Ron Paul. Listen to Him.

Down with war. Down with torture. Down with inflation and funny money. Down with the police state. Down with the American empire.

Electing to Stay Home

Being a principled nonvoter on Election Day is a little like being a turd in the punchbowl. At least that's how all the people running around today blissfully participating in the American civic religion of statism view it: I'm a downer, a loonie, a crank, a jerk.

They may have a point, in my case. I readily admit to the personality flaws of impatience and irritability, particularly concerning certain human affairs, most notably the modern practice of politics. This is why I've called myself a curmudgeon lo these many years. It is the definition of one, in fact, and it's why I have long known I would make a lousy teacher, parent, or priest.

Voting Is Evil

As to the subject at hand, it's not that I view voting as pointless. Even some active voters admit as much, but they still go through the motions because, "You can't just do nothing." (I don't think not voting is equivalent to doing nothing, but we'll come back to that.)

No, I don't vote because I believe voting -- and here I am talking particularly about national elections -- is a positive evil, a fact that by now should be completely clear but for whatever reason does not seem to be.

Oh, it is possible to get many voters to recognize certain uncomfortable facts about the nature of national politics, such as the often indistinguishable nature of candidates from the major parties (and that there are "major parties"). Some voters seem to understand that large vested interests (Goldman Sachs, for example) play both sides of the fence with political donations, hoping for their state-enabled exploitation to continue uninterrupted, if not to expand. Some voters even get that it's always the same small club of elites who just swap plum administrative jobs every couple of years, regardless of who wins any particular election. Still others are aware of the stories of vote fraud surrounding the increasingly common Diebold electronic voting gizmos.

To top it all off, everyone at least knows something about the illegal and/or immoral activities of the U.S. government, from systematic kidnapping and torture and unprovoked wars that have slaughtered more than a million people abroad to the establishment of a police state here at home that spies on everyone, suppresses free speech, criminalizes dissent, restricts travel, and bullies and plunders us with abandon.

But even as the proverbial horse is presented directly with the trough, he still usually refuses to drink. In other words, despite knowing all that he knows about the voting process and the nature of what he is supporting, the average voter will not take the next logical step and decline to participate in a game that is not only rigged but that is actively harmful to himself and his fellow human beings. Why?

Voting Is an Exercise in Self-Indulgence and Denial

It's an interesting question. I can't read people's minds nor understand their motives and I don't pretend to, but one clue is found in the common responses one receives when one insults or impugns the civic religion (sometimes even simply by saying "I don't vote"):

• "Well, why don't you go live somewhere else then?"
  
  
• "I guess you'd rather we had a dictatorship!"
  
  
• "It's because of people like you that this country is in the mess it is in."
  
  
• "How can you just not care?"
  
  
• "Think of all the soldiers who died for your right to vote!"

A careful reading of each of these responses reveals that, whatever its other merits, none has any logical connection to my decision not to vote. This suggests that for many, voting is experienced as an emotional act more than anything else. Their egos are involved at a fundamentally nonrational level. If you mock the civic religion, you are therefore (so he perceives) mocking the voter as a person. For whatever reason, he invests a lot of his own identity in his chosen party or candidate (hence the importance attached to voting for a "winner" and the immediate dismissal of anyone who "doesn't have a chance").

But more than that, the emotionally comfortable experience of voting rests on the willful denial of what the U.S. government is and does. Now, it is true there have been and are some governments that are even more hostile to their subjects' lives and properties than ours is, at present. But this doesn't change the fact that ours is bad and getting worse, nor that ours presumes to murderously lord it over the entire planet instead of confining itself to one particular region of tyranny.

Many voters will simply consider criticisms of the U.S. government as hyperbole, or as criticisms of the country itself. This is because believing that one can say one is against war, torture, and plunder while voting for all three is much more psychologically reassuring than admitting the inescapable truth, namely, that one's voluntary assent to a system that promotes institutionalized violence as the way to organizing human affairs is simply shameful.

So I confess to being short with people who presumptuously ask "Did you vote?" or who literally wear their voterdom ("I voted!") around like a badge of moral superiority. I have trouble hiding my disdain when otherwise intelligent people flaunt their absurd belief that, despite all evidence to the contrary, they have some say in what a government that employs some four million people, 536 of whom are elected every 2-6 years, does.

Is Nonvoting a Form of Surrender?

Some minority of voters are sympathetic to the argument for principled nonvoting, but nevertheless see it as a form of surrender. To answer them, let's review the (admittedly oversimplified) case for not voting:

Premise 1: The U.S. empire represents a threat to the peace, freedom, security, prosperity, and lives of Americans and of the peoples of the world. (See, e.g.: Iraq War, Afghanistan war, Pakistan war, Democrat and Republican national conventions, Department of Homeland Security, IRS, EPA, FDA, the War on Drugs, etc., etc.)

Premise 2: The people who run the U.S. empire are mainly all the same and have rigged the political game so as to keep their real priorities and policies perpetually out of the hands of voters. (See, e.g.: Wall Street bailout, 2008.)

Premise 3: Voting not only will not change Premise 1, regardless of who you vote for, but it furnishes the same evil government officials with the legitimacy they need to continue committing their crimes. (See, e.g., such pernicious concepts as "the will of the people," "the majority," "popular mandate," "vox populi, vox Dei," etc.)

Conclusion: Voting makes you an active accomplice to serious crimes and enables the commission of yet more crimes.

With the argument framed thus, my question is: Is refusing to participate in the violence of the state a form of surrender, or an act of conscience?

Even Nonvoters Can't Sleep Entirely Soundly at Night

I must note nonvoting is only one step toward obeying the dictates of conscience. I'm not, for example, courageous enough to stop filing my taxes. (At any rate, civil disobedience in the face of state violence is the subject of an entirely different discussion.) Not voting, however, is as of now a perfectly legal and easy way to dissociate oneself from the crimes of the U.S. government. Why would anyone choose otherwise?

Something often said when looking back on how relatively peaceful and open societies collapsed into murderous and repressive dictatorships is, "Why didn't anyone speak up?" That's what I'm doing when I don't vote and when I strongly (if not always patiently and politely) discourage others from doing so.

Voting for evil, supposedly lesser or not, is evil. Don't do it.

Everybody Look What's Goin' Down

Last week I wrote that the regime in Washington that rules over us is illegitimate. I've thought this for many years, actually, but I'm still sometimes surprised at how brazen the government has become, to the point where if anyone still thinks we live in some sort of representative democracy or constitutional republic -- well, that person is terminally naive.

The current wrangling over the massive transfer of wealth and power to the executive branch and its Wall Street handlers -- AKA the bailout bill -- shows in stark relief how this government actually functions and who really owns it. Those who watch the Tee Vee for their news undoubtedly didn't notice, but it took several days' worth of nonstop phone calls, faxes, and emails from tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of irate Americans to defeat the first attempt at this epic heist by a narrow margin in the House of Representatives.

Our rulers' response, of course, is to continue on as if nothing happened, meaning the Senate will undoubtedly pass this evil turd tonight after a pretend debate where they lard it up with more crap that can't really be paid for because the government is beyond broke and force the House of the Representatives to vote on it again.

As always, the definition of democracy to our rulers is "Sure, let the little assholes vote, just make sure they keep voting until they vote correctly." Not that I've ever given a damn for democracy, mind you, but again, the brazenness here is still mildly surprising.

Tee Vee "news" watchers also will have heard an awful lot about how plenty of Americans are supposedly begging to be fleeced out of an additional trillion or so (what the hell is a trillion?) dollars, but they will not have caught even a whiff of this:



(In case you can't play the video or make it out, yes, that's the actual Wall Street and yes, all those apparently invisible protesters are chanting "The bailout is bullshit! You broke it, you bought it!")

I wonder why it might be this was not on the Tee Vee. Ah, yes, I know. It's because the gigantic media corporations are controlled, if not owned, by the same powerful folks who pull the strings on Wall Street and who also control, if not own, the stooges in Washington who exercise their increasingly pretend authority.

They will get their bailout, their takeover of the capital markets. They will get it because they need it to cover their losses at our expense and to keep their creaky, inherently unstable system of exploitation going for just a little while longer, before the mask really comes off and even the stupidest American will see what sort of state it is he toils his whole life to support.

Do you finally get it, Mr. and Mrs. America? Do you yet perceive the nature of the criminals who exercise power over you and the country you mistakenly believed was free?

If not, what will it take to convince you? The U.S. Army patrolling the "homeland" to keep the unruly down, maybe?

We are headed into dark times.

Update: Oh, big surprise, the douchebags in the Senate have voted 74-25 in favor. Keep in mind this thing, which was three pages when it originally appeared in Congress, is now something like 450 pages. Do you think it was actually read by any of the Senate retards? I shudder to think what other garbage was slipped in there. Not even a pretense of legitimacy, folks.

McCain, Obama Name Each Other As Running Mates

WASHINGTON, D.C. (AP) -- In an unexpected move, Republican presidential nominee John McCain and his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, announced today they were choosing each other as their respective running mates.

"With both the current Republican president and Democrat-majority Congress sporting record low approval ratings, we figured it's just one more sign that the American people have caught on to the fact there's no difference between either party, and certainly no difference between Senator Obama and myself," McCain said at a joint appearance at the National Press Club.

"I've been running on the themes of 'change' and 'hope,' but, hell, it's 2008. You can't fool anyone with that bullshit anymore," agreed Obama.

Speculation about who the candidates would select as their prospective vice presidents has been ramping up as the Republican and Democratic national conventions approach. Rumors had Obama picking his former primary opponent, Hillary Clinton, but sources within the campaign discounted the idea.

"Like the rest of the country, the senator hates that bitch," said an Obama spokesman who asked to remain anonymous.

Echoing his overall campaign strategy, McCain was believed to be clueless and disinterested in the search for a running mate.

"I'm glad to have Senator Obama as my running mate, so now we can focus on our common goal of defeating our opponent and making America awesome again, or something" McCain told the crowd of several hundred reporters.

The candidates have worked out a unique deal where, if elected, they would serve not as president and vice president, but as co-presidents, with McCain taking Mondays, Wednesdays, and Saturdays and Obama serving Tuesdays, Thursdays, and -- because Muslims do not keep the Sabbath -- Sundays. Fridays would be split evenly.

Observers say the McCain-Obama ticket represents an interesting innovation in democracy.

"On the one hand, this should encourage Americans always grumbling about the 'same old, same old' in politics," said Bartholomew Glump, professor of political science at the University of Phoenix. "Unfortunately, on the other hand, Americans who complain about not having a real choice kind of have a point."

The candidates, meanwhile, are clearly looking ahead.

"When we are sworn in as president and president on January 20, Senator Obama and I will rock America," said McCain. "And Iraq. And Iran. And Afghanistan and Pakistan. And maybe China and Russia and North Korea, too."

"Yes, we can," added Obama.

It's Gonna Be a Long Tour

Bush Tours America To Survey Damage Caused By His Disastrous Presidency

Papa Knows Best

It's not a reference to the just-passed Father's Day but to a letter Ernest Hemingway wrote to Esquire in 1935 on the coming world war. It's perceptive in a way that you don't tend to see today, when all of our major media outlets are owned, or at least controlled, by the same network of people and corporations who profit handsomely from wars and inflation. Highlights:

Not this August, nor this September; you have this year to do in what you like. Not next August, nor next September; that is still too soon; they are still too prosperous from the way things pick up when armament factories start at near capacity; they never fight as long as money can still be made without. So you can fish that summer and shoot that fall or do whatever you do, go home at nights, sleep with your wife, go to the ball game, make a bet, take a drink when you want to, or enjoy whatever liberties are left for anyone who has a dollar or a dime. But the year after that or the year after that they fight. Then what happens to you?

Or maybe, I dunno, there will be another awesome war this year! (And maybe another 9/11 just for fun, too.)

If there is a general European war we will be brought in if propaganda (think of how the radio will be used for this), greed, and the desire to increase the impaired health of the state can swing us in. Every move that is made now to deprive the people of their decision on all matters through their elected representatives and to delegate those powers to the executive brings us that much nearer war.

Substitute "Middle Eastern" for "European" and not much has changed in nearly 75 years, has it?

The first panacea for a mismanaged nation is inflation of the currency; the second is war. Both bring a temporary prosperity; both bring a permanent ruin. But both are the refuge of political and economic opportunists.

Inflation? What inflation?

War is no longer made by simply analysed economic forces if it ever was. War is made or planned now by individual men, demagogues, and dictators who play on the patriotism of their people to mislead them into a belief in the great fallacy of war when all their vaunted reforms have failed to satisfy the people they misrule. And we in America should see that no man is ever given, no matter how gradually or how noble and excellent the man, the power to put this country into a war which is now being prepared and brought closer each day with all the premeditation of a long planned murder.

Oh look, a very non-noble and non-excellent man is being given the power to start his third war in six years.

They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and fitting to die for one's country. But in modern war there is nothing sweet nor fitting in your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason.

Or you'll just "be strong" and pass out water to little brown kids, or something.

Another Reason Not to Support McCain

As if any more were needed.



(HT: Verd.)

A Review of The Revolution: A Manifesto

I've bopped around libertarian and conservative circles since 1994, and to be honest, my enthusiasm for the whole ball of wax has been pretty much tapped out for the past few years. Even last year, when I first heard legendary libertarian congressman Ron Paul was running for president as a Republican, I wasn't much interested. He'll just be marginalized and ignored, if he’s not outright ridiculed, I thought.

Then a wonderful thing happened. Oh, Ron Paul has been alternately marginalized, ignored, and ridiculed by the usual suspects in government and the media. But thanks to the magic of the Internet, his message has nevertheless spread far and wide among a new generation of what Albert Jay Nock called the Remnant. He's set fundraising records and ignited a bona fide political movement for liberty. I guess I'm not the only one nauseated by the grim prospect of fascist warmonger John McCain facing off against socialist warmonger Hillary Clinton for the prize of becoming Emperor of the Dolts.

And here we have Ron Paul's campaign book. Campaign books by their nature have a very short shelf life and perform no useful task (for the reader); they're written only to make the candidate sound like a normal, warm human being with ordinary goals and values instead of a creepy, reptilian politician who gets sexually aroused only by the prospect of power and money.

Needless to say, The Revolution: A Manifesto is different. Anyone who has met Ron Paul -- or even just watched him on TV -- has already figured out that he is a normal, warm human being. He has nothing to prove in that arena. Instead, he has laid out, in simple and easy-to-understand terms, the case for freedom. Not freedom in that corrupted sense that pretends this or that government program will "help" us be happy -– but real, honest-to-God, traditional American freedom from government, just as our Founders intended.

Away with the tax collectors. Away with the bureaucrats. Away with the regulators. Away with the babysitters and busybodies. Away with every manner of petty tax-eating loser who would presume to tell us what to do with our lives and how to do it. Ron Paul represents what I hope is not the last of a long line of Americans who know what real freedom is and embrace it. In fact, this book should help ensure others will take up the cause -- before we are all really, really sorry.

In just 167 pages, Dr. Paul lucidly expounds matters of foreign policy, economics, civil liberties, monetary policy, the Constitution, and more. He provides plenty of quotations and other support to ground what he is saying firmly in authentic American tradition. He shows how appealing and even simple the message of freedom is, even in an age like ours, when it has again become "radical" to insist on strict boundaries for government, an entity that should properly be thought of as nightsticks and jackboots, not Christmas presents and candy.

Without divine intervention, Ron Paul won't rise to the office of American emperor (in order to begin dismantling it), but those of us who have been around a while recognize the real value of his candidacy. Thanks to the Good Doctor, millions more Americans now see the Federal Reserve for what it really is: a massive engine of fraud that picks their pockets for the benefit of the wealthy and politically connected. It has, for the first time in my life, become permissible to not only question what the central bank is doing, but ask why it even exists. That is real progress.

Ron Paul's candidacy has also exposed, once and for all, the narrow agenda of the mass media, which has been in bed with the state for many, many decades, and the insincerity of the "house libertarians" of the D.C. think tank circuit (cough, Cato, cough), who, instead of getting behind Dr. Paul, helped engineer a smear campaign against him. No one serious about libertarian action will ever trust them again.

Finally, Ron Paul has said what has needed saying for a long time: that America has become an empire, and empire is a particularly bad hobby that we can ill afford, financially or otherwise. It's time for "conservatives" to re-discover their anti-imperial roots and abandon the dubious project of bombing the world into "democratic" submission. Remember when liberal Woodrow Wilson was rightly ridiculed for this attitude? And remember he was a utopian liberal Democrat? Republican warmongers can get a little squirmy when anyone brings this up.

For confirmed advocates of liberty, The Revolution will not offer much they don't already know. What the book does offer is a great introduction for the average American who has become accustomed to thinking that getting permission from the government is the same thing as freedom. The Revolution has the potential to re-orient Joe Sixpack's point of view back toward American ideals and away from the statist brainwashing he received in government school. To that end, you should read this book then get as many of your friends, neighbors, and family members as possible to read it, too. It really can make a difference.

Let the revolution... continue!

Boo Hoo, Wives Still Doing Housework

Oh my. In the year of Our Lord 2008, many poor, oppressed American wives are apparently still taking care of their homes. It's true! Thanks to some federally funded (Constitution? What's that?) busybodies researchers at the University of Michigan, we have the (latest) answer to the not-at-all-biased-toward-feminist-dogma question, "Exactly how much housework does a husband create?"

I know I probably shouldn't, but I'll take the bait. I'll even leave aside why anyone spends time "studying" such things -- really, who cares? -- as well as the incredible presumption of forcing taxpayers to subsidize it. I'll just try to bring a little common-sense perspective to the table, unburdened by Outrage!, or at least the heavily implied opprobrium.

Being of the lazy XY persuasion, I'll keep my critique as simple and short as possible, treating with this typically slanted "news" story about the dire findings of the study. First, the de rigeur breathless headline:

Getting Married Doubles A Woman's Housework, While Men Reap The Benefits

Oh noes! Tell my already indignant self more!

Getting married is a high point in most women's lives,

Such a high point that many choose to do it several times. Zing!

but it comes with at least one burden they may not have expected -- extra housework.

It seems counterintuitive to expect there would be less work to do around a house that has more than one person living in it, doesn't it?

According to a study from the University of Michigan, the average woman adds seven hours a week to her weekly burden simply by getting hitched.

But the man gets the best deal out of this equation, saving himself an hour of chores around the home.

The most obvious problem with these two paragraphs: What are we talking about here? We need to know the study's definition of housework, or burden, or chores, or whatever term is germane. Let's see if we get one.

The researchers note we've come a long way since the old days when necessities like cleaning the floors, doing the laundry or taking care of the kids was considered "woman's work."

That's a hint, but still not a hard definition.

But inequities remain.

"It's a well-known pattern," admits Frank Stafford, of the university's Institute for Social Research. "There's still a significant reallocation of labor that occurs at marriage -- men tend to work more outside the home, while women take on more of the household labour. And the situation gets worse for women when they have children."

Uh oh and whoops. Already this paragraph completely negates the thesis of this "news" story, as well as the study. Married men work more outside the home while married women do more of the still-undefined household stuff. Where's the inequity?

Stafford asked his subjects to keep a time diary about how they spent their hours, and questioned both sexes about the amount of cooking, cleaning and basic work they did keeping their houses in order.

That's a little better, but still not what you'd call a precise definition of housework. The actual study doesn't seem to be online, but UM's press release on the findings adds this: "Excluded from these 'core' housework hours were tasks like gardening, home repairs, or washing the car." I would just note two of those three excluded tasks are more often associated with men.

They discovered that single women only performed about 12 hours of chores a week. But their married counterparts, especially older females in their 60s and 70s, did twice that amount. Women with three kids spent a good 28 hours getting everything done they felt was needed. But for married men with the same number of children, the workload was just 10 hours.

It's noted later in passing both that men being physically home less contributes to them doing less housework (duh) and that more people in a house equals more to clean up (also duh). Some things not mentioned or considered (in the "news" story and press release, at least):

1. Whether or not the single women rented and/or the married women owned their houses. Did the study screen for these factors to ensure a more apples-to-apples comparison? This is important as one naturally spends less time on housework when one rents. Why steam clean that carpet? It's not yours.
   
   
2. The fact that, in general, single people just tend to "keep house" less. I've spent a long time being single, and I have both single and married friends and I can tell you, without a federally funded study, that married folks are much more likely to put more time and effort into homemaking than are single people, even if the single people own their houses. Could not this "nesting" instinct explain at least some of the discrepancy?
   
   
3. "Getting everything done they felt was needed." In one of Dave Barry's books, probably Dave Barry's Guide to Marriage and/or Sex, he has a funny bit about the difference between the sexes when it comes to cleaning. Women, he says, are able to perceive individual molecules of dirt, whereas those molecules need to form a lumpish mass before men even notice them. This is a way of saying that many women's standards of "clean" are higher than those of many men's. That's all well and good and why I added the emphasis to "they felt was needed." In other words, another explanation for why married women may spend more time cleaning is because they simply have a more demanding definition of what constitutes "clean" than their husbands do.

Maybe the actual study takes such explanatory factors as the above into account, though I have my doubts based on the slant of the university's own press release about it.

It's only natural that kids translate into additional work, and the more people in a home the more work there will inevitably be for those who live there. But the researchers suggest that most of that burden still falls on women, and that men don't contribute as much mostly because they're absent at work.

Another case of the duhs.

Still, things have improved since they did a similar study in 1976. Back then, women were forced to perform about 26 hours of housework a week, while men contributed just six. Now the weight scales have balanced a bit, with wives averaging 17 hours and husbands about 13.

Good grief, just look at the ridiculous slant of this paragraph. Women "were forced to perform" the job of keeping a household, while men merely "contributed." And things have "improved" for whom? For example, a theoretical study showing the number of hours married men spend working outside the house might show a relatively stable pattern, but the married man of 2008 sees his wife spending nine hours less a week taking care of stuff while he's gone. Some improvement for him.

And those behind the numbers contend guys don't get off easy by getting married. Their workload increases once they're united in matrimony, and the wife says the inevitable 'Dear, got a minute?'"

"Marriage is no longer a man's path to less housework," Stafford concludes.

In other words, the conclusion is that wives are doing less and husbands are doing more, but the whole thrust of this piece is how awful it is that wives still have to do anything at all. Do I have this right?

I haven't even touched on the methodology of this study. Is it out of bounds to speculate on the truthfulness or accuracy of these "time diaries" that the researchers asked the subjects to keep? Given the incredible slant accorded to the findings, I can guess what the instructions might have looked like:

"Please indicate how many hours this week you spent picking up after that ungrateful, lazy slob you call a husband: ______"

And are there differences in how men and women might categorize what they consider housework and how much time they spend on it? It is easy to imagine men just, you know, doing stuff that needs to be done and forgetting about it while women meticulously make entries in their diaries. No way? Consider this statement from another study:

"Wives are surely sensitive to imbalances in routine tasks and efforts, as almost all research shows...." said study team member Steven Nock, a professor of sociology at University of Virginia."

Yes, I could imagine differing motivations in how time diaries are kept.

Anyway, the point isn't to denigrate wives or housework or marriage. It's to debunk the kind of "research" that reduces something as complex and personal as marriage to a matter of arbitrarily pre-selected bean counting. It's to point out the ludicrous ideological underpinnings of the alleged "science." It's to expose the blatantly biased "news" that emanates from this sort of tommyrot, "news" that oftentimes manages to become conventional wisdom.

On the contrary, the findings of this exercise in pure feminist-inspired indulgence are a classic example of what economist Thomas Sowell calls "Aha! statistics":

If you start out with a preconception and find numbers that fit that preconception, you say, "Aha!" But when the numbers don't fit any preconception ... then no "Aha!"

As for feminism itself, I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'll take the claims of feminism seriously when I see its apostles clamoring for more opportunities for female lumberjacks, coal miners, garbage collectors, and high-rise window washers. After four decades of spewing their poisonous hogwash, feminists still don't mind that kind of inequity.

My conclusion: Grab a mop and STFU.

Five Years

March 2008 is poised to enter the history books, and I would be remiss if I didn't stop to take note of the fifth anniversary this month of something rather momentous in the history of the world.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq? Well, no, I meant the establishment of this blog. Five years of Excellence in Bloviating – where does the time go?

But while I'm at it, there is the matter of the five-year-old Bush/Cheney/neocon hobbyist war that, to date, has wasted the lives of 4,000 American soldiers, physically and psychically maimed tens of thousands more, murdered as many as an estimated one million Iraqis, pissed away half a trillion (trillion!) dollars and counting of productive wealth, and turned the United States into a justly loathed pariah state.

Over the past few weeks, we -- the ordinary schmoes forced to absorb a fair chunk of the staggering costs of this most unnecessary evil -- have been treated to, on the one hand, numerous "The Surge Is Working!" proclamations from the moral and mental midgets who pushed this calamity on the world and, on the other hand, several "I Was Wrong" symposia featuring the less ideologically deluded but still monumentally dumb or dishonest (who knows which -- or cares, when the result is the same?) members of the professional commentariat.

In either case, the people who might provide the most interesting and penetrating insight into this disaster are seldom heard from: Those who opposed the war from the beginning.

Seriously, who the fuck gives a shit what some neocon "experts" from the Israeli American Enterprise Institute have to say in March 2008? They were and are all wrong, wrong, wrong. About everything. In a normal world -- one I find increasingly hard to inhabit, though I still deem the attempt to do so vital -- such people forfeit all credibility, and, if not run out of town on a rail, at least stop appearing on TV as "experts." I'm looking at you, Fred Kagan, Bill Kristol, and Robert Kagan, among many, many others. (Hey, even Dougie Feith, resigned Under Secretary of Defense currently Under Investigation for the bullshit he helped manufacture in support of invading Iraq as head of the "Office of Special Plans," has an important-sounding book coming out, no doubt explaining his murderous brilliance to us ungrateful plebes.)

Yo, George Bush, what happened to "Mission Accomplished"? Isn't Saddam Hussein out of power for, like, four years running now? What's the holdup in getting the fuck out of there? What's that? Oh, the real reasons for this war still haven't been made public? Despite a string of debunked fantasies -- from "weapons of mass destruction" to "implanting democracy in the Middle East" -- continuing to embarrass you and disgrace us?

Swell. As he leaves office -- scheming to start another war in Iran   -- George Bush may wonder about his place in history. Again, in a sane world, that place would be secure: in prison.

I don't take any pleasure in saying "I told you so," and I'm sure Orange County Register editorial writer Steven Greenhut doesn't, either, but as one of those critics-from-the-start who can provide the aforementioned interesting, penetrating insight, he is qualified to have the last word:

On April 6, 2003, I wrote in a column: "As I see it, this pre-emptive war is unjustified. There is no real threat to the United States, only a theoretical one based on faulty premises. It is unjust, in that it is not a war of last resort. It will kill lots of people. It will run up tens of billions of dollars in costs, and it will lead to the limiting of civil liberties at home. Furthermore, America will be managing Iraq for years, perhaps decades, and our presence there is more likely to destabilize than democratize the region. It's also a war based largely on the unrealistic Wilsonian sentiments that democracy can be imposed on people at gunpoint."

Later that month, I argued that the attack "will ignite the fires of Islamic fundamentalism and perhaps even prop up a neighboring Iranian fundamentalist regime that had been facing increasing domestic resistance." You get the idea. If we could figure it out, why couldn't the nation's brain trusts?

Indeed. And explain to me again why they aren't in jail yet.

Update 4/1: Oh, and by the way, despite the fact that the U.S. government spends hundreds of billions every year on "defense," almost as much as the rest of the world combined (think about that!), the director of the CIA basically says another 9/11 could happen anytime. Some defense! (Justin Raimondo has more.) Of course, the U.S. government doesn't actually care about American citizens, except insofar as we can be milked and exploited by the vampires who inhabit it.

Update II 4/1: More context on the Bush/Cheney planned assault on Iran. I wish this were an April Fool's joke, but all signs say it's coming, and soon. I can't wait to be told the Iranians hate us for our freedom, too.

Won’t You Come Home, Bill Buckley?

William F. Buckley Jr., writer, editor, founder of National Review, TV host, public intellectual, one-time mayoral candidate, wealthy dude, and baptized Catholic has gone to meet his Maker at the age of 82. The tributes are pouring in from friends, foes, and posers far and wide. Neoconservatives are weeping as they prepare lengthy encomia. Even writers I admire are eulogizing him.

I must say I'm quite ambivalent. Unlike self-identified conservatives of an earlier generation, I can say that Bill Buckley has had no direct influence whatsoever on my political thought. Yes, he made quite a splash in the 1950s beginning with God and Man at Yale, but that was 20 years before I was born. By the time I first picked up a copy of National Review, probably some time around 1996, the magazine was by all accounts barely a shadow of its former urbane self. These days, it's so awful it's embarrassing, at least if its online incarnation is any indication.

Buckley was, of course, a prolific writer, not just in his own magazine but also in books of collected notes and essays and in syndication. His style was what might charitably be called loquacious, although turgid and pedantic were the two adjectives that came most readily to mind whenever I tried to read one of his columns. His prose sometimes made me think of Hemingway's quip about another writer: "Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words?" (He -- Buckley, not Hemingway -- also wrote spy novels. I never read one, but my mom did once and I recall her saying it was really bad.)

Not that the man wasn't possessed of a great wit -- he certainly was. But I'm wondering how much of his many writings or which of his ideas will really be remembered now he's gone. Apart from establishing a magazine and appointing himself the pope of doctrinaire conservatism, did he really contribute anything insightful, original, or constructive to the philosophical and cultural patrimony of the American Right?

Your mileage may vary. Actually, your gas tank may be bone dry. I've said Buckley had no direct influence on my intellectual development, but he's had an enormous indirect influence by representing everything to me that was and is wrong with modern conservatism: an insincere commitment to first principles and hostility toward anyone who adheres to same; a childish and hypocritical yay-for-us, boo-for-them mentality; an eager and pathetic desire to be liked by those in power; and -- worst of all -- an unwavering addiction to war, war, war, and still more war.

It's this last, especially, that is his most grievous legacy. But in some way I do owe a debt of gratitude to Bill Buckley. Many of the fine writers and thinkers he purged from his magazine and from "polite" conservatism turned out to be a virtual reading list for my young mind, everyone from Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, and Russell Kirk to Joseph Sobran and Will Grigg (via the banished John Birch Society and its flagship magazine, The New American). The rule became, "If Buckley excommunicated him, he must be all right!"

Two other things. First, in re-reading his 1955 mission statement for National Review -- the famous one where he's standing athwart history, the literary equivalent of Slim Pickens riding a nuclear warhead -- I found a remarkable example of the beginning foretelling the end. Here is 29-year-old Bill Buckley writing of what ultimately became his own baleful influence:

Radical conservatives in this country have an interesting time of it, for when they are not being suppressed or mutilated by the Liberals, they are being ignored or humiliated by a great many of those of the well-fed Right, whose ignorance and amorality have never been exaggerated for the same reason that one cannot exaggerate infinity.

(Indeed, though I would never charge him with ignorance, I've read numerous anecdotes that confirm Mr. Buckley ate quite heartily his entire life.)

Second, if you can tell something about a man from those who mourn him, then what is one to make of this profound panegyric?

THE PRESIDENT: No question, he was a -- one of the great political thinkers. He influenced a lot of people, including me. And he was -- I can remember those debates they had on TV, and he was so articulate and he captured the imagination of a lot of folks because he was -- he had a great way of defining the issues.

The eloquent, erudite Bill Buckley: memorialized by a presidential partisan unable to even complete a sentence in Buckley's beloved English language!

But nil nisi bonum and all that. Just about everyone who knew Bill Buckley -- even some of those he pushed from the ramparts of respectable conservatism -- uniformly speaks of a charming, generous, and gracious man. We can only wish that that gracious spirit would have been more manifest to those on the Right with whom he differed as well as to those he never personally knew, including the many soldiers and foreigners killed in pursuit of the empire he regrettably did so much to cheerlead into existence. May his soul -- and theirs -- rest in peace.

Vote, Citizen!

Leave it to The Onion to get much closer to the truth about presidential elections than any "serious" media source.


Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results Of 2008 Election Early


Of course, none of that matters, since presidential elections are to American politics what the Oscars are to Hollywood, with essentially the same audience.


Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters


But at least Hollywood isn't starting wars or quietly building domestic concentration camps. Right?

The Curmudgeon Strikes Back

Note: Encouraged by the positive response to my essay about the Ron Paul movement, "The Conscience of a Curmudgeon," I've decided to expand upon the idea of political (or nonpolitical, as the case may be) curmudgeonry with the idea that it might make a fine little booklet unto itself. Below is a preface of sorts. I'm working on Chapter 1 with the hope of posting it later this week.

The Conscience of a Curmudgeon: Declaring Independence from Pointless Politics

Preface

This book is not written with the idea of adding to or improving on the Conservative philosophy. Or of "bringing it up to date." The ancient and tested truths that guided our Republic through its early days will do equally well for us. The challenge to Conservatives today is quite simply to demonstrate the bearing of a proven philosophy on the problems of our own time.

In 1960, the junior U.S. senator from Arizona Barry Goldwater issued The Conscience of a Conservative, a political tract of some endurance whose opening sentences appear above. A few years later, in 1964, Goldwater won the Republican Party's nomination to run for president, losing in a landslide to socialist warmonger Lyndon Johnson. His campaign has been frequently credited with laying the groundwork for later "conservative" political success, most notably the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan to the presidency.

Although, politically speaking, there is little I would disagree with in Goldwater's "Conservative philosophy," today I am an apolitical curmudgeon. And I'm here to call bullshit on the idea that conservatism, as defined by Goldwater (and Russell Kirk before him) has ever achieved any sort of electoral success whatsoever. After almost 50 more years of unchecked growth in government power, the results are in and the conclusion is clear: America is fucked.

As with Goldwater's tract, I'm not here to add to or improve upon anything we today might preferably call "the freedom philosophy." I'm here to point out that I don't buy one iota of the bullshit about liberty that we're fed from the allegedly conservative establishment, which encompasses everything from the modern Republican Party to the supposedly conservative and libertarian media outlets and think tanks. Things are decidedly not getting better and not only are these supposedly freedom-friendly institutions not the solution, they're part of the problem.

Conservative? We are one more 9/11 away from a military dictatorship. If you doubt it, ask yourself: What institutional safeguard is in place to prevent it? The spastic overreaction to the murder of one one-thousandth of one percent of America's population in 2001 -- a government failure, by the way -- has already brought us the murderous travesties of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and occupations, the Orwellian piles of bureaucratic shit known as the Transportation Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security, and the freedom-revoking horror of the Military Commissions Act. Yes, citizen, you should be worried. But not about foreign terrorists.

Is this progress? Is progress -- a turn toward freedom and peace -- even possible at this late date? Let's consider. If the federal (sic) government was too big in Goldwater's time, guess what? It's way too fucking big in 2008. If it was electorally impossible to rein it in in 1964, guess what? It's beyond impossible to vote it into submission in 2008.

Politics has failed. Checks and balances have failed. Conservatism has failed. Democracy has failed. America has failed.

Yet life goes on. What now?

Why I Do Not (And Will Not) Vote for President

Antiwar columnist Arthur Silber, in a, um, forthright essay entitled "Most of You Will Eat Shit Until the Day You Die," succinctly explains the reason I won't be one of the dumbasses voting for U.S. emperor this or any other year:

I'll be blunt, even rude: You can call it Republican shit. You can call it Democratic shit. You can call it progressive shit. It's still shit. It's still murder, and torture, and criminal war, and a growing surveillance state. If you vote for the Democratic or the Republican candidate for president -- and if you vote for almost any of the candidates for national office -- you're voting for murder. You're voting for torture. You're voting for criminal war. You're voting for the growing surveillance state.

Is that what you choose to do? Is that what you choose to support? Is it?

Without going to jail -- increasingly the place for any American with a conscience -- I can't stop financing murder, torture, and creeping totalitarianism. But by God I won't clap my hands and say "yeah" while doing it. Eventually voting for the emperor and his consuls will be made mandatory, but so long as it isn't I choose to disassociate myself from their crimes.

All that high school civics class bullshit is just that: bullshit.

More About Ron Paul

I said I'd write more about Ron Paul, and so I did at LewRockwell.com.

Update 2/9/08: There's been quite a response to my latest rant. I've received more email regarding this column than anything else I've ever written, almost all of it of the "You said what I think!" variety.

You know what this means. I'm going to have to start my own messianic cult. Stay tuned for details on how you can join.

Bush, Clinton, Lather, Rinse, Repeat

So there seems to be a big presidential campaign going on or something. I just recently paid a little attention to the "debates," and now I feel qualified and confident enough to sum up all of this sturm und drang in one sentence: If anyone can get Hillary fucking Clinton elected as president, it's the Republican party.

The Republicans have such a strong impulse for suicide they ought to rename themselves the An Hero Party. Let's see. The war in Iraq was not only started on 100% bullshit, it's now reviled by a majority of Americans, including presumably many who vote. What to do?

I know! How about anoint as the so-called "frontrunner" John "100 More Years in Iraq" McCain, the craziest, angriest, most belligerent warmonger in the entire party (and that's saying something). Furthermore, have his media-selected "major" challengers also be gung-ho for pissing away more lives and money in that Middle East shithole for no good reason, thus assuring no actual debate on this grave issue. Finally, with the media as accomplice, make sure that the only candidate, in either party, who proposes peace and sanity is systematically marginalized, if not ignored outright.

And people wonder why I don't vote. Could this dog-and-pony show possibly be any more stage managed and rigged in favor of the War Party and its unending criminal empire? Once again, if the behind-the-scenes shapers of presidential politics get their way, America, you'll get to "choose" between a Machiavellian socialist who favors war and more government and a sabre-rattling jingoist with an obviously questionable hold on reality who wallows in war and more government.

I'll choose, again, to stay home and not help foster the illusion I approve of this disgusting, grossly immoral sham. However, if, by some miracle, Ron Paul were to get nominated, I would set aside my cynicism and actually try to help him get elected, with God and the two readers of this blog as my witness.

I'll write more about Dr. Paul in the near future.

The Institute for Truth, Justice, America, Sunshine, and Puppies Presents Michigan vs. Ohio, Round 2: Politics

Ronald Reagan famously quipped that politics is the world's second-oldest profession, yet it bears a striking similarity to the first.

And who can doubt the Gipper? Not the world of science, which is the world that ITJASP and this blog live in. Again, extensive research went into the findings of this report, so let's just move straight into Michigan vs. Ohio, Round 2: Which state is politically more awesome?

THE PAST: PRESIDENTS

Michigan. There is only one former president from Michigan: Gerald Ford. As an asskicking linebacker on a two-time championship University of Michigan team from the 1930s, he played ferocious D and was voted team captain, which is just how we like our football players. As president in the 1970s, he was mostly harmless and unelected, which is just how we like our government. Science says: +1 Michigan.

Ohio. No fewer than eight former presidents have come from the state of Ohio (though none attended THE! Ohio State University), so many that Ohio has been given the creepy-sounding nickname "The Mother of Presidents." These former chief execs are:

William Henry Harrison. Windbag par excellence, he delivered the longest inaugural address in American history on a cold, rainy day and was rewarded by catching pneumonia. Died shortly thereafter before he could do much of anything. Science says: +1 Ohio.

Ulysses S. Grant. Although he gets points for being a drunk, his administration was riddled with profiteers from the odious military occupation of the South. Science says: -1 Ohio.

Rutherford B. Hayes. It was said of him that he was "a third rate nonentity, whose only recommendation is that he is obnoxious to no one," which sounds like exactly the sort of guy who should be president. However, he brought in federal troops to shoot striking railroad employees. Surely that could have been handled better? Science says: -1 Ohio.

James A. Garfield. The perfect president: He was in office for all of six months before being assassinated. Science says: +1 Ohio.

Benjamin Harrison. Fraudulently elected, he signed the awful Sherman Antitrust Act and raised tariffs. Science says: -1 Ohio.

William McKinley. Supported sound money in the form of the gold standard; annexed Hawaii, setting the stage for Polynesian pop a half-century later; and was assassinated. Science says: +1 Ohio.

William Howard Taft. Proposed the 16th Amendment (income tax). Fat. Science says: -1 Ohio.

Warren Harding. His administration was rife with corruption thanks to his appointment of other Ohioans to his cabinet. Still, he picked a great Treasury secretary in Andrew Mellon, who fought for tax cuts, and died two years into his term. Science says: +1 Ohio.

THE PRESENT: GOVERNORS

Michigan. Although she's at least easy on the eyes, Governor Jennifer Granholm is a complete fucking idiot and a Canadian. Science says: -1 Michigan.

Ohio. Governor Ted Strickland has been in office only since January, so although indications are he's another tax-and-spend, big-government commie pinko liberal, the scientific data are inconclusive. Plus there's always the chance he'll be assassinated. Science says: 0 Ohio.

Count: 0-0.

TIEBREAKER

Ohio fucking re-elected George W. Bush. Michigan did not. Science says: -1,000 and rot in hell, Ohio.

Final count: 0 - -1,000. Michigan wins Round 2.

I Got a Fever, and the Only Prescription Is More Taxes!

Oh, how awesome it must be to vote to steal money from other people when you find yourself in a tight financial spot. I'll be honest -- right now, I'm living paycheck to paycheck and need money for a long list of things:

• To fix my laptop, the hard drive of which died back in June
  
• To fix or replace my vacuum cleaner, which now refuses to pick up all the cat hair
  
• To fix or replace my DVD player, which dropped dead without warning a month ago
  
• To pay off a few hundred bucks in medical expenses on a credit card
  
• To replace my car's battery, which croaked three weeks ago
  
• To pay the dentist for a cleaning to arrest the onset of gum disease
  
• Hell, I'd love a new computer -- doesn't even need to be too fancy, just newer than 1999
  
• What else? Oh yeah, rent, utilities, groceries, pet supplies, and other such trivial ongoing costs
  
• Maybe to, like, even save some of my money for when I need a new car, want to buy a house, get married, or do something else unreasonable and extravagant like that
  

Oh sure, you could point out that the reason I'm so broke now is because I spent a lot of money to go on an exotic vacation. You might even suggest I should be more careful with my spending. Like, maybe look for ways to save money and use coupons and stuff.

Pshaw, I say. If the state can piss away billions of dollars every year on such alleged categories as education, transportation, and health care while still managing to have shitty schools, decrepit roads, and fucked up, bloated "insurance" schemes -- and then reach into my pocket for more money, I think it should be totally fine for me to vote to allow myself to make an "unauthorized withdrawal" from the bank -- or from any random person on the street, really. I need money; ergo, I am morally justified in taking it from others by force. We will call this "microcivics."*

Seriously, not only is extortionate taxation morally objectionable (according to the Tax Foundation, Michigan ranks 14th highest in tax burden and is estimated to move up to 11th highest now), it's economically suicidal (Michigan ranks dead last in economic growth, with the highest unemployment rate of any state).

It's about more than the fact that I'll now be paying $15 more for my bowling league every time. Some $230 million in new taxes on business services are guaranteed job killers, exacerbating an already bleak economic situation. Plus, with the precedent set for services being taxed, it will be only a matter of time before every conceivable "service" suddenly costs more as the greedy cocksuckers in Lansing reach their grubby fucking hands into everything they can. Oh, and we also get to pay more of the double-dipping income tax on top of that, too.



Meanwhile, the budget-busting union mercernaries who make up the Michigan "Education" Association and various other bureaucrats and government goons continue to suck our blood dry. As Hillsdale professor Gary Wolfram says in today's Detroit News:

Government in Michigan is too expensive for the taxpayer to afford. Research by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy has found the average salary and benefits package of Michigan state employees is $75,000, while the comparable figure for private-sector workers is about $58,000. According to the National Education Association, Michigan teacher salaries are behind only those of California and Connecticut.

The budget deal was driven by protecting the salary and benefits for the existing government employees and in the long run will further dampen the flagging Michigan economy.

This bone-headed and morally repugnant tax increase is another great example of why we shouldn't vote for politicians; we should hunt them.

The bullshit increases are set to take effect in December.** Merry Christmas, Michigan, and drop dead. Love, Lansing.

Related
The Detroit News -- New levy taxes 23 services
The Mackinac Center -- Anatomy of a Tax Hike
The Detroit News -- Michigan wakes up to tax increases
Ann Arbor News -- New sales tax imposition angers business owners
The Detroit News -- Recall activists mobilize

* P.J. O'Rourke's term is also great: freelance socialism.

** Don't you also love how whenever there's a "tax cut," it's "phased in" over 237 years, but tax increases always seem to take place immediately (or in some cases, retroactively)?

IP, IP, IP: Find Out What It Means to Me

The Congress shall have power... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries
—U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8

How on earth did we get from that brief phrase in the Constitution to today's state of affairs where:

• At least one music distributor, Sony BMG, believes it has the moral and legal right to vandalize its paying customers’ computers in the name of fighting a potential crime that not only is potential but isn’t even actually a crime?
  
  
• A guy threatens to sue people for posting videos of other people doing a variation of his copyrighted dance moves at a wedding?
  
  
• "Happy Birthday to You," the melody of which dates back to the late 1800s, won't be fully out of copyright until 2016 -- assuming Congress doesn't do something to extend copyright terms yet again?
  
  
• The former head of a powerful state grovels before Bill Gates to keep a schoolteacher on the other side of the world from going to a Siberian penal colony for supposedly infringing Microsoft copyrights?
  
  
• A multinational fast-food chain claims commercial ownership of the phrase "Family Feast" to the point where it threatens a middle-aged innkeeper in the remote British countryside with legal action?
  
  
• Everything from "ergonomically engineered underwear" to "time based hardware button for application launch" (i.e., the mouse double-click) is patented?
  
  
• A private organization, the Recording Industry Association of America, can go on a massive campaign of legally abetted trespass, intimidation, harassment, and extortion against children, the elderly and infirm, college students, the deceased, and others in a futile effort to turn back the clock to pre-digital days?

IP Unfreely

Welcome to the insane world of intellectual property, or IP, that oppressive, rapidly expanding ideology that seeks to create, perpetuate, and enforce ever more draconian laws over things that are often not especially intellectual and are not really property.

Now, I've been an enthusiastic supporter of traditional property rights -- an individual's right to possess, use, and dispose of physical objects including land -- for many years, believing firmly in the strong evidence that places them as the cornerstone of most of the freedoms and advances in human civilization that we enjoy (or have enjoyed, as our liberty continues to deteriorate under various pretexts). I have been and remain a critic of abuses that threaten these property rights, including but not limited to civil asset forfeiture, eminent domain, and environmental "takings."

But I am extremely skeptical of so-called intellectual property. Copyrights, patents, and trademarks all fall under the burgeoning IP umbrella; however, these things are not only very different from each other in theory and law, they are very different from actual, tangible property and the laws that govern it.

It's worth noting that, as someone who would love to earn a living writing stories and such, my mind isn't 100% made up on, for example, the ultimate desirability (or undesirability) of copyright. But one thing is clear: The current IP regime is completely out of control, and it matters a great deal in terms of our wallets, our privacy, our real property rights, and -- ultimately -- our freedom.

Again, just to be clear: The notion of intellectual property, as presently applied, is fundamentally at odds with a free society.

Bogus "Rights" vs. Real Rights

The turning point for me came when it became "acceptable" (thanks to the onerous Digital Millennium Copyright Act) for private companies to commit actual crimes in their ham-handed attempts to self-enforce their alleged intellectual property "rights" on unsuspecting computer users. And not trivial crimes: We're talking about things like trespassing, theft, and destruction of property. (Google "sony rootkit" if you aren't familiar with the most outrageous example of this. The fact that Sony BMG hasn't been sued out of existence is itself ridiculous, but telling.)

What sort of "rights" require the commission of crimes to enforce them?

Therein lies a key problem with the way people now talk and think about copyright and the broader notion of IP. What the PR departments of the RIAA, MPAA, and other such groups have accomplished in this area is simply amazing. In the case of copyright, they have managed to rhetorically redefine a government-granted monopoly over the distribution of works from a temporarily and artificially conferred privilege into a near-perpetual, inviolable, God-given right. And in the case of anyone competing with this legal monopoly, the monopolists have transformed the infringement of their privilege from a purely civil, commercial dispute into a major crime, seemingly equivalent in severity to rape or murder.

All of the terms surrounding the issue are ideologically loaded. If you download a song to listen to, you're "stealing music." If you make a mix CD (even from CDs you've purchased) to woo a potential mate, you're a "pirate." If you post the lyrics to your favorite song on your blog, you're... well, I don't know what, but you can bet there is or will be a nasty-sounding term for that, too.

Here, Renty, Renty...

This propaganda obscures the true intent and nature of copyright as well as the incoherence of the concept of intellectual property as a whole. And of course it's deliberately done.

The RIAA, MPAA, and other beneficiaries of government-granted distribution monopolies have grown fat and happy from what economists call rent-seeking. They have every reason to confuse their statutorily granted powers with basic human rights. Indeed, not only are they desperate to preserve the asinine status quo -- which already makes douches like Leo Stoller possible -- but they apparently feel they don't already have enough power.

And Bush administration tools are happy to oblige the rent seekers' desires with more horrible legislation like the "Intellectual Property Protection Act" that, among other atrocities, criminalizes even attempted copyright infringement and applies asset forfeiture to computers used in such a fashion. Abso-fucking-lutely ridiculous and completely unacceptable in a society that likes to tout how free it is.

What IP Really Stands For

Ultimately, it's all about control vs. freedom. The rent-seeking entertainment industry has no divine right to a certain amount of profit every year. If new realities have changed the economic landscape, they need to adjust their business models, not buy shitty new self-serving and unjust laws from Congress.

The end result of this IP nonsense is to reduce us all to passive consumers who constantly shell out money to lazy, greedy, rent-seeking corporations for whatever pap we're fed, over and over again, stripping us of our ability to be active creators of, and participants in, our wider culture.

So I'm thinking of a more appropriate definition of IP -- maybe something like Irrational Protectionism, Irresponsible Patronage, or Insidious Privilege?

I can't sum it up any better than this quotation from Robert Heinlein that I found while poking around the Internets:

There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute [this is obviously pre-DMCA -ed.] nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back, for their private benefit. That is all.

Oops, I hope I didn't need to get permission from some publishing conglomerate for that. Oh well, fuck it.

Related
Against Monopoly
Richard Stallman
Lawrence Lessig

Beating a Dead Horse: "Taxes = Art" Goofballs At It Again

The Ann Arbor News has a story today about a bunch of Ann Arbor "arts advocates" (do you need a degree for that?) who recently went to Lansing to bitch about not getting enough gravy from Daddy Government.

OK, I've made my point about the corrupting influence of politics on artistic endeavors, but the childish, condescending entitlement mentality of the so-called arts advocates continues to rankle me. My apologies in advance for yet another curmudgeonly take on this particular issue, but just listen to this hooey:

Speakers like 26-year-old Newcombe Clark, a real estate professional and arts advocate from Ann Arbor, urged lawmakers to keep a vibrant youth culture in Michigan and create jobs.

In addition to having a name hilariously close to Newbomb Turk, this guy is just silly. Does he really believe that politicians can do things like "keep a vibrant youth culture" and "create jobs"? Yes, it's true that stupid legislation can and does discourage creativity and destroy jobs. Conversely, these things can be encouraged by the repeal of, or the refraining from passing of, stupid legislation. But in no sense is it in the power of politicians to wave their magic wands and create jobs and vibrant cultures, youth or otherwise. Thank God.

Clark fired up the crowd of about 300 people, saying cutting arts money sends a signal that "people like me are no longer viewed as assets...

"In times of starvation, one does not rip crops from the ground simply because you can't afford to water them," Clark said.

People like me? What, real estate folks? Crops? What is he talking about? But wait, there's more:

[An arts funding bill] will go to conference committee, said state Rep. Aldo Vagnozzi, D-Farmington Hills, whose introduction as chairman of the subcommittee overseeing arts funding prompted one rally participant to yell, "Show us the money."

Did I mention the childish, condescending entitlement mentality?

Neeta Delaney, president and CEO of Artserve Michigan, the rally organizer, said legislators need to drop the idea that the arts are an elitist pastime and start restoring arts funding, which is down from $24.7 million in 2002.

"This is not about the frills. It's about the guts of what this state is all about," she said.

Noting that the arts employ 108,000 people in Michigan and pump $2 billion into the economy, she received applause when she called for "new revenue,'' although she didn't use the word "taxes."

Of course she didn't use the word taxes -- that's a bad word. That's why politicians come up with euphemisms for tax-and-spend schemes all the time, nice-sounding words like "investment."

In any case, this is one of those puzzling contradictions you often see from special-interest lobbyists, which Ms. Delaney certainly is. On the one hand, they argue the supreme success of their particular endeavor (to show how worthy it is of government largesse), and on the other they plead poverty (to show how much it needs government largesse). Is it logical that both of these things can be simultaneously true?

All right, look, if "the arts" -– however defined -– really is a $2 billion industry in Michigan, then $24.7 million in grants is an insignificant drop in the bucket: a mere 1.2% of all of that arts business, if I did my simple division right. What's the big deal?

(Conversely, yes, I know the argument that $24.7 million is an even smaller drop in the bucket of a gi-normous state budget, so what's the big deal? In this case, that gi-normous state budget comes out of the hides of every man, woman, and child in this state and is composed of many, many special-interest schemes that nickel-and-dime us to financial death. There are undoubtedly bigger and more satisfying cuts that can be made in the wasteful spending that is the state budget before bothering about some piddling grants to arty groups. But again, this is the example I'm writing about because these pseudo-moral crusades piss me off.)

As director of the Arts Alliance of the Ann Arbor Area, [Tamara] Real organized two busloads of rally participants and many others to travel to Lansing, making Washtenaw County by far the largest contingent.

...

"When I heard a representative from Google speak as to why they chose to open AdWords in Washtenaw County, not once did I hear them talk about business taxes. They emphasized the quality of the work force, the creative thinkers and the quality of life we can offer," Real concluded.

A few points on this nice sound bite. Google may wisely consider it too unseemly to mention business taxes in its press releases, but you'd better believe the Michigan Economic Development Corp., a state agency that exists for the express purpose of courting companies with tax incentives, is not shy about it:

The MEDC approved a High-Tech Single Business Tax credit valued at more than $38 million over 20 years to win the company's investment.

Also, did the fact that Google co-founder Larry Page is from Michigan and received his undergrad degree from UM play a role in Google's decision to come to Ann Arbor? I don't know, but I'm sure it didn't hurt.

At any rate, the things Ms. Real mentions are important, but let's not be naïve or disingenuous enough to overlook the major role taxes play in business decisions like this.

Eastern Michigan University arts management senior Renee Woods wore one of the bright pink T-shirts donned by many young people staffing the rally. She handed out fliers and purple buttons that read, "Invest in the arts in Michigan."

Looking toward graduation, Woods said, "I will go wherever the possibilities exist. Right now, Michigan is not at the top of that list. But I hope it will be for others down the road."

Can I really add anything to this? "I demand that Michigan's government keep taxing and spending. OK, see you suckers later, I'm moving somewhere else!" Hey, thanks, Renee.

The protestors do have a point about one thing, however. If the state promised art groups $10.1 million this year and the groups spent accordingly, expecting that money, then it is somewhat churlish for the state to come back and now say it isn't going to send the money.

But the lesson again, boys and girls, for the 10,000th time is: You can't and shouldn't count on politics and politicians. Not for art, not for anything.