Stupid People

Can I Wear My Shoes Now?

Can I wear my Shoes Now? (5/4/2011)

Sunday night I was on my way home from Atlanta tuned in to CNN when I heard the President planned an unprecedented press conference around 10:40pm. My wife and I speculated on possibilities, “what could be so important?” Jokingly I offered maybe Osama bin Laden was dead, but that certainly was not worth a late night press conference. Of course, if your poll numbers have fallen to historic lows and your re-election campaign was prematurely announced weeks ago then this could be the much needed booster shot.

I argue, “who cares?” Eight or nine years ago the death of Osama bin Laden may have had material impact. For nearly 10 years we have been given the boogeyman of threat, Bin Laden and his minions trying to harm us. Of course, Orwell would not have given up his government boogeyman, Emmanuel Goldstein, because he was the necessary fuel for the government machine. Bin Laden, like Goldstein, is a necessary enemy of the state; serving to distract, unit e and focus the people away from the true issues. Bush brought as bin Laden, a desperate politically troubled president has eliminated him. Reminding us how important it is not to piss off our enemies, the United States is treating Osama bin Laden’s body in “accordance with Islamic practice,” a White House official says. If this man was our enemy I assert his body be publicly hung in Times Square and treated to a ticker tape parade, unless of course, no body exists and this is a diversion.

So, the real question the next time I board an airplane is, “can I wear my shoes now?” If Bin Laden is dead I assume this means we can pull out of Afghanistan this week and bring our troops home since we spent billions of dollars chasing this idiot through caves, not unlike Bill Murray and the “Caddyshack” gopher. Sadly, the media was quick to report ramped up security efforts, more scanning, and began fear-mongering possible Al Qaeda retaliation attacks. Give me a break, Goldstein (I mean bin Laden) is dead and now the threat level is pushed to imminent. I expect more money will have to be spent to assure Al Qaeda terrorism is minimized. I expect much focus on the White House this week, defining our President as a world-wide hero who saved humanity from an evil man, with the media acting like teen-age girls at a “Teen Beat” cover shoot. Osama bin Laden is dead; can I wear my shoes now?

Land of the Free

Land of the Free (4/27/2011)

Our national anthem brings pride unto ourselves when we quote the famous lines, “O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.” Sadly, since that fateful night at Fort McHenry I would offer the founding fathers fight against royal tyranny for liberty and our forefathers shedding blood for future generations has been usurped by complacency. Examples abound in our current society of both the loss of freedom and lack of bravery.

A December 4, 2006 column in the Russian paper, Pravda, makes reference to “A record 7 million people – or one in every 32 American adults – were behind bars, on probation or on parole by the end of last year’, and when these figures are added to the estimated 1 million prisoners of war held by the United States, all around the World, the once great American Nation has now become the greatest jailer of human beings the World has ever known.” Laws such as “Three Strikes” have increased our incarceration rate for even the pettiest of crimes. Even the truly law-abiding are not free. Consider random traffic stops to check your license and insurance, TSA airport searches, security screenings to enter a public event, and proof of identity requirements for job applications and opening bank accounts. Exacerbating the situation is claims these freedoms are taken in the name of liberty.

Ironically, even bravery has been eroded out of fear of consequences. Questioning TSA regarding the 4th amendment and basis for searching six-year olds will prevent you from flying. Publicly videotaping law enforcement creates a fast path to court with criminal charges. My favorite example occurred two weeks ago: Juror 799, an Asian woman in her 20s, when asked to name three people she least admired on her juror questionnaire, wrote: “African-Americans, Hispanics and Haitians.” In the land for the free and home of the brave the woman was sentenced to indefinite jury duty by Federal Judge Nicholas Garaufis – a unilateral decision with no crime committed.

I challenge you to listen carefully to political demagoguery and proposals to “make you safer.” Blood was shed September 3, 1814 to capture freedom and liberty for future generations whilst Francis Scott Key watched the fight and immortalized his feelings. Sadly, our former enemies in Russia watch our freedoms erode and write about it, but the timidity bred into our generations of children makes them blind to the blood given for their liberty and they will not stand bravely for themselves.

I am Angry

I am angry because it appears no one knows what is going on around them with deficits, rising fuel prices, Islamic radicalization, and Middle East uprising. The most twisted issue is an American society willing to tax food, clothing, and shelter, at the same time as supporting 44-million Americans on food stamps all while watching media celebrities like Charlie Sheen make fools of themselves. It cost an extra “Andrew Jackson” to fill my car today and the mainstream blames fuel prices on the Middle East, but that’s far from the truth. A middle-school look at the readily available data shows a more fundamental reason for the rise, one destroying our lifestyle and future.

Rising fuel prices are simply attributed to three factors: monetary supply, supply and demand, and speculation. Speculation is based on fear in the market which is driven by political unrest around the world. Supply and demand is a direct consequence of emerging economies, hurricanes in the Gulf, or destruction of Middle East oil assets. Although the Middle East uprisings are dominating news reports daily, the current rising prices are truly a function of monetary supply. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke speculated on QE2 in August 2010 and it was officially announced November 4, 2010. Each week I graph crude oil prices and up until August prices were relatively stable, but immediately following QE2’s speculation fuel prices started to rise, increasing more after the official announcement. With the devaluation of our currency, OPEC announced a desire for higher fuel prices to effectively capture the same income. Today’s Middle Eastern uprising is a secondary issue exacerbating the underlying cause of rising fuel prices. Blame our government and central bank, not those fighting for civil liberties.

The solutions being thrown around by political pundits from both sides make no sense and demonstrate politics’ need-to-please, not realistic solutions. Opening strategic reserves is anecdotal to a giving a cancer patient a band-aid. “The Long Emergency,” as James Howard Kunstler writes, has begun and political unrest, failed monetary policies, and a third-world desirous of the same excesses we enjoy will continue to drive oil prices upward. I am angry pop-culture nonsense Tom Brady’s hair and Gaga’s breast milk ice cream exploits resonates more importantly than the collapse of our currency. On November 10, 2010 I wrote, “Gasoline should easily reach $3.40/gallon by April as OPEC is demanding a minimum $100/gallon.” I am angry no one listens.

Tort Reform

Tort Reform

A discussion about nationalized healthcare cannot take place without mentioning tort reform. In essence, the thought is ‘reducing litigation or damages’ will reduce costs to healthcare. Of course, we could assume that would translate to all industries. Everyone remembers the lawsuit against McDonalds for serving hot coffee, spilled by the consumer. The initial amount of damages awarded was almost $3 million… and was eventually settled out-of-court for $600,000.

Similarly, businesses face threats of lawsuits daily from falls in parking lots or stores, misuse of products, or frivolous acts. A rampant industry of “legal theft” has been created by the television and billboard lawyers fishing for clients who may have an ailment never before considered, but with marketing and awareness suddenly thousands can suffer from imaginary problems, become part of a class lawsuit, and make money. The real winner is the law firm making millions in fees and taking a significant portion of the award.

Movies like “Erin Brokovich” and the many John Grisham novels/films have reminded us of the sympathetic need for our ability to litigate. In these blockbuster films the destitute win against the big, bad corporation and remind us they are evil and must be punished. In other parts of the world citizens cannot sue for millions and must bear the cost of legal fees when initiating a lawsuit and the defendant’s costs – should they lose. Neither method is perfect and creates unintended consequences. Americans appear frivolous and greedy in seeking justice and other countries appear to favor the big company over the individual.

Unfortunately we all face other consequences of our system. Imagine driving your car down Flagler Avenue and having a bicycle run into you. Several weeks later you may find a television lawyer serving you with a lawsuit. Regardless of fault, your insurance company will pay, not even argue the case, as the lawyer pursues an endless income stream from legal extortion. Similarly, a professional license is jeopardized by frivolous complaints and legal fees; to defend proper decisions can cost tens of thousands. Imagine the numbers professionals in the financial industry accused of “losing money” during the collapse of 2008-2009. Of course, the likes of Bernie Madoff permanently tarnished the reputation of those exercising due diligence.

Regardless of fault, a system of arbitration to bypass the expense of discovery should be established, especially on an individual basis. Principles costs money and often settlement to find personal peace through dismissal is a better option, but a feeling of admission of guilt is created when no guilt is present. “I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” – Thomas Jefferson

Welcome 2011 (aka 1984)

Welcome 2011 (aka 1984)

Orwell’s 1984 is an unbelievable tale imagined in 1949 focusing on government surveillance and mind control. Since 9/11 Americans have followed the Orwellian path: trading liberty for the perception of safety. Like Sheep, there is no resistance stepping into body scanners, allowing our mothers, daughters, and wives submission to hands of questionable authority, and acceptance of cameras and data mining to predict actions. Our same ruling elite, like the “Inner Party” exempts itself from the rules and regulations put upon “We the People”.

My goal is not to pontificate doom and gloom, but raise awareness and challenge the status quo. I must wonder why a NFL football dominates television ratings when our society is collapsing around us. Much of the change thrust upon us was incrementally small and came slowly after 9/11. However, I believe there has been an acceleration of lost liberties in the last two years. For example: a pilot challenging TSA’s procedures last week had his home raided by Federal Authorities under administrative rules creating a warrantless search; TSA announced further silly rules scrutinizing Thermos bottles; passengers cannot take water through security as it may explode; Wired magazine detailed government collection and scrutiny of credit card and store loyalty card data; Google through StreetView and other data mining practices announced predictive behavioral searches; municipalities are investing in license plate readers to track all traffic in their communities; you cannot enter a store or public place without CCTV recording and forever storing your image; without warrants the NSA is listening to phone and email traffic; purchase of certain over-the-counter drugs requires logging your identity in a government database although no law is broken; Attorney General Eric Holder shared in an interview with Diane Sawyer last week American citizens require surveillance to stop homegrown terror; passage of Net Neutrality was the first step toward an ID requirement to access the web; and Janet Napolitano announced Wal-mart will install televisions nationwide to broadcast the “If you See Something, Say Something” campaign encouraging us to report on others.

I do not have confidence in the government, nor do I trust the government to maintain its integrity. By the government’s admission we need to question those who exercise First Amendment Rights, have certain political bumper stickers, belong to organizations like the NRA, and criticize the United Nations. As 2011 comes upon us I challenge you to watch the weekly announcements of new government “security” programs and ask, “Why?” Big Brother is watching you. – George Orwell.

Free Speech

Free Speech

I argue the most important freedom we have under the Constitution is the right to Freedom of Speech. It is interpreted as the right to speak freely without censorship or limitation. As defined in our own First Amendment to the Constitution, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Sadly though, something happened over the last century, accelerating rapidly over the last two decades. I previously wrote freedom of speech must remain free of tests, and the most important speech is one making us uncomfortable, but yet allowed. It is free speech protecting news media, web sites, and our access to information. We take for granted the freedom of the Internet and our assumed rights to read, review, and see any content. Of course, we are aware countries like China and North Korea censor their citizens’ access to web sites and news, especially political discourse contradicting their governments. We assume this will not happen in America, but quite the opposite is true.

Last week Senator Lieberman proudly announced his success pressuring Amazon.com to remove Wikileaks from its servers. Bill O’Reilly called for the execution of Wikileaks’ Julian Assange on his television show and Sarah Palin similarly did the same. The narrow-mindedness of these pundits is more concerning than the actions of Assange. Our willingness to have “hate speech” protections in America caused a young man in Kentucky to find himself sentenced to prison for three years last week after writing a poem titled, “The Sniper,” a concerning poem narrating the assassination of President Obama, but one that should be protected by the First Amendment nonetheless.

Many would argue some speech is bad, but I assert you must accept all speech to truly enjoy freedom of speech. The writings of Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson granted our liberties and released us from tyranny. Using today’s standards their writings are treasonous and require “balance” and an investigation by Homeland Security would ensue with both men finding themselves on Domestic Terrorist watch lists; there would be no American Revolution. No matter how uncomfortable, the right to criticize and question our government leaders gave us our freedoms and we must continue to monitor and fight to keep this right to free speech. “Censorship reflects society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime,” Potter Stewart

wikisuccess……

wikisuccess……

I have been stunned by the number of times I have asked friends and family about Wikileaks and their opinion last week and they knew nothing. Although Wikileaks was splashed all over the headlines, sadly it appears Cybermonday is far more important to most Americans. Last week the talk show personalities and government officials were quick to offer their condemnations, calling the actions of Wikileaks treasonous and criminal. Anytime the media, government, and the entire political spectrum agree it is worth considering the contrarian position. Personally, I have a strong contradictory opinion in support of Wikileaks and want to make a case for my opinion.

I have watched Wikileaks evolve over the last several years as a safe haven for whistleblower journalism. Julian Assange is an Australian born hacker who ran a software company and is the public persona of Wikileaks. The catalyst for the web site was capturing internet traffic in China, observations and secret emails by the Chinese government several years ago shared by dissidents who required extreme protection for fear of ultimate retaliation by the Chinese. With the protections of Swedish law regarding anonymity to sources of the Press, secure servers around the world, and safe drop boxes for information Wikileaks became the ultimate whistleblower web site. Not only has the site shared government secrets, but individuals have posted corporate details leading to arrests.

In April 2010, after funding and server problems, Assange splashed Wikileaks across the front pages of the news worldwide with the release of secret documents describing U.S. killings of civilians in Iraq in 2007. In July 2010 Wikileaks released the “Afghan War Diaries” and Assange was instantly condemned by both the press and government for recklessly putting troops in harm’s way through the document release. However, the Afghanistan documents brought to light government cover-ups regarding friendly fire and civilian casualties. At the time, I researched this release wondering about the legality and learned of a similar, earth shattering release of government information made by Daniel Ellsberg in 1971, “The Pentagon Papers.” Ellsberg was vindicated by the Supreme Court ruling the Constitution guarantees anonymity, at least in the area of political discourse.
With the release of last week’s documents, now labeled “cablegate”, Assange has become a permanent thorn to the U.S. government. Both sides of the aisle have called his acts treasonous and are seeking his arrest. He is reviled by many and wanted by Interpol, for consensual sex without a condom in Sweden. I argue the headlines are made to discredit Assange and tarnish his public reputation. Sarah Palin has blasted Assange, Clinton accused him of an ‘attack’ on the world, and Senator Lieberman successfully shutdown servers and related Wikileaks documents in the United States.

The documents show embarrassing corruption in the Afghanistan war, orders to spy on delegates to the United Nations by Secretary Clinton, and accusations of mafia like activities by the Russian government. I believe the documents show the true nature of our government, and governments worldwide, an elitist class of buffoons in charge of public policy using their positions of power to promote personal self interests. We all learn in high school we should live our lives as if our actions are to make front page headlines on the New York Times. In this case, with the release of documents dating back 40 years the true opinions and ineptness of our government officials is now public.

Those against the release of Wikileaks argue the documents will result in the loss of life to secretly placed operatives and erode progress of political negotiations, but no one has died as a result of Wikileaks. Cablegate has shed light on African governments stealing billions for personal gain, negotiations by the U.S. with terrorist nations, and acknowledgment of civilian loss of life in our wars. I am shocked the media is not more supportive of Wikileaks and can only assume the embarrassment of being “scooped” by one outside their ranks, similar to Matt Drudge during the Clinton years, has alienated support.

I argue government must be held to the highest standard, one that operates with ultimate transparency. Without the spotlight of transparency the citizens are subject to corruption, theft of public funds in the treasury, disregard of the law, and in some cases death. Assange promises the next release will reveal details of a large bank institution’s handling of the financial crisis. I believe public opinion and the media anchors will offer applause when Wikileaks offers the same insights inside a private corporation and comments similar to those made by our government leaders inside a board room would make the late night talk show monologues rife with jokes, not condemnation. I want my government held accountable and operating with the highest integrity and moral fortitude, I applaud Assange and his courageousness. History will reflect his actions as critical to the safety of citizens worldwide and changing the way government operates.

As I write this column, Saturday December 4th, 2010, the Wikileaks.org web site I visited multiple times earlier in the week is no longer accessible. Internet purists are working on new technologies to bypass government interventions and maintain ultimate freedom of information on the web. I do not live in China, I do not want censorship, and I do not want the tyranny of a government hiding from its own illegal acts.

Election Season – Part III

Election Season – Part III

In last week’s column I worked to explore the definitions of the labels so quickly applied to describe various political views: liberal, conservative, and libertarian. Talk radio pundits regularly throw labels around with the intent of degrading the reputation of someone merely by association. This week I want to examine the platforms of the two major parties and the rising Tea Party movement. I believe many people hear the labels and the names of the parties, but do not understand the history, or more importantly the platform. Today candidates are changing, or leaving parties, like grabbing flip-flops for the beach so I must wonder how important are the parties?

Liberalism is the renowned platform of the Democrats, essentially incorporating Progressivism to drive a humanitarian agenda based on intellectual theory and conjecture. The last 80 years have used Keynesian economics to justify government programs as the solution to capitalistic shortfalls. Thus, the Democrats are seen as a champion of the lower class, providing social protections. Democrats evolved from anti-federalist factions in the 1790’s and today represent the single largest political party in the world. The Party once favored states rights and strict adherence to the constitution. Today the Party favors liberalism, social not classical, and has embraced Clinton’s “Third Way” , believing government should play a role in alleviating poverty and social injustice and use a system of progressive taxation to implement policy.

Conservatism is used to describe Republicans, having evolved from Classic Liberalism, originally focusing on individual rights and civil liberties. This pre-1930’s attitude drives a platform allowing the individual to excel but forcing him to deal with the consequences of his own decisions. The Republican Party was founded in 1854 by anti-slavery activists and saw Abraham Lincoln as its first president. By the 1890’s the Party was known for protecting business, primarily through tariffs, the gold standard, and high wages. The Party also opposed the League of Nations. Today, Republicans are defined by social-conservatism, supply-side economics, support for gun ownership, and deregulatory policies.

The newly formed Tea Party is a populist movement in response to Congressional Bills passed in 2009. The Tea Party’s platform is focused on ensuring the constitutionality of every law, fiscal responsibility, limiting federal spending, reducing earmarks and reducing taxes. Although new, the Tea Party has demonstrated its ability to put forth viable, electable candidates and has forced the two traditional parties to defend their positions in political debate.

Carbon Copy America

Carbon Copy America

My wife and I came down off the mountain this weekend and visited “civilization” to engage in the most popular sport in America: leisure shopping. Visiting the Mall of Georgia is like visiting Altamonte Mall. The similarities start with traffic lights, waiting to make turns, localized strip malls with a variety of specialty stores, car dealers using balloons to lure naïve consumers, and franchised eateries overfeeding overweight patrons. My first inclination is to shop locally, like I did in New Smyrna at Coronado Hardware or eating at the Dolphin View, but lacking choices I was forced to head to the Mall.

My intent here is not to complain about the Mall, but to comment on willfulness to trade perceived success for lost identity. I have previously written about the “good old days”, circa 2006 during the boom, and also commented on the loss of small towns in my column, “Taking Back Roads.” At the end of our shopping expedition on Saturday my wife, LeeAnn, said, “we could be anywhere in America. Looking around the stores and architecture are no different here or in Altamonte Springs, Ft. Worth, or Minneapolis.” Her observation was spot on; we chose the economic path that brought our destruction and it started in the early 1990’s. Thinking back to the 1970s and 1980s, appliance and electronics stores were locally owned; Home Depot, Lowes, and Best Buy did not exist except in their original markets. Wal-Mart was a regional Arkansas chain, not a megastore found in every town in America. Even the Mall’s department stores appeared quirky to the out-of-state traveler as they represented decades old local businesses like Burdines, Daytons, Wanamakers, and Gimbels. And of course, the out parcels of Linens and Things, Old Navy, and Michaels did not exist.

In the 1990’s with easy access to money, a rapidly rising stock market, low barriers to brokerage services and do-it-yourself investment attitudes the economic boom erased our identity. Local architecture and business acquiesced to national franchises and bland buildings void of character delivering mass-produced Chinese merchandise meant to symbolize success to anonymous strangers. On a local level builders nationalized and did the same, trading character for mass production of McMansions with bathrooms larger than the prior generation’s living rooms. New Smyrna Beach and Cleveland, Georgia lag behind, but yet both claim progress by advancing box stores and abandoning local business heritage. Just push “Copy”, America has lost her character.

Liberty – Part I

Liberty – Part I

I am writing this week’s column on Independence Day, aka the 4th of July. I am in Washington, D.C. with my wife and children, having traveled here in our RV to show them our nation’s capital and watch the fireworks from the National Mall tonight. Our first stop yesterday, was the most important highlight of the trip to me, a visit to the National Archives Museum. I wanted to share with my children the three most important documents in the world, “The Freedom Charters”, or the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and The Bill of Rights.

Like no other nation in history, our founding fathers saw a need to create a new form of government, one free from tyranny. Men like Thomas Paine, “Common Sense”, were opening the publics’ eyes by creating a tool for debate to separate from a Monarchy and move to Republicanism. On July 4th, 1776 fifty-six (56) men penned their signatures to this “experiment” and risked their lives to give to future generations the “Pursuit of Life, Liberty, and Happiness.” These mean, were young, idealistic, and working the land to survive and provide for their families.

Many today claim the writings and thoughts of these men are outdated and need to change with time. However, I would make another assertion; the simplicity of the singe handwritten page of the Declaration of Independence, or the four handwritten pages of the Constitution framed a government that was meant to first trust its people. As I walk around Washington, DC I now see a government that disdains its people, trusts itself, and honors itself. Our country is no longer our country, but one that belongs to a small group of elitists. This is obvious by the monuments, the size of buildings, security barriers along streets, thousands of police officers, and helicopters overflying. Ronald Reagan said, “Man is not free unless government is limited…As government expands, liberty contracts.”

Since our last Independence Day our country has changed dramatically, a huge socialist move has taken place under the guise of “Change and Hope.” Throughout history leaders have offered to care for their citizens, provide for them, but ultimately those experiments of evolved to dictatorships with tyrannical consequences: Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, Castro, and Stalin for example. Walking through Washington, I am proud to be an American, but like the bumper sticker on my RV says, “I love my Country…but fear my Government.”