Very Irritated With The Koch Brothers

Ah, the Koch Brothers. Whereas the right beats up on money guy George Soros for funding causes on the left he believes in, the left beat up on the Koch Brothers for causes they believe in.

I don't beat up on people for funding causes, but I do get irritated if they do something that looks counterproductive the causes they ostensibly try to advance- if they happen to be causes I believe in.

In this case, I am a big fan of the Cato Institute. Cato is a libertarian think tank that has produced many valuable papers and publications, and has had some small (too small, in my opinion) impact on public policy. I especially love the Cato Daily Podcast, which has been hosted by Caleb Brown for the past several years. Brown does a wonderful job of interviewing Cato scholars on topics of immediate daily interest.

The Koch Brothers co-founded the Cato Institute with Ed Krane and the late Ed Niskanen. The Kochs have poured money into the Cato Institute over the years. So far, so good. But, as the Washington Post reports:

The billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch filed a lawsuit Wednesday for control of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington.

The lawsuit exposes a power struggle for one of Washington’s premiere policy centers, which has been funded by millions in contributions from the Koch brothers’ foundations since its founding in 1974.

Cato was divided between four shareholders: the two Koch brothers, Cato president Ed Crane, and former Cato chairman William Niskanen, according to the lawsuit filed Thursday in a court in Johnson County, Kansas.

At the heart of the dispute is the fate of the shares owned by Niskanen, who died in October at age 78 of complications from a stroke. The Koch brothers believe that they have the option to buy Niskanen’s shares, while Cato officials believe that the shares belong to Niskanen’s widow, Kathryn Washburn, according to the complaint.

Why a lawsuit? Is it so important that the Kochs get additional shares? Cato has been absolutely fantastic, just as-is.

Crane released this written statement:

“Charles G. Koch has filed a lawsuit as part of an effort to gain control of the Cato Institute, which he co-founded with me in 1977. While Mr. Koch and entities controlled by him have supported the Cato Institute financially since that time, Mr. Koch and his affiliates have exercised no significant influence over the direction or management of the Cato Institute, or the work done here.

“Mr. Koch’s actions in Kansas court yesterday represent an effort by him to transform Cato from an independent, nonpartisan research organization into a political entity that might better support his partisan agenda. We view Mr. Koch’s actions as an attempt at a hostile takeover, and intend to fight it vehemently in order to continue as an independent research organization, advocating for Individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace.”

I'll reserve judgment as to the intentions of Charles Koch for the moment. However, at a time when interest in libertarian ideas is at an all-time high, and acceptance of them is growing, the last thing we need for the liberty movement is divisiveness within the premier libertarian think tank. It's counter-productive, at the very least.

WXNT, Post Abdul

I had to hit the road early Monday morning to get to a meeting in Jasper at 9am, so I was able to tune in to WXNT 1430-am in Indianapolis at 6am for the first post-Abdul broadcast.

No surprises here. The Wall Street Journal morning show has replaced him, and talked about the same things the newscast that preceded it talked about- the Ames, Iowa Republican straw poll. It said all of the same things I had just heard on the Fox News Report, in more detail, but saying nothing new.

I gave up after the first segment and switched to the iPod. I listened to a few editions of the Cato Daily Podcast, and then enjoyed the Thinking Fellers Union Local 282's very great EP called 'Admonishing The Bishops', and then Siouxsie & The Banshees' 'Join Hands' album.

It's a loss. WSJ isn't going to give us any local perspectives. They didn't even give us a financial markets perspective. One might have thought they might take an interest in delivering their news from that angle, being that's who they are, and is what they could and should bring to the table. Alas. It's just one more national show among hundreds.

Mourdock at Cato

I finally listened to the Cato Daily Podcasts from October 23 & 26, to hear Indiana's Treasurer's take on the Chrysler bailout, and how it affected funds for the Indiana teacher's union and state police. He made a convincing Constitutional and moral case that those holding secured assets should have been first in line for payoff at bankruptcy, and not facing pennies on the dollar.

Go to the Cato Daily Podcast archive via this link, and look for the Oct 23 installment titled "Fallout from Chrysler's Bankruptcy featuring Richard Mourdock", and the Oct. 26 installment titled "Obama Versus the Rule of Law".

No Change Chronicles

I was discussing with a friend Bush's Shock Doctrine, as described by Naomi Klein. Darned if the tactic doesn't seem exactly what Obama used to promote the 'stimulus'.

Yesterday's Cato Daily Podcast discusses exactly this, with David Boaz citing Rahm Emanuel, Paul Krugman, and Arianna Huffington promoting crisis as a political opportunity. I love Boaz's line about Obama's tenor:

Hope helps you get elected, but fear helps you get your program through.

Excellent. He also calls this the "Bush-Obama Era". So far, I have to agree. Check out the Cato Podcast for Feb 17 2009 via their archive.

Where Will We Defend Freedom?

(Fishers, IN)- If either John McCain or Barack Obama came out tomorrow and said that he had a plan that would eliminate about half of the newspapers in this country, and furthermore tell you which ones you could read, would you get behind that plan, or would you fight it? Would you say that there was a free market for newspapers in such a scenario? Or freedom of the press?

The Cato Institute's Michael Cannon so describes the Obama health care plan:

"He would let the Federal government dictate the content and the price of every private insurance plan in the United States."

and

"Imagine Barack Obama as President propose that he was going to have the government dictate the content of every news program in the United States, and eliminate half of the existing programs and newspapers that are out there. Would
you call that a government-dominated system? You certainly wouldn't call it a free press. And that's largely what Barack Obama wants to do with health care."

So says Tanner in the October 7, 2008 Cato Daily Podcast.

There is no doubt in my mind that there is both wilfull ignorance and deceptive talk among the backers of 'health care for all'. They tend to bristle at the word 'socialism', or the phrase 'socialized health care'. Well, what else would it be, then?

Oh! I know! Another drain on our ailing economy.

Restrained Foreign Policy - Idealism or Realism?

Back in my college days, I took a political science course that had me tied up in knots, because it repeatedly asked the question, "was the particular policy idealistic or realistic"?

In most cases, I was tempted to label policy idealistic, because you could point to a president having laid out a plainly ideological campaign platform. But the more I looked, the more policy seemed informed by events, to the point that I wanted to call it reactionary. Two examples:

FDR condemned Hitler's invasion, but didn't declare war on Germany until after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, and Hitler declared war on the US subsequent to our declaration of war on Japan.

Lincoln was plainly an abolitionist candidate. But as president, he didn't talk about emancipation as a cause for war. It was in reaction to the Confederacy's attack on Fort Sumter, and an effort to preserve the Union. The Emancipation Proclamation isn't issued until after Gettysburg, and Lincoln the politician felt the time was at last right to bring it up.

I know that I even waver on the idealism/realism question with regard to my own foreign policy positions. Yes, I do subscribe to the 'no foreign entanglements, peaceful commerce with all' policy of George Washington as a matter of ideology. On the other hand, it seems to make so much sense to not pay out of American pockets to pay for the defense of Japan, Germany, and so many other nations capable of their own defense, merely as a practical matter- especially when the US is borrowing such vast sums from China and other nations, partly to pay for extra-national defense.

The Cato Daily Podcast for July 16th is an interesting listen. It mentions Russia in the pre-Georgia context, which really stirs up the idealism/realism consideration.

Here's the link to Cato's Daily Podcast archive. Click the item titled, "A Strategy of Restraint Overseas" to listen.

It just isn't easy to put these things into neat little categories.

Hyper-Inflation in Zimbabwe

I'm happy to say that I have no experience with hyper-inflation. I do have a growing concern about our growing inflation, so it was interesting and frightening to hear a man from Zimbabwe tell what it is like to deal with money that loses value as the minutes pass.

We're all feeling the pinch with marginal increases in inflation. Can you imagine going to the store for something, being interrupted by errands, returning to the store only to find the price has gone up 4x? Can you imagine that as a daily occurrance? This is life in Zimbabwe, where inflation is on a genuine runaway course.

Check out the Cato Daily Podcast for July 29, 2008, titled, "How Inflation Robs Zimbabwe". Link to Cato's podcast archive.

While most of the Federal Reserve's tinkering fixes one thing while creating other problems, one thing it can do well is to help keep inflation at bay. We need to stop borrowing money from foreign nations, and stop printing more money.

Biometrics Are Useful?

Civil libertarians have been tepidly questioning the great increase in funding to the various surveillance methods available to FBI and police at the various levels. It is justified as a response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks: Identify people and keep track of them, and terror can be prevented.

The Cato Daily Podcast from January 4, 2007 features Jim Harper of the Cato Institute, and a 9-minute discussion of biometrics. Cato Podcast archives. Key quote from Harper, at 7:06:

We thought somehow identity was going to protect us from future terrorists. In fact, terrorism makes use of surprise, not anonymity.

So, are we wasting a lot of money? Seems like it, if only from a practical standpoint. Add the civil libertarian angle...

Oprah and Campaign Finance "Reform"

(Fishers, IN)- If I want to support Ron Paul with a check in the amount of $5,000, I am prohibited from doing so by law. $2,300 is the annual limit I can give. You can see this as the top amount on Paul's donation page, or on any other candidate's. For instance, here's the link to Barack Obama's, with the same top figure.

Oprah Winfrey has acknowledged that her check is pretty useless, compared with her endorsement and stumping for Barack Obama. From the NY Times Politics Blog:

She said she has not written a check to Mr. Obama’s campaign.

“Well the truth of the matter is, whether I contribute or not contribute, you are limited to how much you contribute, so my money isn’t going to make any difference to him,” Ms. Winfrey said. “I think that my value to him, my support of him, is probably worth more than any check.”

Yep. Probably. We'll call that the understatement of the year.

The Cato Institute's Daily Podcast for Dec. 11 poses the interesting question: In light of the "campaign finance reform" laws, which are ostensibly aimed towards making contributions more fair and level, should appearances by celebrities also be banned because such appearances skirt the spirit of the law? Link to the Cato Daily Podcast archives.

I believe the law is garbage. Contributions should not be limited, because they amount to political speech- just as sure as an appearance and endorsement by Oprah is also political speech, no matter how much value anyone could place on her appearances.

All this shows is that the law was really intended to keep influence in the usual hands, and keep those candidates who cannot yet draw on value outside the grassroots at bay.

Road Trip iPod Lineup

Gregor brought to mind that since I am working on the road so much, I really don't get to listen to much local radio. As a substitute, I cram the iPod with podcasts. All of these are free downloads. Simply go to the iTunes Store page and type in the names in the "search" window. Make sure you have plenty of hard drive space!

Here are my regular listens:

1. Cato's Daily Podcast. These are short (4-9 minutes) topical discussions. The program was greatly improved when new host Caleb Brown was introduced. Brown interviews Cato policy analysts on issues of the day. The ones I've enjoyed most have been on the subject of regional planning and light rail mass transit, although the insallment titled, "Is Hilary a Neo-Con?" was a goodie. Cato's main page.

2. Jonesy's Jukebox Jury. Steve Jones, guitar player for the Sex Pistols, lives in LA and hosts a great daily freeform radio show on Indie 103.1. It plays like the best of college radio that I was lucky enough to be a part of back in Cleveland (I was at WCSB, but also check out WRUW), with Jones playing tunes he wants to hear (no 12-song playlist!) and sharing insider tales about the musicians heard on these songs. Jones also plays his guitar and sings from time to time, even sometimes breaking it out spontaneously as he reads a set list. He also hosts LA scenesters. This has led to the "Jukebox Jury". Every Friday, Jones hosts a panel of four guests who comprise the "Jury". They spin a tune and then each declares it "Mustard!" if they like it, or "Pants!" if they don't. They're British terms that Jones uses. (His Cockney is a crack-up.) There are always huge laughs during the show, and Jones will surprise you. Think "Sex Pistols" and you'll have a firm impression. Jones breaks his own mold.

The podcasts are only of the "Jury" show, which is too bad. Indie 103.1 can be heard for free by streaming via iTunes, so I sometimes listen live (Noon-3pm Pacific). Average podcast length is 90 minutes, and I generally listen to the whole show in one shot while on the interstate. There isn't another show this length I can say that about. Jukebox show page.

3. The Watt From Pedro Show. Mike Watt, together with Jones, is my other punk rock musical hero. How grand is life that each has a podcast? Watt (bass) played in the legendary band The Minutemen with childhood friend, the late D Boon (guitar, vocals), and George Hurley (drums). Watt currently plays in the Stooges (yes, Iggy Pop's band), and has four other current working bands that are more or less his.

I find Watt endlessly engaging. I share his blue collar background, and while I don't share his politics, I really soak up his ethic, and his vocabulary. (He has his own lingo. Check out his Hoot Page and look for terms like "econo", "konk", "boat", and "thudstaff".) He's a workaholic musician who doesn't take part in the rock star BS, but instead takes in the places he visits and their people. The podcasts are intensely personal, as he talks about his past with Boon (especially) and the people in his life. He often interviews musicians he's touring with.

Unfortunately, I skip a great deal of this 3-hour show. Watt has a format: Open with music from John Coltrane, play a few rock tunes, talk/interview, Brother Matt's Spin Cycle (dance & beat DJ stuff), and an old radio theatre bit. I listen for Watt and his insights. The Spin Cycle can be as long as 50 minutes, and I skip the whole thing every time. Ditto the radio theatre, which can be up to 40 minutes. That's a lot of filler, if you ask me. But hey- the show is a free download, so I don't mind skipping over. I just wish it was three full hours of Watt instead of about an hour and twenty minutes. TWFPS homepage.

4. Free Talk Live. This isn't the best radio in the world, but when I'm out and about and not likely to hear libertarian views via terrestrial signal, this is where I turn. There isn't much in the way of contrarian views on FTL, so it gets to be a bit too much of a know-it-all fest at times, and that's saying something because I agree with the vast majority of what they're saying. A lot of Ron Paul coverage lately, for which I am eternally grateful. FTL's homepage.

Which podcasts make your playlists?