What's Really at Stake

Recently George Steinbrenner passed away, and because this year (and this year only) there is no death tax, the Yankee’s owner, shipping magnate and philanthropist was able to bequeath the entirety of considerable fortune to his heirs … as he saw fit. That thought delights me. For as the legendary economist Milton Friedman once wondered, why is it better for a wealthy man to spend lavishly on himself, indulging in every whim, than leave too much money to his children?

I don’t have any children, but I have many friends who are wonderful, loving parents, and certainly I was once a child myself, so I’m still well acquainted with the concept of mothers and fathers “doing” for their offspring. In fact, as far as my circle of friends and family is concerned, anything less than total commitment to their children’s welfare is completely unfathomable. And surely, among life’s pleasures for these people, is giving a gift to a child that will utterly delight the young one.

Now imagine if such a special moment were interrupted by a brutish third party who steps in and announces, “That gift is much too nice. I’m going to insist on something of lesser value for your child.” Unfortunately in this scenario, the entity is so powerful that you have no choice but to surrender a portion of your little one’s joy.

Here then is the question: If it would disturb you to be stopped from giving your child as fancy a toy as you would like, how much worse would it be if this same interloper stopped you from aiding your child with a better education, better health care or — worse still— the life skills and moral character to flourish on their own.

Ultimately, that is the effect of wealth redistribution as favored by the current regime in Washington. And don’t doubt for a moment that Barack Obama and his associates truly want to keep middle-class parents from providing for their children at the best of their ability. Consider leftist opposition to anything other than government/union-run schools, their grab to limit and ration medical care, and an unrelenting assault on the values that made the nation great—namely individual liberty coupled with personal responsibility.

The magnificent thing about capitalistic, free-market economies and the liberty to make choices is that corresponding societies afford the greatest opportunity for upward mobility (or perhaps more to the point, a much enhanced ability to live a life based on one’s own priorities). For now, the vast majority of Americans (not just the super rich) have access to products, services and entertainments that their grandparents could not have imagined. This includes “doing” for your children, which is another legacy of "free minds and free markets."

But shouldn't we be willing to do with a little less, even for our children, if it means meeting the needs of the poorest among us? I would agree, if I believed that was the goal of left-wing politicians, but it isn’t. Instead, they want power ... and assuming the mantle of charity is merely a means to their ends. Some may want power for personal aggrandizement and some may want to “do good” but make no mistake, they want to rule. To achieve their goal, they seek to corner the market on much of the things that middle class people so readily have at hand. Once you understand this, you’ll understand why Barack Obama is so hostile to economic liberty and free enterprise.

This is the patronage system—Tammany Hall or the “Chicago Way.” If you want good healthcare, to send your children to the best schools, a home in a nice neighborhood … too bad! Your ability to get these things through your own efforts will be put out of your reach, regardless of how hard you’re willing to work or the talent you possess, or yes … even raw luck. (And is luck so bad? Don’t we all, on occasion, fantasize about being lucky?) Instead, you’ll need to show obeisance to the proper authorities, grease a few palms … maybe join the SEIU (the Party).

It is the hope of the statists to make us all dependent on the government for everything. And unless you want to be like the most pathetic of Hurricane Katrina’s victims, (waiting to be rescued because they never learned self-reliance) you will need to learn to adoringly chant something like “Hmmm, hmmm, hmmm! Barack Hussein Obama!”

And we will, because good parents will do anything for their children. Even wear the chains of slavery.

Barack Obama’s War on Responsible Americans

If you’re someone who works hard to provide well for yourself and your family, tries to instill good values in your children, endeavors to live an honorable life … and hopes to occasionally reap some rewards from all your hard work, I have bad news: You aren’t among Barack Obama’s constituent groups.

And if you know anything about Chicago-style, patronage politics, you know that you’re either with the Machine or you’re food for it.

Seriously, can anyone name a single policy endorsed by the current administration that makes it easier to do any of the things mentioned in that opening paragraph?

Provide for your family? Unemployment hovers around 10% largely because Obama’s profligate spending, eagerness to raise taxes and aggressive moves to regulate every aspect of the economy have so spooked businesses that they are afraid to invest or hire.

Try to instill good values in children? Attempting to bribe one politician with various favors to not run against another one; judicial appointments and a Department of Justice that judges people not by their character but by the color of their skin; government bail outs for bad behavior (personal and institutional) … those are some of examples that Obama is setting for America’s youth.

Endeavors to live an honorable life? Look at the cast of miscreants with whom Barack Obama is associated: Low-life felon Tony Reznik, domestic terrorist William Ayers, “Reverend” Jeremiah Wright, the gang from ACORN, SEIU goon squads … if honor was money, they couldn’t come up with a nickel between the lot of 'em! Birds of a feather, I always say.

Hope to occasionally reap some rewards from hard work? Forget about it! The Teleprompter in Chief has plans for your money and it doesn’t include you! Some of your cash is earmarked for people who lead irresponsible lives with no interest in looking out for themselves or their children. (But they vote!) Then he also wants to pay off unions for their support and muscle (the Brown Shirt Brigades of the Obama-Nation). And of course the ruling class itself desires more and more perks and power! Buying votes and controlling everything is expensive. That’s not going to leave a lot of money left over for the people who earned it. Sorry.

Even big banks and corporations are more cherished by Barack Obama and his ilk than the average middle class family. Forget what you've always heard about socialist being for the "little guy." They see no real upside to being for the middle class or small business owners. Not when "too big to fail" policies enable Obama's thug-ocracy to extort more and more concessions against freedom that feed the downward spiral toward mass servitude.

Yeah, face it. If you’re a decent, hardworking American citizen, you fall well below illegal aliens in Barack Obama’s pecking order. And in fact, just because you have the temerity to want to take care of yourself and your family, make your own decisions and build your own future, you dare reject the chains of slavery.

Barack Obama wants to destroy your ability to make a better life for yourself than would be possible by solely relying on government. To that end, his policies are all about lowering your expectations and limiting your options. And as long as you cling to those things (as you might cling to your faith or other freedoms) you are an enemy of the Anointed One.

Independence Day Thoughts

If engaged in a political debate, how I assess my "opponent" might well include his or her view of citizen “rights.” And frankly, I have a hard time taking too seriously anyone who declares we have a "right" to things like healthcare, or housing, or even food.

Now I’m not saying that as a society — or better yet, as individuals —we shouldn’t be concerned that our fellow human beings have the basic (or even some of the not-so-basic) necessities of life. But one person’s moral imperative to share is another person’s waste of effort (or money). And the simple and unassailable fact is that no one has a right to anything that another person has to provide.

There is a reason why Thomas Jefferson said we are “endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights,” or why we speak of the “Natural Rights of Man.” We make our way in this world with life (a heartbeat), liberty (an ability to choose between options) and a desire for happiness (as we individually define it). You don’t have to ask anyone else for these things. Others (usually the government) can take them away from us — liberals are very keen on curbing that “pursuit of happiness” thing — but absent outside interference, an Inalienable Right is the normal state of affairs from the moment of our birth.

Or think of it this way: If you lived on an unchartered island all by yourself, you would most assuredly have your Inalienable Rights. By contrast, anything else you want on that island, you’re going to have to acquire all by your little lonesome.

But I must admit that there is also a question as to why any rights at all should be respected. After all, why should the government (whether a monarch or the people collectively) be constrained from preventing us from exercising our Natural Rights. What if they have a good reason? I can only (and perhaps lamely) say it is my preference to only render unto Caesar what came from Caesar, and consult with the Provider as to what I do with everything else. But accept that rationale or not, we are left with either very few rights or none at all. And “none at all,” definitely rules out a such occasionally suggested “rights” as paid vacations or bilingual education.

Putting aside the sillier claims, I am especially pleased that our Constitution didn’t stop with protecting the few inalienable rights Jefferson cited in the Declaration of Independence. The law of the land says that government can’t deprive us of property without compensation, it isn’t allowed to keep us from worshiping as we see fit, or forbid us from hanging out with people of our own choosing … to name a few additional protections from tyranny. Yet notice, once again, that those Constitutional Rights are not what someone must give us, but rather are existing abilities and freedoms that shall not be taken from us.

Some people are bothered by the limits on what government may rip away — leading them to say that our governing document is full of “negative liberties.”Of course, what those people see as a negative (government shall not, or Congress shall make no law … etc.), I see as a positive (yes, I may!).

We can debate about what is fair or not fair, what will lead to the greatest good for the greatest number, or what Jesus would do. But as for what constitutes a Right — unless you were born with it — you shouldn’t expect anyone to give it you. And if it is your birthright (perhaps your only birthright), you might want to be careful not to let anyone take it away without a fight.

Happy 4th of July!

There's No Other Explanation ...

For as long as I have considered such things, I have believed as Thomas Jefferson said, “That government governs best that governs least.”

When I was 14 years old, I sent two weeks allowance to Ronald Reagan’s unsuccessful 1976 presidential campaign to wrest the Republican nomination from President Gerald Ford. In high school, during Mrs. Sellers’s weekly current events discussion, (at the height of the farmers' protest movement for 100% price supports) I argued that farmers had no more right to government subsidies than any other business person.

During my college years, I debated with political science professors that we should eliminate about 75% of the federal government. In speech class, I spoke in favor of right-to-work laws (in opposition to unionization) and against the government-sponsored pyramid scheme known as Social Security. Also while in college, one of my greatest Eureka moments came when I read economist Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose, perhaps the best defense of limited government and the free market ever written.

As a newspaper columnist in the mid 1980s I was a consistent libertarian-conservative, espousing a limited government approach to every issue: in favor of legalizing marijuana, pro-gun rights, against mandatory seat-belts, defending private property rights, against minimum wage laws, supporting tax-cuts … and always an ardent supporter of the First Amendment.

My views haven’t changed much. An 8x10 framed color photo of Ronald Reagan hangs on the wall over my desk. I still subscribe to Reason magazine (since about 1984) which carries the slogan, “Free minds and free markets.” I’m a registered Republican and have been for more 25 years. During that time I’ve voted for Libertarian candidates a few times, but only ONE Democrat. (Gladys Chapman, the supervisor of elections in Bay County, FL always spoke slowly in concise, grammatically correct sentences, and as a reporter I appreciated that.)

Before the 2008 presidential election, I took a quiz to see which candidate I should support. Out of all those men and Hillary (about 20 hopefuls there were, I think) Barack Obama was dead last. He and I saw eye to eye 8% of the time. Today, I heard that Obama called Kanye West a “jackass.” As far as I can tell, this is the first position he’s taken since becoming president that I agree with.

Yet apparently none of all that matters … not my political philosophy, my party affiliation, my understanding of economics or the lessons I’ve drawn from history.

No. You see, apparently the real reason I oppose Barack Obama’s agenda for America is because I’m a racist. For all the folks to the far left of sanity, no other reason will do.

Why I'm a Global Warming Skeptic

There are several reasons I don’t believe in man-made global warming. What follows are the biggest of these (though there are others not mentioned).

First, the warmest year in the U.S. during the past 120 or so years was in 1934. I’ve heard 1998 supposedly came close … but no banana. That means global warming has had 75 years to break the record (with the aid of tons of CO2 emissions) and still can’t do it. Does warming not really mean warming?

Apparently not. Since the aforementioned 1998, world temperatures have leveled off and in fact, since Al Gore’s 2006 Inconvenient Truth propaganda film, have declined about three-quarters of a degree Fahrenheit. That may not sound like much, but it’s more than half the entire temperature rise since modern climate record-keeping began around 1880. Oh, you didn’t know that — that all the horrible global warming which is supposedly killing polar bears and threatening to sink Florida beneath the waves, amounts to one single degree Celsius from 1880 to 1998? Hype is an amazing thing when done well. And this why the preferred term has become “climate change.” (When I was a kid, “climate change” was what we referred to as “weather” or “seasons.”)

I’m also put off by the cultic behavior of the strongest adherents of man-made or anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory. Try this, whenever you here the term “global warming” or “climate change” from an AGW alarmist, mentally substitute the word, “sin.” I thought about substituting “Earth” with “God” but Gaia is a wimpy little deity who’s constantly threatened by her creation. Essentially her only line of defense is to die and take the human race with her. Nevertheless, the AGW faithful gives the Taliban a run for the money in the intolerance department.

And a final big reason I’m skeptical of AGW is that I don’t trust the people pushing the theory. I think governmental funding and fear of being politically incorrect has utterly corrupted much of the science that purportedly proves AGW. (The United Nations? Really? People are actually taking the U.N seriously … about ANYTHING!?!) I believe the big companies that are “going green” are looking for ways to make a fast-buck, and liberal politicians are using this “crisis” as an excuse to bring huge portions of the economy, as well as how individuals live their lives, under government control. I don’t like people who use fear to stampede folks into making a rash decision.

Today politics is all about fear. George W. had the terrorists of course, (who actually DID kill about 3,000 people in New York). Two wars and the Patriot Act later though, I have to admit there may have been excess in the response. But today we have Barack Obama who sees “weapons of mass destruction” every where he looks — in the banking industry, with car manufacturing, in healthcare and threatening the environment.

I adored Ronald Reagan as president. He never played on people’s fears. Talk about “yes, we can” … now that was Reagan! Return the nation to economic prosperity? Yes we can! Defeat the evil empire of communist oppression? Yes we can! Be proud of ourselves again as a people? Yes we can! He did it all, and he did it by pushing an agenda of individual freedom and personal responsibility at home, and strength and determination abroad. By contrast, when Obama says, “Yes we can” he means we can turn our back on the economic system that has made America the wonder of the world; we can strip away the liberties that our Founding Fathers tried to protect with the Constitution; and we can forego Reagan’s shining city on the hill for an intermittently wind-powered hovel in government-run housing. Yes, we CAN be miserable!

Obama and his like-minded, left-wing cohorts in Congress will have “misery for all” as the new closing line for the pledge of allegiance. And I’m absolutely convinced AGW alarmism is a major front for making Obama's dream a reality.

Coming soon: But if I Did Believe In Man-Made Global Warming, Here’s What I Would Do

And now for something completely different ...

I'm tired of writing about Backtrack Oblahblah, but nothing else really comes to mind, so I've dug up some of my poetry.

My Fish is Swimming Upside Down

My fish is swimming upside down
And bumping into stuff.
He is my fav'rite goldfish
But this has gone on long enough!

I think maybe he's just tired
From swimming ev'ry day.
I let him sleep with me last night,
And hoped he'd be okay.

I think my fish went right to sleep
Though it's pretty hard to know.
Fishies never close their eyes
So when they sleep it doesn't show.

When I got up this morning
I put him in his tank.
When mommy changed my covers,
She said my pillow stank.

Now my fish is mostly floating
As he bobs from side to side.
Still he's quite a friendly goldfish
And he gives a snail a ride.

Daddy's looking at my goldfish.
He's got a funny frown.
Now he pats me on the shoulder
And he says, "Come here, sit down."

He sets me up upon his knee,
And he says it's okay to cry.
He says, "For everything their comes,
A time to say goodbye."

He tells me lots of other things
That I don't understand.
But it doesn't really matter,
Cause my my daddy held my hand.

Still at first I didn't like it
But dad knew what to do.
So when it's time to go to Heaven,
I hope someone will flush me too.
-- Capertree

Is It Truly That Hard to Stop Smoking?

I’d been puffing away for the past 13 or so years — probably up to a pack and half per day. About 12 days ago, I decided to quit. No great revelation led to my decision nor was I persuaded to give up cigarettes by friends, family, or some random public service message. I was nearly out of cigarettes and had a dentist appointment the next day. Since I was getting my teeth cleaned, I figured I could help keep them that way if I stopped smoking.

I’ve had one lapse. The evening that I officially stopped, I had three cigarettes left. About four days later — about two-thirds of the way through ten hours of boring newsletter editing — I gave in and smoked one of those three remaining cigarettes. Then I destroyed the other two.

The addiction part has been less difficult for me to get over than the habit. There was some irritability during the first few days and some unusual restlessness, but with the exception of that one instance, I haven’t been exactly climbing the walls in desperation. What has been most stressful is missing the ritual of lighting up. I find myself looking for my ash tray when I sit my favorite chair. Or when I’m writing, I keep wanting a cigarette because that was how I worked. (Even though frequently a cigarette could end up becoming just one long ash if I was really into what ever I was doing.) I also miss having a cigarette after a meal or when I conclude some project or activity. That desire is becoming less pronounced with each passing day, and now I can’t imagine buying any more cigarettes.

To be honest — given the great pain and suffering I was led to believe would descend upon me — I’m most surprised at how easily I’ve stopped.

(My dad smoked heavily for about 50 years then he decided to quit cold turkey. His method was keeping a pack in his shirt pocket, but whenever he felt the urge, he would “put off” smoking for a little while. Thus, he kept putting it off until he didn’t want a cigarette anymore.)

I think a big problem is that there’s not very many people with a vested interest in saying it’s not that hard to quit. Makers of smoking cessation products (i.e. nicotine patches, gum, etc.) need you to believe it will be difficult to stop so you’ll buy whatever they’re selling. Tobacco companies can strategically appear to support smoking cessation programs, but by hyping how hard it is to quit, they may actually be discouraging their customers from trying. Government agencies and other do-gooder types aren’t ever going to be happy unless they can convince all of us we’re hopeless incompetents who really shouldn’t be trusted to tie our own shoe laces. Their constant message is “life is hard and scary, and you need professional (or government) help to make it through."

As for the people who stop smoking? What’s the incentive in saying it’s easy? People congratulate you for quitting. Friends and family are supportive. If you’re rude to someone, you can blame it on nicotine withdrawal. You can eat more … because everyone knows quitting cigarettes leads to weight gain.

Most importantly, if you fail at quitting … well, you know, “it’s very, very hard to quit.”

I’m thinking though, it we really wanted people to quit smoking we’d stop saying how hard it is. Rather than fawning all over the person who decides to stop, we should note that only a weak and pathetic loser would give in to such an illogical temptation.

I know it sounds a bit cruel. But really, if you lead people to expect failure, you end up getting it a lot more often than you should.

Still, if anyone wants to congratulate me, go ahead. I really won’t mind.