Obama and Romney Agree

In the third presidential debate between challenger Willard Romney and President Barack Obama, the president said to debate moderator Bob Schieffer, “Well, my first job as commander-in-chief, Bob, is to keep the American people safe.” You can see it at the 4:40 mark in this video.

Willard “Mitt” Romney, in remarks to the American Legion said, “The first job of government is to keep the American people safe – and as President, that will be my commitment to the American people.”

Whew! I feel better now. While it doesn’t help us much when making a choice in this election, I suppose that we should all be comforted that whichever candidate is elected, we’ll be kept safe.

Is that all there is to it? Before I push my keyboard out of the way, I’d like to explore this just a little bit further. While I suppose I could rant about how safe Americans really are especially in light of the recent events in Benghazi, I would rather explore this philosophy of safety.

While both answers were in a context of foreign policy, I think it’s safe to say that neither candidate’s philosophy of safety ends with keeping Americans safe from violent attacks by evildoers, foreign or domestic.

It is very noble to want to keep people safe. Who wouldn’t like people to be safe? But, to borrow from the Bard, ‘To be safe or not to be safe, that is not really the question.’ The questions are what kind of safety? How much? At what cost? And, from whence cometh this, this… ‘safety’?

When the answer to the last question is that we as individuals provide for our own safety, we make the decisions on the other questions in our daily lives. Where will we live? Will we purchase a monitored alarm system for our home? What kind of car do we drive? How and where will we drive it? How much insurance will we purchase? Will I get a concealed carry permit? The decisions are endless. We decide for ourselves the costs and benefits of the various kinds and degrees of safety that we’ll provide ourselves and our families. But when the answer to the last question is ‘government’, the answers to the other questions become much more problematic.

If government at all levels would confine its energies to keeping us safe from foreign invasion, violent crime and such, I suppose I wouldn’t complain much. But the government hasn’t done that. It’s been on a veritable safety crusade for a century or more.

We now have government ostensibly keeping us safe from terrorists, drugs, economic downturns, illness, big banks, racism, poverty, monopolies, climate change (formerly, global warming and before that, global cooling), transfats, large soft drinks, smoke, cars that go too fast or use too much gas… the list is endless. Is it any surprise that government has grown endlessly?

It is important to remember, as George Washington reminded us that, “Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant -- and a fearful master.” The government doesn’t persuade us to act safely. Government imposes safety through the barrel of a gun. When government imposes safety, it becomes dangerous not to comply. If you don’t believe that, just try objecting to molestation by a TSA agent.

Patrick Henry knew that when government is providing the safety, the cost is liberty. Give me safety or give me death! Wait. That just doesn’t work. Try picturing the Founders, milling around in a mob pleading and crying for someone to keep them safe. You can’t can you? Because that’s not the behavior of free men. They envisioned a president who would “...preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” In other words, a president who would keep the Constitution safe.

I stand with Patrick Henry and Benjamin Franklin who said, “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

In Search of the Non-establishment Candidate

U.S./Cuba relations seldom make it to the top tier of my list of interests. However, when campaigning in Florida, the topic invariably comes up. It's basically a question of whether or not the candidate supports continuing the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba. The question is asked at 8:40 into this portion of the recent Florida, CNN debate.

Florida CNN Debate - part 6

The long-established Republican response to this question is, summarized... we should continue the sanctions against Cuba and if possible, increase the intensity until the regime in Havana collapses, is overthrown or in some other way cries, 'Uncle!' and democracy is established. You might call this answer, the Establishment Republican answer.

This answer is believed to be popular among the Cuban immigrants in Florida. Perhaps it is. I'd say it's pandering but it's actually entirely consistent for Establishment Republicans to threaten force and impose sanctions against countries with leadership that is evil or illegitimate. To hear them tell it, Establishment Republicans are belligerent with these evil and illegitimate regimes because Establishment Republicans are principled. Well, some evil and illegitimate regimes. Not all of them. Now that I think about it, 'principled' may not be entirely accurate.

As I expected, three of the candidates gave some version of the Establishment Republican answer. They waxed eloquent about how they support and want to help the Cuban people, about how Obama is rewarding the evil Castro regime by relaxing travel restrictions, how Obama is ignoring Latin America, how they support Helms-Burton (one of them even attempted to claim credit for Helms-Burton), and how they want freedom for Cuba. Only one candidate gave a different answer. Who do you suppose that was?

Why, it must have been the 'non-establishment' and always unpredictable (Romney might even say, 'zany') Newt Gingrich, of course! Buzzzzzzzz! Thank you for playing. Please try again.

Ah, then it must have been 'non-establishment', sweater-vested Rick Santorum! Buzzzzzzzz! Wrong again. One more guess.

Hmmm... Well, Mitt Romney is the Establishment Republican candidate so surely he'd give an Establishment Republican answer. Dang! I'm stumped. Who was that other guy?

Have you noticed that there are quite a few of these 'only one candidate' situations in this campaign? Only one candidate has committed to cutting $1 trillion from the budget in the first year. Only one candidate actually voted against ObamaCare. Only one candidate has been entirely consistent on his approach to government interference in our healthcare and for that matter, the rest of our daily lives. Only one candidate has a different perspective on the effects and wisdom of drug prohibition. The list is long. Guess what? 99% of the time, that 'only one candidate' is Congressman Ron Paul. Hey! You might even say that Ron Paul is the 99% candidate.

But, back to U.S./Cuba relations... Granted, Congressman Paul's answer wasn't particularly eloquent. But, you know what? His answer was principled. It was clear that he doesn't spend a lot of time meditating on the minutiae of the U.S./Cuba relationship. He doesn't have to. He's spent his life meditating on the subtleties of liberty and the Constitution. And when some esoteric question arises, as usual, he applies the standards of liberty and the Constitution. By these standards, his answer made complete sense. It was even obvious. We should talk with Cuba, trade with them and stop committing and threatening acts of war.

Now that we've contrasted the platitudinous, Establishment Republican answer with the Congressman's principled answer, let's examine the practical effects of the Establishment Republican approach to U.S./Cuba relations. Perhaps we might be able to make a judgment on whether this approach has been a success or a failure.

So, what is the U.S. attempting to accomplish with this embargo? The embargo began in earnest in the early 1960's after Castro came to power and nationalized the property of U.S. citizens. The embargo underwent several adjustments and renewals in the 70's, 80's and 90's. To summarize the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, the U.S. seeks "a peaceful transition to democracy" in Cuba and will "maintain sanctions on the Castro regime so long as it continues to refuse to move toward democratization and greater respect for human rights." In a nutshell, the U.S. government wants democracy in Cuba.

After three years of an Obama regime, Republicans are fond of asking the question, "How's that hope and change working out for ya'?". Well, I've got a question. How has 50 years of a trade embargo against Cuba worked out for the U.S. and the Cuban people? Last I looked, a Castro is still the dictator, gunboats still patrol the waters looking for aspiring emigrants and the Cuban people are horribly oppressed and impoverished. As usual, it's not the Castro regime but the people of Cuba, who we are ostensibly trying to help, that are feeling the sharp end of the busybody's good intentions stick.

What kind of dementia afflicts a person who can look at this policy and not see that it hasn't achieved its stated purpose? Is 50 years just not quite long enough? Then, after examining the waste and destruction they have wrought, they propose to prolong and, if possible, intensify it? I'm reminded of Einstein's definition of insanity.

And Rush Limbaugh and respected 'conservative' media everywhere call Congressman Paul, crazy.

The State of the Union Address...

...before being edited by the elite media.

State of the Union Address

Republican Debates

Yes, there have been a lot of them. I haven’t had the stomach to watch them all. Seven or eight people, mostly statists, up on a stage taking ‘gotcha’ questions from ‘moderators’, trying to answer with a memorable quip... not my idea of an enjoyable evening.

I’ve actually grown rather weary of these ‘presidential debates’. For the most part, they’re not presidential and they’re not really debates. Wait! Now that I think about it, what could be more fitting exercise for those attempting to ascend to the presidency of an American Idol nation?

In Thursday's CNN South Carolina debate, Newt Gingrich really skewered John King for asking about the latest tabloid topic from Gingrich’s past. Yeah, it was somewhat entertaining. I even got the urge to do a little fist pump. Of course, about three seconds later, I was pondering if Newt really thought that asking him a question on this topic was “as close to despicable" as anything that he can imagine”. Hmmm… Really?

Perhaps Newt’s imagination isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Supporters and detractors alike have described him as “an idea a minute” kind of guy. Well, perhaps that says more about them than it does him. If he can’t think of anything more despicable than being asked a question about how he treated his second wife, then perhaps his reputation for intelligence is as inflated as his opinion of himself.

And, come to think of it, what else is John King going to ask him about? Is there anyone who doesn’t already know where Newt stands on everything? I mean he’s the guy who teamed up with Nancy Pelosi to evangelize the dangers of global warming. He’s the guy who said that was the “dumbest single thing he’s done in recent years” (hmmm… I think that there’s a lot of competition for that title). He’s the guy who is all in favor of an individual mandate. He’s the guy who thinks that’s an individual mandate is a bad idea. He’s the guy who said that Paul Ryan’s budget proposal was right-wing social engineering. He’s the guy who said that it wasn’t. Or something like that. All together now, “That Mitt Romney is such a flip-flopper!”

And how about Rick Santorum? Now, my understanding is that this guy is supposed to be a righteous dude – always on the side of the angels, principled, pro-life, conservative, dedicated Catholic. So, taking all of that about him at face value, I had to wonder why he attacked Congressman Paul on the topic of abortion. You know the one – Dr. Ron Paul, OB-GYN, delivered over 4,000 babies. The same Ron Paul that denounces aggressive violence of any kind.

As Dr. Paul accurately explained, they do have different approaches about how to best end or at least impede this scourge of abortion. Santorum could have shown the distinction between his preferred approach (more federal government force) and Dr. Paul’s (removing abortion from federal judicial jurisdiction). But that’s not what Rick Santorum did. He instead tried to paint Dr. Paul as not really pro-life.

So, we have to ask ourselves, does Santorum really believe in the substance of his attack? If so, then he’s a moron. If not, then he’s a slanderer. Yeah, righteous dude!

Another highlight was when the moderator decided to go to the audience for some questions. One guy got the chance to ask a question of the four remaining men competing for the Republican nomination to the presidency. On national television. Millions watching. The best he could come up with was, “When are you going to release your taxes?” Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner! On behalf of MTV, I’m proud to present this election’s ‘Boxers or Briefs’ award. And I didn’t think it was possible to make these horrible debate ‘moderators’ look good. What’s even funnier is that Romney couldn’t answer the question.

Move over American Idol.

The Left, the Media and Slander

I read an article by Michelle Malkin a couple of weeks ago, A Christian Business in the Left's Crosshairs. It's about how Chick-fil-A is being targeted by some lefties. I didn't think much of it at the time. It seemed as if it was just more of the same. Then, a friend of mine sent it to me today. As I reread it, I began to think.

This is a common tactic of the professional intolerance police and the perpetually offended of the left.

Of the left? Yes, of the left. While granting that it is theoretically possible for some “on the right” to use this tactic, I can’t recall any examples. If it has occurred, it was likely executed by someone masquerading as a “rightwing” ideologue in an attempt to discredit a group or a movement. Remember when lefties were attempting to infiltrate Tea Party gatherings? The right just doesn’t have anyone like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the Human Rights Campaign, etc. Let’s face it, the left has a monopoly on professional grievance-mongering.

So, what’s the tactic? The tactic is slander and here's how it's done.

The first two steps come in no particular order. Find a target and find something “offensive”. Notice that finding a target can come first. As this is not about legitimate grievances and their resolution, it’s perfectly acceptable to determine who you want to injure and then later figure out how it is that they’ve offended you. You can also be opportunistic when acquiring a target. Sometimes, a potential target can say or do something that is particularly easy to take offense at. Remember Don Imus? Lefties didn't have him in the crosshairs. He just said something that was too easy to exploit.

And the offense? It can be anything. It doesn't matter how small, insignificant, irrelevant or false. Candidates are anything that can be stretched, twisted or otherwise morphed from a phony offense into something that, to stupid people and people on the left, could conceivably resemble a legitimate offense. (Yes, I realize that was redundant). I once heard Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee pontificate that the label, "sergeant" as it had been applied to MSNBC talking head Ed Shultz, might be an ethnic slur.

Then, make a big deal out of the phony offense. The leftist media will happily publicize your charade, er… complaint. They’ll be happy to pick it up and begin to report as if it’s a legitimate story. In fact, the leftist media originate many of these incidents. And when I say leftist media, I’m not talking about the Daily Kos, the Huffington Post or MSNBC. I’m talking about NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, the New York Times, etc. I recall many of the talking heads somberly reporting on the “Macaca” controversy.

Now that you’ve obtained the support of the leftist media, begin to harangue the “offender” to apologize for the phony offense. Find weaklings who are ostensibly on the side of the “offender”. Get them to wax serious about the “strawman” and encourage them to call on the “offender” to apologize. This is something that RINO’s are especially good for. This step of the process is to lend legitimacy to an otherwise obviously illegitimate claim. “Hey, if John McCain is calling for them to apologize, then there must be something to the charge.” Often, the “offender” will try to diffuse the situation by attempting some generic apology, “I’m sorry if anyone was offended. I never intended to...”. This never diffuses the situation. It simply encourages the slanderers. Remember Trent Lott?

Begin to demand that the “offender” disavow all sorts of crazies. The purpose of this step isn’t to get the “offender” to moderate or to cease offending. No, this step is all about associating the “offender” with crazies. The person or group being slandered should never participate in this step. If the “offender” does disavow some crazy or group of crazies, the media can report it while shaking their heads and giving the impression that they just don’t believe it. And then, after reporting that the “offender” has disavowed some crazies, they can always go get the other side of the story. Sweet! "So-and-so says that the disavowal is insincere". I mean after all, they wouldn't want to report only the “offender's” side of the story would they? Who can forget the demands for the Tea Party to disavow racism and racist groups?

As the controversy develops, you can demand that the “offender” resign, get sensitivity training, make reparations payments or any of dozens of potential acts of supplication, humbly begging for forgiveness. If the “offender” succumbs to any of these demands, it will be perceived as an admission of guilt.

This tactic is not about settling grievances. It doesn’t seek to repair differences or clear up misunderstandings. It’s all about attempting to destroy those with whom you disagree by using any means necessary. Lies, deceit, slander... they’re the tools of the leftist's trade.

Civility anyone?

Where is Horatio Bunce?

While doing some office cleaning recently, I ran across a pamphlet that had found it's way into a pile of papers needing some organization. Coincidentally, a friend of mine had recently sent me an e-mail version of the pamphlet which I shared with some other friends. I found that the pamphlet's contents are available on the web. As internet content goes, it's a bit of a long read but, in my opinion, well worth it.

Sockdolager - A Tale of Davy Crockett

One of the friends with whom I shared the story lamented the current state of Congress with respect to the principles espoused in the pamphlet. I agreed. However, as I pondered the topic a bit more, I became more concerned about the state of modern Horatio Bunces. Granted, there's some overlap in that venn diagram... Congress and those who play the role of the conscience of Congress.

Where are today’s Bunces? Apparently, there aren’t many. If there are, they’re awfully quiet. I’ve hoped that the tea party might be a bit Buncian. It does seem clear that there’s a little more Bunce in the tea party than in either of the establishment parties. But when the rank and file tea party folks are polled, a great many seem to be looters just like the others. They just have a different set of priorities when it comes to how much should be looted, from whom it should be looted and to whom the loot should be dispensed.

There are those who fancy themselves a Bunce and those who the conservative intelligentsia attempt to pass off as a Bunce. Most fall incredibly short. I speak only of conservatives because seeking a Bunce among today’s liberal establishment would obviously be an hilarious exercise in futility.

Starting with the “establishment” or “moderate” republicans. They’re the ones who lament the co-opting of the “conservative” label. To think of them with principles such as Bunce’s is laughable. Michael “Bunce” Steele? “Horatio” Rudy Guliani? John McCain, Horatio Bunce of the Senate? I don’t think so. They themselves admit that they’re “pragmatic”. They like to “reach across the aisle”. They think of themselves as the rational ones. They eschew the “extreme right wing” of their party. No, we won’t find a Bunce there.

Then we have the “extreme right-wing”. I put that in quotes because as extreme goes, they’re pretty tame. These are ones who commendably speak with passion against things like Obamacare, stimulus and TARP. But, at the same time, they quail at the thought of rolling back entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare. They say things like, “we owe it to our seniors” or “we made promises”. Excuse me? I made no promises. Is a promise to one person valid if it presupposes theft from another? No, you’re no Horatio Bunce if you’re willing to continue to looting current and future generations in order to pay a phony debt to those who saw fit to establish the entire looting enterprise in the first place.

I think it more likely that we might find a Bunce among the Libertarians. But, they’re constantly denigrated by the conservative establishment and even the “extreme right-wing” as “loonytarians” or worse. They need to overcome the preconception that they just want to smoke pot and make the world safe for child pornographers. An invalid preconception to be sure but one that the conservative establishment is all too willing to continue to feed.

Yes, a few Bunces would definitely do the country some good. I’m hopeful but, I’m not holding my breath.

Journalism, Stupidity and the iPhone

Perhaps you've heard, Verizon is joining the iPhone craze. It seems as if AT&T got a pretty big headstart. But with the mi-fi feature that Verizon is offering... well, we'll see.

The announcement did remind me of an articile I read in infoworld a few months ago titled, Suicide, Stupidity and the iPhone.

The eye catching summation is, “Factory workers who can't stand to crank out even one more iPhone are killing themselves, while cell phone users careen about the highways”.

In the article, Bill Snyder tells of a city-like factory complex in Shenzhen, China housing 250,000 employees. The factory makes iPhones, iPads and other consumer electronics, apparently of the computer variety. However, the real news is the bleak conditions. Bleak conditions driven by the American consumer’s desire to get cool devices “cheap”.

This story says that the factory made $2.3B last year but only paid employees about $300 per month. I’m not sure how those two numbers relate to each other but this would indicate that payroll for the factory approached $1B. Ok. So what’s the point? That the factory should pay its workers more? I realize that Wikipedia isn’t particularly authoritative but I searched them anyway. I found out that per capita income for the People’s Republic of China is approximately $3600 per year. So, assuming that there are some rather wealthy Chinese, whose income is quite a bit greater than $3600/year, that would indicate that these employees earn an income greater than the Chinese mean. Is that a “bleak” condition?

Further, this story says that conditions are so bad at this complex that, horror of horrors, 10 people have committed suicide so far this year. I decided to take upon myself the role that Snyder labels, “apologist” and did a little more research. ChinaToday.com says that in 2008, there were 260,000 suicides in China. In 2008, the World Bank reported Chinese population at ~1.3 billion. That puts the suicide rate in China at .02%. The suicide rate at the factory appears to be approximately .008% (assuming 10  suicides for the first half of the year and 10 for the second half). So, we have a suicide rate that is less than half of the overall rate in China. Statistically, that’s a larger gap than the “slightly lower than that of the country as a whole” that Snyder suggests. I suppose that’s because the conditions at this complex are so horrible.

Additionally, Snyder says that all of these suicides occur at work rather than at home, so “there's obviously a link between the work environment and the deaths”. However, in his description of the “city-like factory complex”, he says that employees live in “dorms on the complex grounds”. Do suicides in the dorms count as “at home” or “at work”. He doesn’t say. But, it may be that the link between the work environment and the suicides isn’t quite as obvious as he indicates.

I'm not sure if this is just lousy reporting or just another anti-business, anti-free market, anti-consumer screed. Either way, I think I'm beginning to understand the “Stupidity” portion of Mr. Snyder's article.