Obama's 1984

From Libertarian Reddit.  Posted here so I can find it for later reference. 
This won't change the mind of a single Dem voter. 

Obama extends Patriot Act without reform - http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-05-27/news/29610822_1_terrorist-groups-law-enforcement-secret-intelligence-surveillance


Obama sends more troops to Afghanistan - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8389778.stm

Obama signs NDAA 2011 - http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/01/02/president-obama-signed-the-national-defense-authorization-act-now-what/

Obama appeals the Federal Court decision that “indefinite detention” is unconstitutional - http://www.businessinsider.com/unbelievable-obama-administration-has-already-appealed-ndaa-ruling-2012-9

Obama uses his Presidential Drone “Kill List” to kill American cleric without trial - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?_r=2&hp&

and his 16 year old son in a separate strike - http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/anwar-al-awlakis-family-speaks-out-against-his-sons-deaths/2011/10/17/gIQA8kFssL_story.html

Continues to approve drone strikes that kill thousands of innocent civilians including women and children in Pakistan, Yemen, and other countries that do not want the US intervening - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/7361630/One-in-three-killed-by-US-drones-in-Pakistan-is-a-civilian-report-claims.html

Protects Bush’s war crimes as State Secrets - http://www.salon.com/2010/09/08/obama_138/ https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/obama-doj-worse-than-bush http://washingtonindependent.com/33985/in-torture-cases-obama-toes-bush-line

Support for countries use of child soldiers - http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/10/26/why_is_obama_easing_restrictions_on_child_soldiers

Appointing Monsanto, GMO company with multiple unsafe practice violations, lobbyist to head the FDA - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/monsanto-petition-tells-obama-cease-fda-ties-to-monsanto/2012/01/30/gIQAA9dZcQ_blog.html

Continuing prohibition and Federal attacks on legal marijuana dispensaries - http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=685_1342311527

Protects AG Holder from Congressional “Fast and Furious” gun walking investigations - http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/white-house-invokes-executive-privilege-on-fast-and-furious-documents/

Bringing no charges against bank executives that misused bailouts - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/opinion/sunday/no-crime-no-punishment.html

Engaging in a war on whistleblowers - http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/31/the-obama-administrations-war-on-whistleblowers/

Grants immunity to CIA torturers - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/31/obama-justice-department-immunity-bush-cia-torturer

Quadrupling the numbers of warrantless wiretapping since Bush era - http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/28/ACLU-Obama-Has-Quadrupled-Warrantless-Wiretaps

Continuing military tribunals he vowed to end - http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-07/politics/obama.guantanamo_1_guantanamo-detainees-guantanamo-bay-facility-military-commissions?_s=PM:POLITICS

Failing to close gitmo - http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/guantanamo-bay-how-the-white-house-lost-the-fight-to-close-it/2011/04/14/AFtxR5XE_story.html

Allowed innocent man to die at gitmo - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzanne-nossel/the-death-of-guantanamo_b_1878375.html

Violating the War Powers Act of 1973 - http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/opinion/21Ackerman.html

Signed Anti-protest law - http://rt.com/usa/news/trespass-bill-obama-secret-227/

Deported more immigrants than any other president - http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/10/american-principles-action/has-barack-obama-deported-more-people-any-other-pr/

Increasing Drug War budget - http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/the-national-drug-control-budget-fy-2013-funding-highlights

Defends raids on Amish raw milk farmers - http://reason.com/blog/2011/06/10/obama-food-safety-czar-defends

Granting the FBI access to private electronic communication without warrant - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/opinion/30fri1.html?_r=3

Building an even more intrusive TSA - http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/218543.html


Says it’s legal to track individuals by pinpointing their cellphone without warrant - http://www.businessinsider.com/government-says-its-to-track-cell-phones-2012-10

Renewing FISA and NSA’s unregulated spying and banking of all wireless communication - http://truth-out.org/news/item/11540-uncle-sam-is-watching-you http://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/20/whistleblower_the_nsa_is_lying_us

More Art to be seen in Fort Worth !!

I'm probably going to the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth for the first time this weekend.  (I've made dozens of trips to the Kimball and Amon Carter already.)

I'm looking forward to seeing this piece:

Here's the description, from The Modern's website:

Diagonal of May 25


1963

Dan Flavin

American, 1933-1996

Warm white fluorescent light, edition 2/3

96 inches

Although Dan Flavin is invariably described as one of the patriarchs of Minimalist sculpture—along with his colleagues Donald Judd, Sol LeWitt, Carl Andre, and Robert Morris—he has generally rejected the appellation "Minimalist" and even the term "sculpture" as too confining a designation, often pointing out that his works are ephemeral, temporary, and installed in relation to given architectural conditions. Flavin began making his signature works of industrially prefabricated fluorescent tubes and fixtures in 1963. Emanating different colors of light, Flavin's installations have an indeterminate volume and appear virtually without mass, and it is true that their ethereal presence remains distinct from the emphatic physicality of most Minimalist sculpture. A more rigorous connection can be seen with Marcel Duchamp’s Readymades, which offer an important precedent for Flavin's off-the-shelf materials and his reliance on the common, found object. Like Duchamp, Flavin considered his works to be "proposals" rather than sculptures, part of a system of investigations rather than static objects.

Diagonal of May 25, 1963, 1963 is one of Flavin's first and most important investigations into the formal possibilities of using standard fluorescent light fixtures in commercially available colors. The image of the diagonal was a critical early theme executed by the artist, in series and according to simple mathematical configurations. Flavin made a number of diagonal "proposals" in different colors, alternating their angles from right to left. Flavin executed the first diagonal in gold light, subsequently making diagonals in green, yellow, and red. The Museum's Diagonal of May 25, 1963 may be the most conceptually and formally pure work in the series: pure white, ultraviolet light.

In his 1965 essay "'...in daylight or cool white.' an autobiographical sketch," Flavin refers to the Diagonal of May 25, 1963 as a "diagonal of personal ecstasy" describing its "forty-five degrees above horizontal" position as one of "dynamic equilibrium." The artist envisioned the diagonal as a contemporary symbol that "in the possible extent of its dissemination as a common strip of light or a shimmering slice across anybody's wall, had the potential for becoming a modern technological fetish."(1)

– Michael Auping

(1) Dan Flavin, "'...in daylight or cool white.' an autobiographical sketch," Artforum 4 (December 1965): 20–24.

********

Which do you think took longer?  Going to a hardware store and buying an 8-foot flourescent light fixture, or writing the excess verbiage posted above? 

For an explanation of this, check out Tom Wolfe's mini-masterpiece "The Painted Word". 

I can't wait. 

Which Green Energy "Company" will go under next?

The Heritage Foundation has compiled a list of the Green Energy Scams that were financially blessed by Barry, Bringer Of Light. 
The ones with asterisks are the ones that have already gone under.  The others are still a few laps from the drain.  Amuse yourself with betting pools, setting the over/under, and guessing how much money each company donated to Barry's election. 

The dollar amounts reflect the amount that was offered to each CEO, not what was actually accepted.  This amount doesn't include any state, county, or city graft.   Don't worry about the CEO's of the bankrupt companies, their children, or their homes.  Seriously.  I have a feeling that they'll get by....  

Why people are still confused about the failure of the $700 billion stimulus remains a mystery.  Barack Obama couldn't pick the winner of The Atlanta Falcons vs. The North Sunflower Academy Rebels. 

I'll give a free dachsund (great as pets or for scientific experiments!) to whoever guesses which of these Green Money-Laundering Shells goes under next:

1.Evergreen Solar ($24 million)*


2.SpectraWatt ($500,000)*

3.Solyndra ($535 million)*

4.Beacon Power ($69 million)*

5.AES’s subsidiary Eastern Energy ($17.1 million)

6.Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)

7.SunPower ($1.5 billion)

8.First Solar ($1.46 billion)

9.Babcock and Brown ($178 million)

10.EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*

11.Amonix ($5.9 million)

12.National Renewable Energy Lab ($200 million)

13.Fisker Automotive ($528 million)

14.Abound Solar ($374 million)*

15.A123 Systems ($279 million)*

16.Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($6 million)

17.Johnson Controls ($299 million)

18.Schneider Electric ($86 million)

19.Brightsource ($1.6 billion)

20.ECOtality ($126.2 million)

21.Raser Technologies ($33 million)*

22.Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*

23.Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*

24.Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*

25.Range Fuels ($80 million)*

26.Thompson River Power ($6.4 million)*

27.Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*

28.LSP Energy ($2.1 billion)*

29.UniSolar ($100 million)*

30.Azure Dynamics ($120 million)*

31.GreenVolts ($500,000)

32.Vestas ($50 million)

33.LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($150 million)

34.Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*

35.Navistar ($10 million)

36.Satcon ($3 million)*

Enjoy !  Unlike the comps you might sometimes get in Vegas, you aren't playing with "house" money.  This time the house is playing with your money.  Might as well have fun watching them blow it. 

Liberal vs. Libertarian

On Libertarian Reddit, someone posed the question "What's the difference between Liberal vs. Libertarian?"

Here's the best answer:

I'm not sure if this relates to what you mean, but "liberal" used mean what libertarian means today, but the socialists co-opted the word, and so in now the USA "liberal" means socialism-lite.


Anyhow, to understand the false dichotomy between "liberal" and "conservative" you need to understand it's a divide and conquer strategy. Take those who believe very strongly in personal property rights over their body, and the right to do what they want with their bodies, and play them as enemies against those who believe very strongly in private property rights that are external to the body, and who believe they have the right to use their property in any peaceful way they see fit. And then try to sideline and treat like a loon, anybody who believes in both.

So today the liberals tend to believe very strongly in personal rights, but tend not to give a shit about economic liberties, and today the conservatives tend to believe rather strongly in economic liberties, but tend not to give a shit about personal liberties, and the libertarians believe in both personal liberties, and economic liberties. So in that sense, the conservatives try to treat the libertarians as liberal enemies, and the liberals try to treat libertarians as ultra conservative right-wing enemies. And libertarians tend to think of conservatives and liberals, well, as the same, not giving a shit about peoples' freedoms.

There you have it. 

A personal letter from Gary Johnson

Dear Whited,

I hope you are doing well.  How are the dachshunds?  Shipped many fruitstands?  And how was that 45 minute meeting on the impact of ObamaCare that your President and CEO conducted this morning?  Scared the shit out of you didn't it? 

Think many of your fellow supervisors and managers will be voting for the Godfathers of ObamaCare and RomneyCare?  Ha !!  ROFLMAO. 

Just joking.  I've met Gary Johnson 3 times, but he doesn't know me from Hillary Clinton.  Here's the real letter that he sent out today: 

**********

Many of you have been involved in political campaigns before.  Many of you haven’t.  But either way, the amount of campaign material we have distributed all across the nation in the past few months is amazing!

Counting all the home-made signs and literature our great volunteers have created and passed out, well over a million Americans have received or are displaying our message of liberty, small government and non-intervention.  I have more than 300,000 fans on Facebook, almost 80,000 followers on Twitter, and more than a million on Google+ (more than Mitt Romney!).

That has happened because of you.  The kind of grassroots campaign that can distribute a million pieces of literature not only requires thousands of volunteers, but it also requires money.  You have provided that money, and words cannot give justice to my personal gratitude for your support.

Thanks to you, we have also aired almost 1,000 radio spots, and will continue to do so right up to Election Day.   And thanks to you, we will also be airing TV spots across the country.  Go to www.garyjohnson2012.com and help us do even more!

As an entrepreneur who knows the value of the dollars you have contributed, I can safely say that we get more “bang for the buck” than Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, with their hundreds of millions of special interest dollars, can ever imagine.  As you may have read in the press, I don’t even check my suitcase when I fly – which is virtually every day.  I know my plane ticket was purchased with dollars provided by supporters like you, and I refuse to spend the extra $30 to check a bag I can carry myself.

So here we are.  21 precious days until the election – and until we make history.  You and me.

We have come an amazingly long way.  After largely ignoring me, even the New York Times has taken notice, publishing a major story  yesterday on the war being waged  by the Republican Party to keep us off the ballot. 

Now, the final push is upon us --  and I need your help.  Please go to www.garyjohnson2012.com today and make the contribution that will let us keep the literature going out, the radio spots running, and otherwise reach those millions of voters who are right now looking at the Republican and Democrat and – surprise – not finding a candidate who will protect our liberty, get us out of useless and costly wars, and get the government off our backs.

Our task over the next three weeks is simple:  Make sure those voters know there is another option.  I am the only candidate who will stand up for liberty, who will bring our troops home, and who will bring this great nation back from the brink of economic catastrophe.  Your contribution at www.garyjohnson2012.com will let us keep my name and our message in front of those voters right up to election day.

We have come too far to let up now!  I am in New York today and tomorrow, headed to Wyoming Thursday and Colorado on Friday.  Next week, I will be in more key states reaching out to as many people as I possibly can.  Your contribution is what will help me reach those people I can’t see personally in the next 21 days.  Go to www.garyjohnson2012.com and help me spread the word!

Again, as we enter these final hectic weeks, I cannot possibly express my gratitude to you for your support, your confidence and your friendship.  We truly are on the cusp of history, and with your help, this will be the election that changes the political landscape in America for years to come.

Thank you, and I look forward to seeing you soon.

Gary

A Rant

1. I’m tired of seeing Anti-War bumperstickers and Barack Obama stickers on the same car.


2. I’m tired of hearing about tax and budget “plans”, plans that will involve careful allocation of resources for decades, and that don’t take into account new technology, wars, inflation, or other surprises, all from people who haven’t passed a budget in something like 1,300 days.

3. I’m tired of reading about debates where Civil Liberties weren’t discussed.

4. I’m tired of reading about debates where the miserable failure of our public schools isn’t discussed.

5. I’m tired of speeches from Democrats that don’t mention how many black men are in jail for victimless crimes.

6. I’m tired of speeches from Republicans who act horrified at the very thought of cutting out military pork.

7. I am starting to enjoy political discussions in my bar. I’ve had this one three times…. Sincere Young Statist: We as a society owe it to each other to provide a safety net. That’s why we need Social Security. Me: Social Security is broke. I’m older than you are. Cover my bar tab so I’ll have more money for a vacation.

8. I’m tired of hearing about “Jobs Created And Saved” from a man who has never, to the best of my knowledge, created or saved a job in his working life. Private industry creates jobs. Government creates overhead.

9. I’m tired of hearing my Republican friends try to explain why Paul Ryan voted for the bailouts. And TARP.

10. I’m trying to figure out why the G.M. bailout was superior to a controlled bankruptcy. Did those guys have to change anything at all about the way they do business?

11. I’m tired of explaining the Wasted Vote Fallacy to people who don’t support the Drug War, don’t support the Bush Wars, don’t support the Wall Street control of Obama, but who are going to vote for Obama anyway.

12. I’m tired of backing people into logical corners, and then having them say “we’ll just have to agree to disagree”.

13. I’m tired of going to this map of the Stimulus Bill spending in my area, and looking for things that make any sense at all.  (Put in your zip code, and hunt down the pork.) 

14. Yesterday, I got tired of my friends Roger and John trying to convince me to watch the McDonald’s vs. Burger King debates Tuesday night.

That's all for now. Hope you have a GREAT Day !!!!!

A comparison of The Obamneys

From the "End Of The American Dream" website....Someone named Michael has put together the definitive list comparing and contrasting The Obamneys. 

Some of these, from a Libertarian point of view, are horrific. In other cases, you've gotta wonder what Michael was getting worked up about. For instance, #25 is iffy.  Both Obamneys slam Free Trade when addressing an audience of the economically illiterate, but often do a few things to support rational trade and exchange. #33, the abortion issue, is IMHO, best left up to mothers and doctors. #34 is nobody's business but The Boy Scouts, as long as they aren't receiving tax dollars. All in all, though, this is a good effort.

GARY JOHNSON FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES !! THE ONLY WAY TO "WASTE" YOUR VOTE IS TO BE OPPOSED TO THE MESS BELOW, AND CONTINUE VOTING FOR IT !!!!

The following are 40 ways that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are essentially the same candidate....
1. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both supported TARP.
2. Mitt Romney supported Barack Obama's "economic stimulus" packages.
3. Mitt Romney says that Barack Obama's bailout of the auto industry was actually his idea.
4. Neither candidate supports immediately balancing the federal budget.
5. They both believe in big government and they both have a track record of being big spenders while in office.
6. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both fully support the Federal Reserve.
7. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are both on record as saying that the president should not question the "independence" of the Federal Reserve.
8. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have both said that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke did a good job during the last financial crisis.
9. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both felt that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke deserved to be renominated to a second term.
10. Both candidates oppose a full audit of the Federal Reserve.
11. Both candidates are on record as saying that U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has done a good job.
12. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have both been big promoters of universal health care.
13. Mitt Romney was the one who developed the plan that Obamacare was later based upon.
14. Wall Street absolutely showers both candidates with campaign contributions.
15. Neither candidate wants to eliminate the income tax or the IRS.
16. Both candidates want to keep personal income tax rates at the exact same levels for the vast majority of Americans.
17. Both candidates are "open" to the idea of imposing a Value Added Tax on the American people.
18. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both believe that the TSA is doing a great job.
19. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both supported the NDAA.
20. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both supported the renewal of the Patriot Act.
21. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both believe that the federal government should be able to indefinitely detain American citizens that are considered to be terrorists.
22. Both candidates believe that American citizens suspected of being terrorists can be killed by the president without a trial.
23. Barack Obama has not closed Guantanamo Bay like he promised to do, and Mitt Romney actually wants to double the number of prisoners held there.
24. Both candidates support the practice of "extraordinary rendition".
25. They both support the job-killing "free trade" agenda of the global elite.
26. They both accuse each other of shipping jobs out of the country and both of them are right.
27. Both candidates are extremely soft on illegal immigration.
28. Neither candidate has any military experience. This is the first time that this has happened in a U.S. election since 1944.
29. Both candidates earned a degree from Harvard University.
30. They both believe in the theory of man-made global warming.
31. Mitt Romney has said that he will support a "cap and trade" carbon tax scheme (like the one Barack Obama wants) as long as the entire globe goes along with it.
32. Both candidates have a very long record of supporting strict gun control measures.
33. Both candidates have been pro-abortion most of their careers. Mitt Romney's "conversion" to the pro-life cause has been questioned by many. In fact, Mitt Romney has made millions on Bain Capital's investment in a company called "Stericycle" that incinerates aborted babies collected from family planning clinics.
34. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both believe that the Boy Scout ban on openly gay troop leaders is wrong.
35. They both believe that a "two state solution" will bring lasting peace between the Palestinians and Israel.
36. Both candidates have a history of nominating extremely liberal judges.
37. Like Barack Obama, Mitt Romney also plans to add "signing statements" to bills when he signs them into law.
38. They both have a horrible record when it comes to job creation.
39. Both candidates believe that the president has the power to take the country to war without getting the approval of the U.S. Congress.
40. Both candidates plan to continue running up more government debt even though the U.S. government is already 16 trillion dollars in debt.

What I Actually Do - Barack Obama edition

Matthew Solodow for Congress !! Texas 12th Congressional District

My friend Matthew Solodow is running as a Libertarian for Congress in U.S. District 12.  His opponents are Democrat Dave Robinson and Republican Kay Granger. 

It looks like Kay Granger, (if you go here), loves herself some Patriot Act.  She has also supported more than 50 million dollars in earmarks for the Trinity River Vision project, a porkfest headed by her son, J.D. Granger.  Here's the Washington Post article on "Public Projects, Private Interests".....

 Over the past decade, Granger has helped obtain $51.9 million in earmarks toward a project to make over downtown Fort Worth and reroute the Trinity River. Until 2010, Granger co-owned a condominium building with her son about a half-mile south of the project. Her son is director of the group in charge of the project.

Hit the link for more info on "Lake Granger".  Fascinating stuff in there about Personalized Pork. 

Granger also supports the Federal Marriage Amendment, a bizarre piece of legislation that claims to protect marriage by restricting gay and lesbian participation, but doesn't go so far as outlawing divorce. 

Matt's Democrat opponent, Dave Robinson, has a reputation as a decent guy.  But he supports the Buffett rule, which Republicans claim would support our deficit spending for 11 hours but that Democrats claim would say would support our deficit spending for up to 18 hours. 
He also supports ObamaCare, opposes the privatization of Social Security, dislikes teacher testing, and claims that there's Republican obstruction in Congress.  (I don't know if Dave is aware of how many Democrat senators voted for Obama's last two budgets....) 

Now, back to business. 

Here are Matt's positions on the big issues:

No more bailouts

Republicans and Democrats keep interfering in our economy, making taxpayers pay when big businesses make bad decisions. That just encourages them to act irresponsibly. The government should stop picking winners and losers. No more bailouts.

End foreign wars

Republicans used to say they opposed nation-building, yet they have led nation-building efforts in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Democrats promised to end the wars abroad, but they have only prolonged them. We need to end our policies of foreign interventionism now, stop the drone attacks, and bring our troops home. 

End the war on drugs

The war on drugs has been expensive and destructive. The government has thrown people in prison who never hurt anyone, and has also created huge violent black markets. Drug abuse can be a serious health issue, but it should not be a crime. It's time to end the war on drugs.

Shut down federal departments

We need to shut down federal departments such as Education, Commerce and Homeland Security.  Republicans have often promised to reduce these departments, but have not followed through on these promises.  Over the last twelve years, Republicans have frequently voted for massive increases in these departments. Let's shut them down instead. 

No more farm subsidies

Politicians from agricultural states use farm subsidies to buy votes. Farmers don't need subsidies, and most of the benefits go to huge agribusinesses. Let's reduce the burden on taxpayers by ending farm subsidies.

End the TSA

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) wastes our money groping us at airports. The TSA is just wasteful security theater that violates our rights. Let's end it.

Get government out of job creation

Government jobs programs destroy more jobs than they create. By redirecting money away from the productive and efficient private sector, they harm our economy and cause a net loss of jobs. Let's end these programs.

Cut entitlements

We've promised people far too much. They are not going to get what they've been led to expect. Let's be honest and stop making false promises. We need to cut entitlement spending now.

Stop mortgaging our future

Government debt has placed an unfair burden on our children and grandchildren. Republicans and Democrats often complain about the debt, but they're the ones who keep causing it. We need to cut federal spending by more than 40% right away, to stop increasing this burden.

Cut taxes ("Fair" Tax instead)

If you've read this far, you've seen many ways to cut federal spending. Once all those items expressed above are cut, we'll be able to make huge cuts in federal taxes. A "fair" tax will simplify our tax code, thus eliminating the current loopholes benefiting the politically-connected and empower people to choose how they will be taxed based on their purchases, not their income.  We might even be able to get rid of the IRS.

Here's a map of Texas U.S. District 12.  If you live in Western Tarrant, Parker, or Wise County, and like what you've read here, I hope you'll consider voting for Matthew Solodow !!

Electoral College Maps - 1972 through 2008

Presented as a public service....

Here are the Electoral College Presidential Election maps going back to 1972, all from the American Presidency Project. Fascinating stuff.  (I might be the first person to put this many of the Red/Blue maps on one page.)  This should make it easier to scroll up and down and watch the voting patterns change.  For instance, if someone can knock Minnesota out of their blue habit, he'll be the first to do so since 1972.   

Hitting the link above each map will take you to a detailed analysis of each election, a tally of the Electoral College votes allocated to each state at the time, plus a state-by-state vote total and other trivia. 

For instance, if you dig into the first link, you'll learn that in 1972, the Libertarian Party's candidate, John Hospers, received one electoral vote from a "faithless" elector in Virginia.  (If you sat through a Republican primary campaign and wound up having to vote for Richard "Wage And Price Controls" Nixon.....well, you would do what you had to do.  May his tribe increase.)   

Here's 1972. Richard Nixon got 520 Electoral votes with George McGovern only taking 17 (Massachusetts).

Here's 1976.  Spiro Agnew, Richard Nixon's Vice-President, had just resigned.  Gerald Ford was appointed to fill in as V.P.  Then Nixon resigned.  Ford then slid up to the Oval Office.  The Republicans went ahead and gave Ford the nomination, since it appeared to be his turn.  Then Jimmy Carter won the 1976 election with 297 votes to Ford's 240. 

Here's 1980.  Jimmy Carter couldn't accomplish much for the economy (but thank God almighty he deregulated the trucking, airling, and beer industries) and he couldn't get the hostages out of Iran.  Ronald Reagan defeated Carter 489 to 49, with Carter carrying only his home state of Georgia, plus West Virginia, Maryland, Hawaii, VP Walter Mondale's Minnesota, Hawaii, and D.C. 

Here's 1984.  Ronald Reagan handily defeated Walter Mondale, 525 to 13.  Mondale captured nothing but his ever-loyal Minnesota, plus D.C. 

Here's 1988.  Riding on the popularity of Reagan, George H.W. Bush beat Michael Dukakis 426 to 111. 

Here's 1992.  Bill Clinton came from out of nowhere to beat George Bush the Elder by a total of 370 to 168.  Ross Perot may have helped take some votes from Bush.  Remember this, Republicans....If you say "no new taxes", you better mean it.  There's a lot of blue spread over this map. 

Here's 1996.  Clinton had been doing well.  The Republicans trotted out Bob Dole because it was his turn.  Clinton won handily, 379 to 159.  (Montana, Georgia, Arizona and Colorado did some flip-flopping this time as compared to 1994.) 

Here's 2000.  George W. Bush barely squeaked by Al Gore, Clinton's V.P., by a score of 271 to 267.  Broward County, Florida.  Hanging "chads".  The Everglades rose from the weight of all the lawyers in Florida.  Incredibly close.  Democrats can safely blame this one on Bill Clinton's zipper issues.

 

Here's 2004.  George W. Bush beat John Kerry, 286 to 252.  Looks like New Mexico and Iowa changed sides after the previous contest. 

Here's 2008.  The Democrats had a new guy named Barack Obama.  The Republicans nominated John McCain because it was his turn.  Obama won, 365 to 173.  Hit the link to learn why Nebraska has a blue zit coming out of its nose. 

To be continued, sometime in November.  Pretty cool, huh??

Ouch.

Yeah, Romney's budget is goofy. He's not going to cut any branches of government. He could be a civil liberties disaster. But these cartoons are funny.

What A Wonderful World

One of the first things taught in Libertarianism 101 is that "Utopia Is Not An Option". 

Statists often argue that if Farm Bill 2987234-234E doesn't pass, then what would Libertarians do about the kid with Leukemia whose father was diagnosed with Aids after the plague of locusts destroyed the farm because a family of raccoons chewed threw the electric fence, the very electric fence that Farm Bill 2987234-234E would provide along with the cheese subsidy.  What would you Libertarians do about that if you dared touch the funding for Farm Bill 2987234-234E?? 

This reasoning assumes that if John Boehner/Nancy Pelosi didn't take care of the kid with leukemia, no one else would either.  The private sector and charities would step in.  They did it in the past and they could do it again.  Absence of government subsidies made medicine cheaper and doctors less risk-averse.  It wasn't Utopia then, but it's not Utopia now, and it won't be Utopia (Lord hasten the day) in a more Libertarian future. 

But just imagine with me.....

We could end the Drug War.  The Drug Lords would go belly-up.  People could move freely across the Rio Grande.  Texans hopping down to Mexico would be like hopping up to Oklahoma.  Would it be a Utopia?  No.  Some people might become addicts who wouldn't ordinarily become addicted.  But they would probably be more likely to get treatment.  Hundreds of thousands of people wouldn't be in jail.  They recently legalized everything in Portugal, and addiction rates went down!!   One million government jailer/narc/torturer/DEA jobs wouldn't be necessary.  Barack Obama, George W. Bush, John Kerry, Al Gore, and Bill Clinton could all smoke weed openly, the way they did when they were younger.  Another 40,000 Mexican bystanders wouldn't die in the violence.  It wouldn't be a Utopia, but it would be better than the current disaster. 

We could End The Freakin' Federal Reserve.  A dollar saved wouldn't mean 50 cents lost.  Ben Bernanke wouldn't be allowed to do any more counterfeiting.  Would the absence of a Federal Reserve mean that we'd be at the mercy of the ups and downs of the business cycle?  (Which was part of the rationale for The Fed's creation - LOL.)  Yes, we might see some weirdness because of the ups and downs of the business cycle.  It wouldn't be a Utopia.  But I'd bet my bottom dollar that it would be less screwed up than what we have now. 

I've got a friend named Roger who is going to vote for Obama because of Obama's newly discovered support of gay marriage (among other reasons).  Never mind the total cynicism of Obama's new position on this.  The bigger question is what the hell is the government doing in the marriage business anyway?  If it matters to you who gets elected president, then your government is too big.  Would a smaller government be a Utopia?  Heck no.  But it would be infinitely better than the plague of busybodies currently trying to regulate your diet, health, safety, marriage, drug use, alcohol consumption hours, payroll and gun cabinet. 

If you're a taxpayer, your share of the national debt is $80,000.00.  Your share of the unfunded liabilities is a number so staggering that no one can calculate it properly.  Somewhere around 350K to 500K.  This is a lot of money, and we'll never, ever pay it off.  Imagine that it was your brother-in-law who got you into this much debt, mostly for what he considered to be worthwhile causes.  You'd kill him.  Every serious investor knows we're playing a shell game.  We keep acting as if the problem will go away.  When it crashes, it's going to be horrible.  Absolutely horrible.  Civil unrest, hungry people, and a total breakdown of society. 

I haven't mentioned the money we're spending killing women and children in Pakistan, and how we're going to pay a price for that.  There are some 15-year-old boys in Pakistan watching Obama's drones fly over, and they're plotting their revenge.  On you. 

The alternative would't be a Utopia.  There will be problems. 

But it would be so much better. 

How Mitt Romney will really harm the middle class

Almost every day of his life, George Mason University Economics professor Don Boudreaux writes a letter to the editor.  He's been doing this for years in a vain attempt to correct economic misinformation. 

Here's a recent corrective that Boudreaux sent to The Wall Street Journal, explaining that the John The Baptist Of ObamaCare is just as goofy as the founder of ObamaCare:

John Taylor is correct that Mitt Romney’s economic policies are less likely to thwart growth than are those of Pres. Obama (“The Romney Cure for Obama-Induced Economic Ills,” Oct. 4). The bar, alas, is low. Because entrepreneurs and investors aren’t keen to produce and take risks when the president threatens them with higher tax rates, saddles them with crushing regulations, and scolds them for allegedly being selfish, ungrateful, predatory, and (to boot!) not especially important to economic growth anyway, entrepreneurs and investors respond by producing less and taking fewer risks.

Mitt Romney does seem to be less hostile than is Barack Obama to entrepreneurship, commerce, and private investment.

Get ready people.... Get ready.  Here comes the patented Don Boudreaux Karate Kid Crane Kick !  THIS IS GONNA HURT !!!

But contrary to Mr. Taylor’s claim, Mr. Romney’s trade proposals are not clearly better than are the president’s. Mr. Taylor writes that “Mr. Romney intends to move ahead on trade agreements and create global enterprise zones to remove barriers to trade.” That would be grand. Yet what we hear most loudly about trade from Mr. Romney isn’t about freeing trade; it’s about restricting it. Mr. Romney repeatedly boasts that he’ll raise taxes on Americans who buy imports from China.

So rather than making a principled case for removing barriers, Mr. Romney’s singular trade obsession seems to be to raise barriers and thereby make trade less free.

Sincerely,

Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030

John Taylor, consider yourself bitch-slapped.  Please offend us no more in that way.  Boudreaux WILL come back. 
The Mason Nation logo at the top came from the George Mason University bookstore site.  My arch-nemesis, Dr. Ralph, was good enough to get me one of the shirts, which I wear often.  You know you're a political geek when you wear your favorite university shirt because of the economics department, not the football or basketball team !! 

Hey, MSNBC, it coulda been worse !!!

Why all this weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth from MSNBC? 
Do they not understand that if one Obamney lost this "debate", then the other Obamney is winner by default?
You'll still have your welfare state, godawful wars, Federal Reserve, Prohibition, giveways, corporate welfare, cronyism, dead Pakistani babies, mercantilism and tribalism. It's not like a Libertarian candidate was allowed in the room to kick both of their asses....
This video is pretty funny though. 

Why There's No Point In Watching Tonight's "Debate"

Barack Obama and Mitt Romney will have a conversation tonight about who is best qualified to lead our collective plunge over the cliff.


The following remedies for our economic situation will not be on the table. They are considered “outside the mainstream” and “extremist". 

Unfortunately, the only way to escape a 16 trillion dollar debt is to go outside the mainstream.

You will not hear a serious discussion about the following:

1) Cutting government spending. Both men have budgets that actually increase spending into infinity. The Romney/Ryan plan slows down the rate of growth just a tad, but the spending still increases. What makes all of these plans laughable is that no Congress can limit the thievery of a future Congress. Imagine the current group of legislators taking, say, Jimmy Carter’s 2012 spending goals seriously.

2) Ending the Drug War. There are one million government employees who rely on this idiotic conflict for a paycheck.
.
3) Ending the Fed. Both Romney and Obama know that the only way to keep their contributors happy and content at the government trough is for Ben Bernanke to keep printing cheaper and cheaper money. We are due for a massive inflationary leap in the next few years. These higher prices will be blamed on greedy corporations.

4) Shrinking the military. Our military spending equals that of the next 17 to 20 countries, depending on how you do the math. Most of those countries are our friends, BTW. We’ve been in South Korea since the late 1940’s. Ditto for Europe. We never send them a bill for defense. (Also, we have no business going to the Middle East to spread the gospel of “free and fair elections” when f***ing Oklahoma won’t allow Gary Johnson on the ballot. What a farce.)

5) Bringing Hillary back to the house. What makes anyone think that Bill Clinton’s wife is any more qualified to intervene in the Arab-Israeli conflict than, say, Sarah Palin’s husband???

6) Privatizing Social Security. The system is now running in the red. To mention that fact is political suicide. Unless you’re Gary Johnson.

7) School Choice. 70% of the Chicago schoolteachers who went on strike send their own kids to schools not run by the Chicago schoolteachers. How do you think it would work out if the government assigned you a grocery store?

There are other obvious topics that these two guys won’t touch, and that a Libertarian candidate would bring into the discussion.

I used to drunk-blog these things, but tonight I don’t think I’ll bother. A real debate would include parties besides those which got us into this mess. 

Go here. Read this.

Go here. 

Ryan Sheffield's 12 Political Compromises

My Bar Friend Ryan Sheffield has put a list of "12 Political Compromises" on Facebook.  This is his governmental wish list. 

As a side note, Ryan is one of those creative people who can do just about anything he wants to do.  Go here to view (and purchase) some of his artwork, mostly drawings of authors that incorporate their quotations.  I think I've used the Twain and the Hunter S. Thompson to liven up posts on this site a few times. 
Go here to download (no purchase required) his two e-books.  I've read some of his stories, and they're good stuff. 

IMHO, Ryan is very close to the Kingdom Of God, i.e., the Libertarian Party, with this list.  My additional commentary is in italics.  Here goes:

1. Repeal Citizens United. You would be hard-fought to find any normal citizen who thinks it’s a good idea for corporations, labor unions and special interest groups to have an unfettered cashflow into political campaigns. It doesn’t matter what “side” you are on, you should probably oppose Big Money syndicates controlling the election process and fueling the obnoxious TV commercials you are being bombarded with every day.

Why do we have big corporations and super-pacs giving a rip who gets elected?  Well, to produce a successful product, you have to convince millions of citizens to purchase the product.  That's the hard way.  The easy way is to get Congress to mandate the use, purchase, or monopolization of the product.  Corporations want protection from competitors.  In a nation with a massive government, it's far more effective to purchase one Congressman that to sell to 330 million Americans.  Here's something from the Cato Institute:

The proper answer to large expenditures for speech is either more speech or, if the existing system proves unworkable, a constitutional amendment. As for money, it's just a symptom. We have a big money problem because we have a big government problem. By restraining the regulatory and redistributive powers of the state, we can minimize the influence of big money. Restoring the Framers' notion of enumerated, delegated, and limited federal powers will get government out of our lives and out of our wallets. That's the best way to end the campaign-finance racket, and root out corruption without jeopardizing political speech.

In other words, if it really matters who wins the elections, your government has gotten too big.  If governments can mandate profits for favored corporations, government has gotten waaaay too big. 

2. Close the “Revolving Door” and shut lobbyists out of government. This is an extension of number 1. Again, no one wants these organizations, right or left, buying and bribing politicians or running their own regulatory agencies. Politicians work for us, not the highest bidder.

Once again, lobbyists are just a symptom.  They're not the disease.  If the government matters enough to justify the hiring of lobbyists, the government has gotten too big. 

3. End the “War on Drugs.” This doesn’t mean we have to legalize EVERYTHING, but this “war” is a bottomless money pit and a failed experiment. It is the reason the violent cartels exist and the reason your idiot son is snorting bath salts in your basement.

Precisely.  Exactly.  Ever since Nixon began the War On Drugs in 1970, the only drug whose use has declined is....tobacco.  That's because tobacco is legal and no longer cool.  
There are a few antibiotics that should possibly be restricted because unfettered use causes viruses to mutate and grow stronger.  
Everything else?  Well, ask yourself which currently illegal drugs you want the Mexican and Afghan Drugs Lords to have a monopoly on. 

4. Stop treating the environment as a partisan issue. The environment SHOULD be something we all agree on. It affects us all equally. As long as free enterprise exists, there must be checks & balances on pollution, deforestation and animal cruelty. This is not “socialism.” It’s the necessary price business owners must pay for the ability to run operations that affect our natural surroundings and resources. The beautiful but unrealistic Libertarian idea that simply boycotting polluters will solve the problem is a pipe dream. Especially if the public is unaware they are polluting in the first place (or simply doesn’t care.) We need to agree on what “facts and science” are and deal with the problems accordingly. Present “free market” alternatives. That is healthy and good. But accept science before you make suggestions. Economic freedom doesn’t make toxic waste taste any better.

The environment is a classic economic "externality".  You want to purchase powder-coated metal parts from me, so I powder-coat the parts.  You give me money.  I give you painted parts.  We're the only two people involved in the deal.  But not if I dump a lot of leftover zinc and iron-phosphate into the Trinity River.  Then a lot of other people become a party to our deal.  That's called an "externality". 

The classic Anarchist position in this case is to boycott the polluters.  The classic Libertarian position, however, is to sue the shit out of them if they have done YOU harm.  (Plus, all environmental regulations should be voted on by Congress, not enforced by appointees.)  Go here and here for two more excellent Cato downloads on how we could help the environment, lower the bureaucratic costs, and also let manufacturing businesses prosper. 

5. Audit the Federal Reserve and, preferably, abolish it. A private banking organization with no oversight or accountability should NOT be in charge of the nation’s economy. Central banks were never a good idea. But private and secret central banks are even worse.

Oh yes, yes, yes, Mr. Sheffield.  Yes, yes, yes.  And when we End The Fed, let's level all their buildings and plow salt into the earth where they stood so nothing will ever grow there again. 
The Fed was founded in 1913 to stabilize the money supply.  Since 1913, the dollar has lost 97% of its value. 

6. Legalize gay marriage. It doesn’t affect you. Just let it happen, move on, and turn your attention to issues that actually affect us all.

Yeah.  If God doesn't like gay people, why does he keep making so many of them? 

7. Disrupt and destroy the partisan divide. We are all screwed if this extreme partisanship continues to divide us. The culture of the American media has made it impossible for us to discuss issues and make progress. The main source of this problem? Pigeonholing. If someone asks you if you support the Affordable Care Act (or Obamacare, for the other partisans), your answer should be nuanced and thought-out and should NEVER place you squarely in a political party. The common practice of assuming what “side” someone is on based on a single opinion is the MOST destructive aspect of our modern political culture.

In my opinion, we have so much extreme partisanship and a partisan divide because the only choice we have is between two partisans.  You can pick the Crips or the Bloods.  I've commented on this dozens of times elsewhere, but let's say the Crips and Bloods are the only parties to hold office for the last 75 years.  They both advocate slavery, puppy torture, and poor dental hygiene.  But the Bloods have a better position on Healthcare. 

So you always support the Bloods.  Otherwise the Crips will win.  If a 3rd gang (The Libertarians) comes along advocating an end to slavery, puppy torture, and are pro-brushing and flossing, they're written off as a wasted vote.  They might help the dreaded Crips win !!  So what's the solution?  How do we end all of this partisanship of Us vs Them? 

Through a system of approval voting.  Go here for an explanation.  It would allow most of us to comfortably step outside the Us and Them boxes and safely try out some other points of view. 

8. Recognize that gun control is like drug control. They will always exist and banning them only makes them more dangerous. People have a Constitutional right to arm themselves and threatening to take that right away only makes the loony “patriot” gun nuts all the more rabid and frothing at the mouth for their insurrection fantasies. Compromise: Don’t sell assault rifles at K-Mart. Gun store owners are always going to be more scrutinizing than a 16-year-old making minimum wage at a big box store.

I became a rabid 2nd Amendment nutcase when one of my co-managers brought in plans for a WWI-era machine gun that we could make at the shop.  I totally understood those blueprints, and I'm a borderline mechanical idiot.  Ryan is correct.  Guns aren't going away if someone like me can make one. 
I don't have insurrection fantasies, but do have the fears.  I now sometimes carry a gun, because cops are too dang heavy. 

9. Remove the words “socialism” and “capitalism” from the healthcare debate. It should be universally considered the “noble” goal to provide affordable healthcare for all American citizens. The road to that goal is (and SHOULD be) up for debate, but the endgame should not. The question is how to pay for it and how to ensure that quality of care (and personal decision-making power) do not decrease. It’s going to be difficult to sort out, but it’s hard for me to believe that there is anyone in America who does not think it’s a positive thing for everyone to have healthcare. “Healthcare is not a right.” You’re correct. Now let’s sit down and figure out how to make it one in a way that we can all agree on. If your opinion on healthcare is little more than “I support the President because he’s a Democrat like me” or “I dang’ol hate commies!,” you should probably stop voting.

I think that true Capitalist Healthcare has never been tried.  Here's my modest proposal.  If this became the system in an 8-block Free Market Zone someplace south of downtown, people would be flying in from all over the state for treatment.  And I think this would meet Ryan's criteria of a noble solution for a noble goal.  Hit the link. Please. 
But I do like the word "capitalism", because when regulators and Nanny-Staters allow unbridled acts of capitalism to take place, capitalism usually works.  Lap Band surgery and Lasik eye surgeries have become 80% less expensive, mostly because Medicare, Medicaid and insurance policies don't cover them. 

10. All censorship is wrong. A message to the left wing: All speech must be permitted, even what most would consider “hate.” I’m sorry. Free speech is an “all or nothing” issue. We can never open the door for authority to tell us what we can and can’t say or express. A message for the right wing: Seriously, just think about it. Is it really worse for your kid to see a naked lady than it is for them to witness a mass murder? Obviously not, if you’ve ever watched primetime TV. Get your priorities straight.

Here's a Ryan Sheffield print.  It's gonna be the first one I order:

11. Recognize that nearly every one of those infographics, chain emails, or biased news articles you share with your friends is chock-full of misinformation, omission, and partisan agendas. Yes, even the ones that agree with your position. “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.” – Mark Twain

That's why I probably won't watch the (ahem) debate between The Obamneys.  Much truthiness will be thrown around that's half-right, half-wrong, manipulated, and taken totally out of the original context.
 
My questions about the infographics, chain emails, news articles and partisan agendas usually come down to this...  a) Does this person want to leave me and everyone else alone? b) Does this person's agenda promote or discourage ethnic, racial, or national Tribalism?
Nothing else matters. 

12. Talk to each other. Stop being so goddamn clique-y with your politics. Talk to someone who disagrees with you without letting the debate devolve into a talking points recitation contest. We need more open minds, less partisan cheerleading. I feel like I’m watching a word-war between Crips and Bloods who haven’t yet realized that the only thing dividing them is the color of bandana they wear.

Sorry, I’ll shut up now.  

Some of my responses were old talking points and some were new. 

Sorry about breaking Ryan's post down into a word-war between Crips and Bloods and Libertarians. 

The LP bandana is red and blue with porcupines on it.  

I'll shut up too.  At least until tomorrow morning.  

Be sure to hit the links at the top for Ryan Sheffields art and stories !!   

What Is "Approval Voting"?

Libertarians (and other parties who challenge the status quo) are often accused of merely being "spoilers".  Some claim that we don't have a hope in hell of winning, but we might take votes away from Romney and give them to Obama.  Or vice-versa. 

Here's another problem: A lot of voters like the Libertarian Party's position on almost everything, but they're reluctant to "waste their vote" on a possible non-winner.  This is called the "wasted vote fallacy", and virtually guarantees that we'll keep getting shafted by those representing the false choice of Democrat vs Republican. 

So what to do....what to do....

Many Libertarians advocate something called Approval Voting.  (Hit the link for a plethora of links and explanations.)  Here's a blurb from the Approval Voting site:

Approval voting is a voting procedure in which voters can vote for, or approve of, as many candidates as they wish. Each candidate approved of receives one vote, and the candidate with the most votes wins. It was independently proposed by several people in the 1970s.


Approval voting has several compelling advantages over other voting procedures:

•It is eminently practicable and easy to understand
•It will reduce negative campaigning
•It will increase voter turnout
•It helps elect the strongest candidate
•It gives voters flexible and simple options
•It will give minority candidates their proper due

Unlike more complicated ranking systems, which suffer from a variety of theoretical as well as practical defects, approval voting is simple for voters to understand and use. It doesn't require redesigning of ballots and is trivial to implement in vote-counting systems. Approval voting is used today by various governments and organizations around the world, including its use by the United Nations to elect the secretary-general.   An approval voting-style ballot would look like this:  

Let's assume that Smith is a Republican.  Citizen and Doe are both Democrats.  Rubble is from the Green Party, and Hill is a Libertarian.  I'm going to vote for the Libertarian every chance I get.  So Mary Hill gets one of my votes.   

Let's assume that the Republican, Joe Smith, advocates school prayer, the Defense Of Marriage Act, the Drug War, giving more money to Lockheed to kill more babies in Pakistan, a 40% tariff on all imports, and a return to our Judeo-Christian heritage.  I wouldn't trust Joe Smith to put together Happy Meals.  Joe Smith doesn't get my vote.   

Jane Doe, one of the Democrats, has an Obama sticker on her car, and was once photographed shaking hands with the man.  Therefore she is not to be trusted.  She doesn't get my vote.   

Mr. Rubble is the Green Party candidate.  I don't know anything else about him, but the Green Party affiliation is enough to keep me from giving him a vote.   

I've heard good things about John Citizen.  He's a rare small-government Democrat, and has spoken out against a lot of pork spending in the past.  He's with the Libertarians on all social issues - not just lip service, either.  So John Citizen gets a vote from me.   

So on my ballot, I've supported Mary Hill and John Citizen.  Voting for one doesn't take away a vote from the other.  None of my votes were "wasted".    When everyone's votes are tallied in an Approval Voting election, the election is OVER.  The person with the most votes is the winner. There's no need for a runoff.  Everyone who wanted a chance to vote for these folks has had that chance.   

I like it.  Let's talk it up, folks !!