Category Archives: Politics

Economics, Liberating Thoughts, Politics, Preparing for the worst

Whose Economic Policies Work Best?!?

Personally, I consider the National Debt to be the greatest threat to the future well-being of the United States. Followed closely by deficit spending. Given the economic news of the past week, with the Federal Government doing its best to socialize losses, I expect the debt will continue to grow. (Did you know the National Debt is about to hit $10 Trillion? That’s Trillion, with a Tr.)

Avedon compiled a review of past administration economic results that Dwight Meredith studied “Just For the Record” – covering 1962-2001.

The link has some specific numbers and links to other interesting pages.

A bit of Summary:
Continue reading Whose Economic Policies Work Best?!? →

Politics

McCain still thinks economy is strong

YouTube – McCain still thinks economy is strong.

I would like to hear John McCain’s explanation as to what the fundamentals of our economy are. Will any of the debate interviewers ask that question and work to get an answer to the question?

For that matter, I would like to hear Obama’s answer to that question.

Between McCain and Obama, which one is more likely to “fix Wall Street”? I’m definitely not betting on the Republican. And I haven’t heard anything to make me think the Democrats will either.

General, Liberating Thoughts, Politics

Trying to make history : AFA professor eyes run for Lamborn’s U.S. House seat

Trying to make history : AFA professor eyes run for Lamborn’s U.S. House seat : Local News : Local News : Colorado Springs Independent : Colorado Springs.

I had a chance to meet Hal last night. He is a very engaging speaker – recounting his adventures up at the DNC in Denver. And he has some good ideas on what Congress needs to be working on, check out his web site –

It’s the Alexander Hamilton bit that worries me…I tend to be more Jeffersonian…

Liberating Thoughts, Politics

Reflections on the Fourth:

I have sort of half been paying attention to the buzz going around this year on the pending elections. The Nominees have been determined and now each side is looking for a VP that will make a difference.

I saw a reposting of a Washington Post piece on the allegiance of a patriot an American. It does well to capture what I think of as the base ideals of America, ideals that are run over roughshod in the current political climate.

I see that Clark made a statement that being a war hero, to have made a large personal sacrifice for your country, does not mean that you are qualified to be commander-in-chief. I also heard the follow-up – that reaching the strategic command level begins to reach the level of qualification Clark was referring to. Clark was lambasted for dissing McCain, which he wasn’t doing. And McCain’s people can’t say that just because McCain has made great personal sacrifices for his country that he is qualified to be President. Neither approach is correct; neither being a war hero nor being a strategic genius qualifies you to be the President – or Commander-in-Chief. And it is foolish to pretend it does. But, I suppose the pundits need to prattle on about something. The very thought of MacArthur as President sends shivers down my spine.

The President is a civilian authority. He, or she, has the resources of the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs to call upon to review military options. That’s their job. I am afraid that too many in the current administration see the military as a foreign policy tool and since we paid so much for it, it seems kind of silly not to use it. So they invade sovereign nations that are not an eminent threat to the US or to its allies and squander billions of dollars of the US treasury and thousands of soldier’s lives. And Congress, our representatives, lets them get away with it. Why are WE letting THEM get away with it?

The President is not the King of the United States of America. Yet many seem to think of him as a king and to treat him as a king. His deciding decisions are the final authority on all matters great and small. If the President makes a decree that the pundits agree with, then it is treason to disagree with the President. (Of course, if the pundits disagree with him then he is a buffoon or a criminal.) Presidents shouldn’t make decrees; they should make suggestions, and maybe even suggest how a suggestion can be implemented, but they shouldn’t make decrees. Leave that for the idiots in Congress.

As we have observed this past Fourth, the United States of America was founded on the principle that we do not owe allegiance to one man, to one sovereign. The people are sovereign; the citizens are sovereign.

And there are natural rights that apply to all humans. These are inherent human rights that we hold to be self-evident. We started to define them in our Declaration of Independence and further refined them in our Constitution. These are natural human rights, unalienable; not just American rights. We just happened to be the first to codify these rights for all and our prosperity. It does well to ponder these rights on the Fourth, to remember where we came from and why, and to look upon our current path, and to see if we are still moving, progressing in the desired direction.

Liberating Thoughts, Politics

“The Four Freedoms”

The essential human freedoms don’t change over time, driven by partisan politics. They are a constant basic foundation of our social fabric.

Please don’t forget them.

American Rhetoric: Franklin D. Roosevelt — “The Four Freedoms”


In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression — everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way — everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want, which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants — everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear, which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor — anywhere in the world.

That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called “new order” of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.

To that new order we oppose the greater conception — the moral order. A good society is able to face schemes of world domination and foreign revolutions alike without fear.

Economics, Politics

Entering the economic quagmire…

I read an article over on Making Light and it got me to pondering.

What libertarians (and the softheaded quasi-libertarian burghers of science fiction fandom, most of whom think the Economist is a voice of reason) need to learn is that capitalism is never about free markets, or in fact “freedom” of any sort; it’s about using the power of the state in order to make it easy for large amounts of capital to get together and rearrange the rules for its own convenience. “Privatize the profits, socialize the losses” is the logical consequence of capitalism’s prime directive. What we wind up with is socialism for the powerful, and tough shit for everybody else.

“Privatize the profits, socialize losses” seems to be a very apt description of Wall Street Capitalism.  Every decade or two we seem to need to learn the lesson all over again. If rules and regulations get set up, the players learn to game the system while continually trying to undermine the regulators – Oh! they’re not needed anymore since we learned that lesson!

But I did start to ponder about the full matrix that the statement creates.

  1. Privatize profits ——socialize losses
  2. Socialize profits——socialize  losses
  3. Socialize profits——privatize losses
  4. Privatize profits——privatize losses
  1. is straight Wall Street Capitalism
  2. is probably straight Socialism
  3. is never going to happen, or is it philanthropy?
  4. is complete anarchy/ true capitalism

I must continue my pondering.

Economics, General, Politics

The New Colonialism

China | The new colonialists | Economist.com

Not all observers, however, think that China’s unstinting appetite for commodities is super. The most common complaint centres on foreign policy. In its drive to secure reliable supplies of raw materials, it is said, China is coddling dictators, despoiling poor countries and undermining Western efforts to spread democracy and prosperity. America and Europe, the shrillest voices say, are “losing” Africa and Latin America.

I read this paragraph and immediately thought “How is this different from what the US has been doing for the past 100+ years? ” I might include the Europeans as well, after they had to relinquish their empires – coddling dictators indeed, setting them up in the first place, that’s what they were doing.

Politics

Nader announces another presidential bid

Oh my, won’t the Democrats be upset!

Nader announces another presidential bid

WASHINGTON – Ralph Nader is launching a third-party campaign for president. The consumer advocate made the announcement Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” He says most Americans are disenchanted with the Democratic and Republican parties, and that none of the presidential contenders are addressing ways to stem corporate crime and Pentagon waste and promote labor rights.

Nader also ran as a third-party candidate in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. He is still loathed by many Democrats who call him a spoiler and claim his candidacy in 2000 cost the party the election by siphoning votes away from Al Gore in a razor-thin contest in Florida.

Maybe if the Democrats actually tried to do something about corporate crime and corruption then Nader would not feel compelled to jump into the race. But if the Dems did that, they might not be mistaken for Republicans, and then no one would vote for them.

Much more important to get elected rather than do the right thing.

General, Politics

I think I figured it out. Wait, No I didn’t.

The previous article discussing optimal representation was basing its results on a proportional power of the population. I think they were using a factor of 1/3 for their equation. So, if you raise the Population Number to 0.4 and divide by 3, you come up pretty close to what they thought optimal for the US. (I think it depends on what population numbers you use. I came up with 815 using a population of 295,734,134 (2005 est). Using their 807 figure indicates they are looking at a population of 288M)

Of course this doesn’t explain the discrepancy between France and Italy, unless the CIA has the wrong population figures for those countries.  My proportional calculations produced 433 and 425 reps respectively which is still a fair bit less than their numbers. So maybe the proportion is a variable as well?

If you use the 2000 US pop of 281M then the proportion is 2.97 to get the 807 result. But it does nothing to get closer to their France and Italy numbers.

Later.

295,734,134
295,734,134