern themselves so much with economics?  Because they know that debt restricts freedom.  They know that taking money from productive people and giving it to political parasites restricts freedom.  And Libertarians don't like restrictions. 
A brief aside about Glenn Beck and his inclusion....I can't watch his TV program without dosing off, although he often quotes many of the writers listed here.  His "weepiness in front of the chalkboard schtick" exhausts me.  His books look like they are formatted by the same people who produce middle school Social Studies textbooks, and that format makes my eyes hurt.  But I've browsed his "Broke" a couple of times, and can't find anything in there to disagree with.  Even a blind hog can sometimes find an acorn. 

Next are some titles about how the Constitution relates to the Tea Party, and vice-versa:

• Who Killed The Constitution?: The Fate of American Liberty from World War I to George W. Bush, Thomas E. Woods Jr. and Kevin R.C. Gutzman
• The Constitution in Exile: How the Federal Government Has Seized Power by Rewriting the Supreme Law of the Land, Andrew P. Napolitano
• Red State Uprising: How to Take America Back, Erick Erickson and Lewis K. Uhler
• The Last Best Hope: Restoring Conservatism and America's Promise, Joe Scarborough

If you've never set up a Libertarian Party Booth at a Tea Party rally and discussed the constitutionality of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, well, you've missed a controversial afternoon.  If memory serves, the Woods and Napolitano titles deal with this issue, but I'm not familiar with the other two.  Let's just say that there are a lot of people who call themselves economic conservatives who think Jefferson, Madison and Monroe woulda loved the idea of an entrenched welfare state. 

Here are Rand Paul's suggestions for Foreign Policy reading:

• The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War, Andrew J. Bacevich
• Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, Chalmers Johnson
• Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror, Michael Scheuer
• Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency, Patrick J. Buchanan
• Silent Night: The Remarkable Christmas Truce of 1914, Stanley Weintraub

I've only read Blowback, by the late Chalmers Johson, Silent Night, and the Pat Buchanan title.  Blowback is greatness.  Buchanan is good on the evils of an American Empire, IMAO, but he wants to turn us into something like Feudal China when it comes to foreign trade. 
My little brother, the history prof, turned me onto the Silent Night book a while back.  If you aren't familiar with the Xmas Truce of 1914, it's a beautiful story.  The troops on both sides of the trenches said "screw this", played soccer, made toasts, swapped a few presents, and just generally hung out and wondered why they were trying to kill each other.  The next day, the mindless slaughter resumed.   

Ok, here are some of Rand Paul's suggested Websites and Organizations:

• Cato Institute
• The Heritage Foundation
• Campaign for Liberty
• Young Americans for Liberty
• The Ludwig von Mises Institute
• and several others

I don't have time to look up links all night, but you can Google them.  The Cato and von Mises folks make me look like Harry Reid.  Hard-core libertarian to the core. 
And finally, Paul lists several other people, thanking them for permission to quote from their original material.  Included are:

• Peter Schiff
• Matt Welch (of Reason magazine)

When it comes to freedom and liberty, those two guys are greatness. 

So....I think we can safely say that Senator Rand Paul is a Libertarian.  That's a great reading list, and I hope you'll check out some of the books he listed.  Good, good stuff. 

Rand Paul's budget cuts - using a scalpel where a chainsaw would be appropriate

Rand Paul has proposed a fairly modest series of government spending cuts.  They total $500 billion dollars.  That's not even CLOSE to the amount we'll need to cut to get out of trouble, but here's a summary from his plan:

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH...............................$1,283,000,000. (23%)
Notes: The Government Printing Office is abolished.
JUDICIAL BRANCH......................................$2,434,000,000. (32%)
AGRICULTURE............................................$42,542,000,000. (30%)
The Agriculture Research Service, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Resources Conservation Service, and Foreign Agricultural Service are abolished. The Forest Service gets a $1.2 billion haircut.
COMMERCE...................................................$5,322,000,000. (54%)
National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is cut by $857,000,000.
DEFENSE.......................................................$47,500,000,000. (6.5%)
EDUCATION..................................................$78,000,000,000 (83%)
Only the Pell grant program survives.
ENERGY............................................................$44,200,000,000 (100%)
The Defense Department takes over all of Energy's remaining functions (nuclear waste, for example) and about $18 billion of its budget.
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES..............$26,510,000,000. (26%)
Notes: FDA is cut by $230,000,000; Indian Health Service is cut by $650 million; CDC is cut by $1.17 billion; NIH by $5.8 billion.
HOMELAND SECURITY.................................$23,765,000,000. (43%)
Notes: Coast Guard is shifted to Defense. TSA's funds are cut by $900 million.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT....$53,100,000,000. (100%)
Notes: Completely eliminated. Veterans' housing programs are transferred to the VA
INTERIOR........................................................$10,934,000,000. (78%)
Bureau of Reclamation and Bureau of Indian Affairs are abolished.
JUSTICE.............................................................$9,057,000,000. (28%)
Note: Office of Justice Programs is abolished.
LABOR....................................................$2,803,000,000. (2%)
OSHA, MSHA, and the The Employment and Training Administration are spared all cuts (no cuts to unemployment benefits)
STATE...................................................................$20,321,000,000. (71%)
Note: Massive foreign aid cuts. All international commissions and organizations are defunded.
TRANSPORTATION............................................$42,810,000,000. (49%)
Notes: Amtrak is completely de-funded.
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS..........................................No cuts
CORPS OF ENGINEERS......................................$1,854,000,000. (27%)
EPA..............................................................$3,238,000,000. (29%)
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION.....$1,936,000,000. (85%)
INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS...$24,300,000,000 (100%)
NASA.........................................................................$4,500,000,000 (25%)
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION...............$4,723,000,000. (62%)
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT.......$9,070,000,000.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.........No cuts
FCC...........................................................$2,150,000,000. (22%)
ABOLISH...............................................................$2,050,000,000. (100%)
(1) Affordable Housing Program.
(2) Commission on Fine Arts.
(3) Consumer Product Safety Commission.
(4) Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
(5) National Endowment for the Arts.
(6) National Endowment for the Humanities.
(7) State Justice Institute.
MISC
Collect delinquent taxes from Federal Employees........$3,000,000,000.
Freeze Federal Government employee pay...................$2,000,000,000.
Reduce Federal Government travel..............................$7,500,000,000.
Repeal Davis-Bacon..................................................... $6,000,000,000.
Prohibit union project labor agreements......................$2,000,000,000.
TARP repeal.................................................................$4,481,000,000.
Sell Federal Buildings..................................................$19,000,000,000.
Reduce Federal vehicle budget..........................................$600,000,000.

A Semi-libertarian is elected to the U.S. Senate. MSNBC goes ballistic. Comedy Gold.

Here's the MSNBC election roundtable on Rand Paul's election to the Senate.
Hit it at the 7:30 mark.

Here's a Baltimore TV reviewer called Z On TV, on what you're about to see:
Some might call it an anchor desk, but I would not debase the word "anchor" by putting it in front of a desk that includes folks offering this kind of analysis. The team includes: Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Lawrence O'Donnell and Eugene Robinson.


This is their reaction Tuesday night to the victory speech of Rand Paul, the new U.S. senator from Kentucky. Check out O'Donnell's words, in particular, against MSNBC's claim that Fox News, not MSNBC, is the cable channel trafficking in fear. O'Donnell says Rand is now "empowered" to "creat a worldwide despression."

Bill Clinton attacks Rand Paul and Republicans and gets some of it right

From Bill Estep, of the Lexington Herald-Leader.  This is ex-President Bill Clinton, on Wannabe Senator Rand Paul's radical ideas:

Former President Bill Clinton stumped for fellow Democrat Jack Conway on Monday, delivering a strongly-worded repudiation of Republican Rand Paul and his “radical ideas” for a smaller government.

We might as well start there, with the "radical ideas" for a smaller government.  There is no moderate, prudent, incremental way to get out of a 14 trillion dollar debt.  Screw it, it can't be done. 

Kentucky’s U.S. Senate race is between a practical, progressive moderate who has a plan....

....O God, another Democrat with a plan.  He's also a "moderate".  I'm sick of moderates who reach across the aisle in a bipartisan effort to work with the other side to move the agenda forward and "get something done for the American people".  I wish we could boil our choices down to the extremists in each camp. 

Moderates have almost compromised us out of existence. 

.... versus a guy “with radical ideas and no record to back it up,” Clinton told a few thousand people gathered outside the Administration Building at the University of Kentucky.

Once again, the job is going to require radical ideas.  Radical ideas aren't a defect.  They're a selling point. 

Clinton said Paul would roll back federal protection for people with disabilities....

When time permits, go here to see how much the Americans With Disabilities Act has helped Americans With Disabilities.  (Their employment rate was increasing nicely until our government decided to help 'em out.)

.... while pushing tax cuts for rich people.

This dead horse has been beaten until it's a pulpy mess that even vultures are avoiding.  The top 50% of the earners pay 97% of the taxes.  If taxes are going to be cut significantly, if we're going to get more money out into the productive economy, if we're going to stop politicians from giving your money to their friends, contractors, military suppliers, drug warriors, hangers-on, deadbeats, regulators, worry-warts, global warmists, human barnacles, bureaucrats, slot-fillers, inspectors, teachers who can't teach, African Genital Washers, border guards, obesity police and ethanol subsidizers, then the tax cuts are going to have to go to the people in the top income levels.  It really is that simple.  You can't cut any lower than zero, and the non-rich are already at zero. 

He also mentioned the possibility of cuts to food safety....

These are the people who gave a huge thumbs-up to Oxycontin, but continue to outlaw medical marijuana.  For decades, they advised that you eat 6-11 daily servings of bread, cereal, rice and pasta. 

....air traffic control....

Heck yes !  Privatize it ! 

 ....education....

Oh, for the love of God and all things holy.  Is there any dollar amount that will ever be enough?  In the last 25 years we've almost doubled the spending on education, and the needle hasn't budged.  Privatize it tomorrow.  Let a thousand flowers bloom.  See what else works and watch parents flock to it. 

 and workplace training

In the last 9 months, I've probably cycled through 100 Temp Employees.  Almost all of them have been through some kind of workplace training, courtesy of Community Colleges, Job Training Boondoggles, or even Porkulus funds.  One of them, one out of a hundred, could do a halfway decent job of making some numeric signs with Microsoft Word.  I think we can cut Uncle Sam's workplace training programs with no loss of national productivity. 

....among other things. Republicans try to portray Democrats as the party of big government spending while claiming to be the party of restraint, Clinton said.

Well, he got that right.  Until Obama, Reid and Pelosi made them look like skinflint penny pinchers, Republicans spent more than Democrats.  If you're interested, here's something I wrote back in the bright sunshiny period of 2008, back when I actually thought that there was no way ANYONE could EVER outspend George W. Bush.  It's pretty funny to look back on. 

Sheesh.  Obama has made Bush look like Ebeneezer Scrooge. 

Anyway, back to my point....There is no moderate way to get us out of a 14 trillion dollar hole.  Seriously, can you imagine the Republicans shutting down the Department Of Energy?  It's the biggest waste in Washington, but no Republican candidate has mentioned closing it.  Department of Education?  No way.  How about privatizing Social Security, or at least letting us opt out of the program?  Nope.  That's the 3rd rail. 

Republicans spend like there's no tomorrow, usually on a war against drugs or terror or imported wheat or illegal Messicans. 

So please consider the Libertarian Party this November.  We don't want to run anything, we simply want to kill The Beast.  We don't want to lead you, we want you to be left alone.  We want to march on Washington and demand.....nothing. 

And remember what Bill Clinton said, and what has been the case for the last 30 years or so.  If you want a smaller government, voting Republican is a wasted vote. 

More controversy surrounding Baylor University and the cult of Aqua Buddha

From Fox News:

U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul is threatening to sue a magazine following a report that alleges he kidnapped a female friend and tried to force her to smoke marijuana as a college student at Baylor University.


That sentence contains its own rebuttal.  There is no marijuana at Baylor University.  Or anywhere else within 25 miles of Jerusalem On The Brazos. 
GQ Magazine published a report Monday anonymously quoting a woman who claimed Paul and another man came to her house, blindfolded her, and tied her up before trying to force her to "take bong hits" in 1983 when the three were students at Baylor University in Waco, Texas.

Seriously.  Baylor.  Bong hits.  That does not compute. 

The report also alleges that Paul, who is running as the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Kentucky, was part of a secret society called the NoZe Brotherhood, which "existed to torment the Baylor administration" through "pranks" and its student-run satirical newspaper.

Paul told Fox News that he "categorically" denies the kidnapping allegation. "This stuff is just outrageous and ridiculous. No, I never was involved with kidnapping. No, I never was involved with forcibly drugging people," he said.

The report continues:

The woman, quoted in GQ, told the magazine that Paul and another member of the brotherhood drove her to a creek after she refused to smoke marijuana and forced her to worship an "Aqua Buddha."

"They told me their god was 'Aqua Buddha' and that I needed to bow down and worship him," the woman reportedly told the magazine. "They blindfolded me and made me bow down to 'Aqua Buddha' in the creek. I had to say, 'I worship you Aqua Buddha, I worship you.'

The picture of Aqua Buddha came from here. 

The most bizarre thing anyone will ever write about The Limits Of Libertarianism

Teacher:  Class, here's a piece that recently ran in The New York Times, called The Limits Of Libertarianism:

By denigrating several of the signal achievements of modern American society, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act, Rand Paul has performed a useful service for voters who are angry at their elected officials. He has helped to illuminate the limits and the hazards of antigovernment sentiment.

Many Americans are sputtering mad, believing that government has let them down in abetting a ruinous recession, bailing out bankers and spending wildly. But is Rand Paul really the remedy they had in mind? His views and those of other Tea Party candidates are unintentional reminders of the importance of enlightened government.

Teacher:  Ok, class, does anyone out there see something wrong in that statement?  Anyone?  Yes, Harry, you had your hand up first.....

Harry Reid:  They said "denigrating", instead of light-skinned with no dialect? 

Teacher: No, Harry, that is not correct.  I won't even say Nice Try.  Let's read some more of the editorial. 

....Under (Rand's) philosophy, the punishment for a lunch counter that refuses to seat black customers would be public shunning, not a court order.

It is a theory of liberty with roots in America’s creation, but the succeeding centuries have shown how ineffective it was in promoting a civil society. The freedom of a few people to discriminate meant generations of less freedom for large groups of others.

Teacher: Now class, is there anyone who can name the largest group to legally discriminate against black Americans prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964?  Yes, Bobby?

Senator Robert Byrd: It was The White Knights Of The Ku Klux Klan ! !

Teacher:  Bobby, take off your Klan robe and sit down.  You're an embarrassment.  We'll all read a little further.  Now children, listen carefully.  This part is funny if you've been paying attention all semester.....

It was only government power that ended slavery and abolished Jim Crow, neither of which would have been eliminated by a purely free market. It was government that rescued the economy from the Depression and promoted safety and equality in the workplace.

Teacher:  Ok, class, I'll make it easy for you.  Which organization WROTE the Jim Crow laws, which made it illegal for Black Americans to attend the same public schools as white kids?  Who made it illegal for Rosa Parks to sit at the front of the bus?  What organization made it illegal for Black and White people to use the same water fountains?  Yes, Barry ?

Barry Obama:  George W. Bush ! ! !

Teacher:  No, Barry.  It was the government.  All of these evil practices were approved and enforced by the government.  So when you read something like this, you should ask yourself if you would congratulate a man for no longer abusing his children.  And then you should laugh at what short memories people have.  Because using the phrase "enlightened government" to describe what happened in 1964 is very funny, isn't it class?  Yes, Barry? 

Barry Obama:  The failed economic policies of the past eight years? 

In defense of Rand Paul

Within 48 hours, Kentucky Republican senatorial candidate Rand Paul has managed to 1) attack the now-venerated 1964 Civil Rights Act, and 2) defend the now-villainous British Petroleum Company. 
Well, maybe he'll be more subtle in the future. 

Here's one of the transcripts of what Paul did and didn't say, according to The Wall Street Journal:

"What I've always said is, I'm opposed to institutional racism, and I would have--if I was alive at the time, I think--had the courage to march with Martin Luther King to overturn institutional racism, and I see no place in our society for institutional racism," he said in response to a first question about the act.



"You would have marched with Martin Luther King but voted with Barry Goldwater?" asked an interviewer.


"I think it's confusing in a lot of cases in what's actually in the Civil Rights Case (sic)," Paul replied. "A lot of things that were actually in the bill I'm actually in favor of. I'm in favor of--everything with regards to ending institutional racism. So I think there's a lot to be desired in the Civil Rights--and indeed the truth is, I haven't read all through it, because it was passed 40 years ago and hadn't been a real pressing issue on the campaign on whether I'm going to vote for the Civil Rights Act."
 
Here's his take on the public vs. private property portions of the act:
 
Paul explained that he backed the portion of the Civil Rights Act banning discrimination in public places and institutions, but that he thinks private businesses should be permitted to discriminate by race.



"I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I'm all in favor of that," he said. "I don't like the idea of telling private business owners. . . ."
 
And then, in another interview:
 
Interviewer: But under your philosophy, it would be OK for Dr. King not to be served at the counter at Woolworths?



Paul: I would not go to that Woolworths, and I would stand up in my community and say that it is abhorrent, um, but, the hard part--and this is the hard part about believing in freedom--is, if you believe in the First Amendment, for example--you have too, for example, most good defenders of the First Amendment will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things. . . . It's the same way with other behaviors. In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people, who have abhorrent behavior.
 
Paul has said elsewhere that his preference for ending segregation would be through boycotts, shaming, and other forms of peer pressure. 
 
What Rand Paul should have said, of course, is that he loves, no, he actually adores the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in its entirety, including the punctuation, and that he sleeps with a copy of it under his pillow. 
That is the only sensible answer for a politician to give.  
The distinction between "government" and "private" property is lost on most voters. 
Private property owners are free to say "No shoes, no shirt, no service".  Others have signs up that state that they reserve the right to refuse service for any reason. 
If it is your castle, you really should be able to refuse entry to anyone you want to refuse: left-handers, Okies, blacks, whites, Palin supporters, or people who think To Kill A Mockingbird is overrated.
And the left-handers, Okies, blacks, whites, Palinites, and Harper Lee fans should be free to boycott your ass and encourage all their friends to do the same.  
 
As far as the effectiveness of the CRA of '64 goes, my public school classes at A.W. James Elementary school in Drew, Mississippi, were de facto segregated until 1969.   
My doctor's office in Merigold, Mississippi, had segregated waiting rooms (hello, Westerfields !) until the Doctor retired sometime in the mid-1970's. 
 
What changed everything?  Simple economics.  Boycotts.  Shaming.  The same remedies that Paul (foolishly, but truthfully) proposed in his interviews (as if he could go back in time to '64, and vote as a two-year-old senator).  People generally don't move to places that discriminate unfairly just for the hell of it.  And they eventually stop shopping there. 
 
What would have worked better for Paul would be to ignore the Bill's attacks on property rights and say "I support the goals of the Act, if not some of the wording.  I especially support the provisions that ended the Democrat party's vile segregationist practices.  When this bill came to Congress, there were Democrat politicians standing in the front doors of public schools and universities.  Racist, Yellow-Dog Democrats were setting attack dogs loose on citizens who merely wanted to use public transportation that their taxes paid for." 
 
Then remind the country that when the Act came up for a vote in '64, three-fourths of the "nay" votes in the House Of Representatives came from Democrats.  
Remind the country that 80% of the "nay" votes in the Senate came from Democrats, and that those voting "nay" included Al Gore's Daddy, plus  a former Ku Klux Klan Community Organizer named Robert Byrd, who, last I checked, is still a Democrat Senator representing the subsidy hawgs of West Virginia. 
 

Moving onward through the fog ! !

 

Here's the British Petroleum portion of the Rand Paul/George Stephanopoulosformerclintonadvisor interview:

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you don’t want to get rid of the EPA?

PAUL: No, the thing is is that drilling right now and the problem we’re having now is in international waters and I think there needs to be regulation of that and always has been regulation. What I don’t like from the president’s administration is this sort of, you know, “I’ll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.” I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business. I’ve heard nothing from BP about not paying for the spill. And I think it’s part of this sort of blame game society in the sense that it’s always got to be someone’s fault. Instead of the fact that maybe sometimes accidents happen. I mean, we had a mining accident that was very tragic and I’ve met a lot of these miners and their families. They’re very brave people to do a dangerous job. But then we come in and it’s always someone’s fault. Maybe sometimes accidents happen.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So, you believe that the regulation of BP was adequate?

PAUL: I don’t know exactly what the regulation of BP is. I think there’s hundreds of pages of regulation of drilling in the ocean and I think most of that’s justified. I think we’ll have to figure out from this accident, is there anything that could have beend one to prevent it? What can we do in the future to make sure that it doesn’t happen again? So, I think we use logic. We use objective facts. And yeah, we try to go forward. Nobody wants this to happen. I love the beautiful beaches down in the panhandle of Florida and nobody wants to see oil washing up on those white sand beaches. 

All of that sound plenty vague to me, but if you pull the "shit happens" quotes out of context, and ignore the point he's trying to make about our Nutcase-In-Chief trying to demagogue the issue, you won't hear anything except a defense of BP. 
I would still trust Rand Paul to protect the beaches of Kentucky.

As an officer in the Libertarian Party, I can't endorse any non-Libertarians, but I can give some advice.

Someone in Paul's campaign needs to go to the Louisville, Kentucky, Border's or Barnes & Noble, and get Dr. Paul a copy of Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals. 

Then Dr. Paul needs to go to that Trappist Monastery in Kentucky, the one where Thomas Merton lived, and spend two weeks there, studying Alinsky's book, the playbook that the Statists have used since the day it was published. 

When Paul leaves the monastery, he will perfectly understand what has just happened to his campaign.  He will understand how to avoid those situations in the future.  He will understand that the public cannot understand nuance or ambiguity.  He will understand that whoever controls the narratives about the past will control the narratives about the future. 

And maybe he'll never play into his opponents' hands again.  He'll use every interview, every position statement, and every editorial to attack, attack, attack, even if the attack has nothing to do with the topic at hand.  That's how the game is played.   

Here's a video of Barack Obama picking his nose: