Category Archives: self

It seems the Green Party is getting a celebrity candidate in Roseanne Barr, as she decided to seek the presidential nomination this week announcing on Thursday that she would begin the arduous process of getting on the ballot across the nation (or at least the arduous process of announcing her intentions).

Here’s a snippet from the official announcement from Barr (read the whole thing, chock full of unfiltered unelectable hilarity, that goes on and on and on and on):

My Platform is Three fold, and will result in world peace within one year:
STEP ONE: MAKE WAR ILLEGAL, AND LEGALIZE HEMP
allow women to grow it and to make food clothing shelter and fuel from it for pennies. And legalize marijuana too, and let women integrate their divided consciousness with a natural herb instead of doctor’s pills which destroy the liver. End the War on drugs. this will take the potheads and non-violent drug users out of prisons, where you can get drugs anyway, thereby making room for the violent offenders and the real criminals–the actual threats to world peace.

STEP TWO: CHANGE THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF GOVERNMENT:
Since women make up 53% of the population, as well as the work force, a MINIMUM of Green Tea Party leadership will be female, and given that one in six Americans lives in poverty, at least one sixth of the party’s officials will officially be poor (since generations of rich guys running things has only gotten us here). As Congress people and senators, they will be able to become rich enough to eradicate their own poverty for generations, as well as that of those they represent simply by having access to public policy that decides where public money goes. They will simply direct public money TO THE PUBLIC, a novel idea and something which is not being done at all, ever. A small grant of 1500 dollars can enable a poor woman to start a business that can create wealth and jobs for as many as ten other people within two years.
Poor women know how to get things done well, and on the cheap. They know how to stretch that dollar.

In American, for speaking truth, women are called Bitches. I seek for next Mother’s Day, a march of One Million American Bitches who can get the job done–the job of getting the food to the hungry kids in this country and thereby creating real wealth, as well as saving our rich American friends and neighbors from going straight to hell and burning there for all of eternity. This is just one of my righteous spiritual goals and solutions to the real problems in America!

STEP THREE: (MOST IMPORTANT) I WILL OUTLAW BULLSHIT:
After the passage of this one law, the Patriarchy will inevitably begin to crumble, as will the concept of War itself, which is largely a large load of bullshit.

There’s a LOT more, including “THE NECESSARY RE-EDUCATION CAMPS” that do not sound very fun, or even slightly constitutional.

Worth an estimated $42 million according to a November TMZ article about some legal mess, I can easily see Barr making for an interesting campaign sideshow in the coming weeks if she has a savvy political/press team already fired up. She’s already put marijuana legalization at the forefront of her campaign and taken at least one nasty swipe at Ron Paul (and several at libertarians) on her twitter account:

The 2012 Green Party convention will take place in Baltimore, Maryland in July.

So what do you think, America? Is is good to see a longtime political critic emerge from Hollywood to help split the left-wingers without a clue away from Obama come November? Or will the media hyenas move in for the predictable commentary overkill on her waist size, and to ask her just how much of the green she’s been smoking recently?

Paul Krugman is a very smart man. He has won the Nobel prize in economics for work on impressive sounding stuff like economic geography, and liquidity traps. He is also an opinion journalist for the New York Times. He comments from a proudly progressive perspective, and does so very successfully. The topics he covers include the causes of the financial collapse, inequality, the national debt and much, much more. His arguments are quickly recycled in discussions across the land, both electronic and personal. The problem is, when he weighs in on topics outside of his particular branch of alchemy, he is almost always wrong. This is infuriating because his work is taken as gospel by many otherwise intelligent people. Therefore, I’ve decided to start this series. It is perhaps presumptuous of me to try to take on the Krugster, but hey, if I wasn’t into Quixotic pursuits I wouldn’t be writing opinion pieces on the internet.

Here goes…

Last month Krugman released a column entitled “Nobody Understands Debt“. The column adds nothing to understanding. The message is that the national debt is no big deal, and we should be spending more to deal with unemployment. This is absurd. Thankfully, He provides all the ammunition we need to prove him wrong in the column. He says governments can happily live with high levels of debt pointing out that “Britain, in particular, has had debt exceeding 100 percent of G.D.P. for 81 of the last 170 years.” He links to an older post with a helpful graphic, reproduced above. He “marvels” at how over-blown our current “debt panic” is.

With this particular post Krugman is either entirely ignorant of history, or just lying to his readers. Britain got away with its first period of massive debt because as first movers in the industrial revolution and victors in the Napoleonic wars they had a financial and military hegemony we can’t imagine. The US got closest to that kind of dominance after the second world war, which is the other period of high debt to GDP he references in the opinion piece. In each of their respective periods of victory, Britain and the US moved quickly to pay off their debts. In the second period of massive debt, Britain had to ration food for a full decade after World War II. With the Suez Crisis of 1956, Britain’s debt ended the country’s ability to act independently on the world stage in the most humiliating way possible. Krugman’s “Massive Debt’s just fine!” message is completely disproved by his own example. My sense is that he knows this, but doesn’t care.

Krugman makes much of the fact that we hold a lot of our own debt. This can cut both ways, however. We are not as insulated as he portrays us, but if we were we would have little incentive to clean up our fiscal act. This is not a good thing. Unsurprisingly, Krugman doesn’t bring up the most sterling (yen-ish?) example of an excessive debt-to-GDP ratio maintained by patriotic savers. The current Japanese ratio is over 200%

High savings were sustainable when the population was younger, wealthy, and growing. Instead, Japan is old, stagnant and saving less every year. That investors have repeatedly failed to short Japanese debt since the early 1990s doesn’t mean that Japanese debt is a good bet tomorrow. The country will eventually find itself in a financial catastrophe when the public stops lending money at floor-scraping 1.5 percent rates. Consider this alarming fact: If its interest rates doubled to 3 percent, interest payments would suddenly consume half of government revenue.

Japan may be able to continue like this for a while because 95% of their debt is held by patriotic locals. Nobody else wants it, for obvious reasons. Almost 50% of US debt is held by foreign investors. Ironically, the mess we’ve made of the international economy has been helpful over the past couple years. US government debt is still seen as a slightly better bet than everything else. The problem that Krugman doesn’t acknowledge is that it is an only slightly better bet, and that this won’t last.

Too sum up, Britain and the US were able to withstand excessive debt to GDP ratios after the Napoleonic Wars and after World War II. They were able to do this because they had bombed all their potential financial rivals into rubble. Europe today is in fiscal disarray, but it is not a smoking ruin. If Europe doesn’t fall apart, it will emerge as a tighter, more stable fiscal union, under stronger German influence. It will emerge as a ferocious competitor as a reserve currency and as a destination of international investment. When less people want our debt, the sky-rocketing interest rates Krugman laughs about in the beginning of the opinion piece will be a reality.

Debt matters. With this column Krugman ignores Europe. He ignores Japan. He ignores the history surrounding his own data sets. Either Krugman doesn’t understand debt, or he just doesn’t want you to. Paul Krugman is either dumb or lying.

Rob Morris likes the drug war even less than he likes Paul Krugman’s commentary, and he talks about it here.

Will Iran be the next “front” in the Global War on Terror? It has appeared that way for the past several years. In fact, the American government has been involved in the affairs of Iran for some time.

A petition being circulated by the Solidarity Center [PDF] states, “Iran has suffered greatly at the hands of the U.S. We recall the U.S. overthrew the democratically elected government of Dr. M. Mossadegh and returned the Shah to the Peacock Throne – ‘the proudest achievement of the CIA’. For 25 years the Shah ruled Iran with an iron fist for the benefit of U.S. oil corporations before the people of Iran, in the millions, overthrew his tyranny at a terrible cost in lives. For the past 27 years U.S. sanctions have impeded Iran’s right to development and brought great suffering to the people.”

Do not forget the rush to invade Iraq after the attacks on September 11, 2001. In October of 2002, President Bush said, “… we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”

“Now in the Obama Administration, we see reports that are all too similar being made to justify military action against the people of Iran.” The petition by the Solidarity Center continues, “taking Iran to the UN Security Council is a prelude for unilateral action. Just as in the case of Iraq, none of the claims made by the U.S. government stand up to unbiased scrutiny.”

During the recent State of the Union address, President Obama seemed intent on continuing to involve the American government in Iran. He said, “and we will safeguard America’s own security against those who threaten our citizens, our friends, and our interests. Look at Iran. Through the power of our diplomacy, a world that was once divided about how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program now stands as one. The regime is more isolated than ever before; its leaders are faced with crippling sanctions, and as long as they shirk their responsibilities, this pressure will not relent. Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal.”

I urge you to make your voice heard. Let your friends, family, neighbors and elected officials know that you demand an end to the U.S. drive towards war with Iran; you demand an end to the U.S. campaign of lies, demonization, and sanctions directed at the people of Iran; and most importantly, let them know that you oppose any military attack on Iran.

Snoop Dogg (Calvin Broadus) is clearly a fan of two things: smoking the huffle puff puff pass, and the rap game. Since the last record he dropped in early 2011 is fading into distant memory, it seems he’s picked up a new hobby in the celebrity politics game instead. And who’s hotter to endorse on facebook and twitter this election season for bored celebrities than Ron Paul? (And marijuana, clearly).

Snoop’s message to his 13.9 million facebook fans:

Snoop doesn’t have the full lowdown on Ron Paul in his tongue-in-cheek photoshoppery, who we can confidently say has never recommended smoking weed every day but instead encourages a hands off approach by the federal government. “Why don’t we handle the drugs like we handle alcohol?” Paul asked rhetorically to the GOP audience when the question was posed to him in a late-November CNN debate.

Instead, it’s more likely that the California lovin’ rapper ran into the Ron [Paul] Swanson tumblr page over the weekend where a mashup of quotes from NBC’s Parks and Recreation character Ron Swanson collide with Ron Paul photos, making for hilarious results.

We’ll watch and see if this latest celebrity endorsement translates into a boost in record sales similar to American Idol Kelly Clarkson’s endorsement brouhaha, but we won’t hold our breath (unless it’s to hold in the smoke).

UPDATE: It would seem remiss not to point out that Snoop Dogg is getting even more political about the legalization of marijuana in the wake of his arrest in Sierra Blanca, Texas earlier this month. He has made recent public pleas to Obama, which have apparently gone unheard.

UPDATE II: Congrats to Buzzfeed, who won the traffic deluge from Drudge Report for their awesome reporting which consisted of posting of a facebook screenshot which was actually stolen from reddit (which was actually stolen from facebook, because screenshot). INTERNET, YOU ARE HIGH!

UPDATE III: The ensuing news circus is now Ron Paulizzle Twenty-twizzle ^{special “attribution is fucked” edition}

Bethesda Mansions: Your Tax Dollars at Work

She is an admirable person, and a tremendous writer. Unfortunately the entire article is shot through with a standard and misguided understanding of how poverty and tax policy work in the United States. Rather than blame the folks who crafted the systems that failed her, she seems to think it’s GE’s fault. She resents the fact that entities seek to pay the smallest amount of taxes legally possible. Through a literary alchemy I don’t understand they are meant to be exemplars of the spirit of greed. Its got something to do with kindergarten and reality TV.

Chadburn does some angry math in her article. Let’s do some more. The Federal budget in 2010 was 3.456 Trillion dollars on 2.2 trillion in Tax receipts. There are currently 46.2 million people under the poverty line. In tax receipts that’s $54,112 for every poor person in the country. In the budget, that’s $73,593. Many of those in poverty are looking after multiple poor children, so those in Chadburn’s magical anti-greed poverty-curing re-distribution machine should be doing pretty well.

As her article demonstrates, this is not the case. The money that gets funneled to the federal government mostly goes towards bombing things, our half-socialized and absurdly expensive medical system, and rich folks welfare like the social security system. This is where the money goes on paper. In practice, much of the money goes to government workers and contractors. These 14 million professionals use their expertise mostly to feed themselves. The security experts make us less secure, the poverty experts make us poorer. They do so subconsciously, but they do it. It is the only route to job security.

Chadburn movingly thanks the people who got her to where she is today. She thanks the teachers, the social workers, the bus drivers and the firefighters. This is an interesting list. With the exception of the social mobility enhancing military, none of these people got a dime from the federal government. These local officials could have done so much more for Chadburn and her family with another 50 grand per client. The money that could have made all the difference in the lives of Chadburn and millions of others has been building mansions for contractors in Bethesda, Maryland instead. How is that better? Why would we want to send more money to Washington to make more of this happen?

Even the way the federal government’s money is collected has perverse effects. The mortgage income tax deduction, and other policies, have inflated housing prices nation-wide to the point that Chadburn’s mother could never hope to afford decent housing. Viewed in this context, the money that HUD spends on affordable housing is hard to feel good about. The brutal and oppressive war on drugs is the most significant way our national government interacts with the disadvantaged, and it functions mostly to create poverty. All in all, the federal government provides a terrible deal to the poor. You should read more about Chadburn’s struggle. A lack of money going to Washington, DC is not responsible for it.

Prior to this post, Rob had a broader audience because he mostly just talked about the drug war.

A word to Newt Gingrich on moon colonization: you’re not the grandiose visionary you think you are.

This week, Gingrich generated a lot of news touching on a subject that is actually rather dear to me: colonizing the moon. He lost a ton of points once I learned it was only because he happened to be standing on NASA property when he made the following statement, “By the end of my second term, we will have the first permanent base on the moon and it will be American.” What is clearly little more than self-aggrandizing rhetoric is horribly tempered by the fact that he can’t even seem to promise the moon on his first term, because clearly re-election is more important than a moon base in under four years.

On the campaign trail, presidential candidates will often make grandiose statements about space exploration, simply because it’s the one unifying goal all of mankind shares. We know it’s crass and they know it’s crass, but it seems every time the campaign trail passes through Cape Canaveral Florida the issue of space suddenly becomes en vogue. Color us shocked the issue is once again front and center. Continue reading →

The relatively recent political party — Boston Tea Party — was founded back in 2006 and has seen steady, if slow, growth as a political player since then.

I caught up with front man Darryl Perry (who writes a column here on a regular basis) for a few questions and here’s how he responded.

1) What is the membership size of the BTP? Is there a growth chart of any kind since its inception?
As of mid-December there were 2,232 members. I have not updated the growth chart recently, however I can tell you that membership growth hasn’t grown as fast in the past 18 months or so.

2) Have you considered forming a caucus or bloc within one of the established political parties?
The original intent was for the BTP to be a caucus within the LP – however the members present at the first meeting decided to form a new party. As far as future plans to form a caucus within any other party, I will say “no comment”.

3) How is the platform different than that of the Libertarian Party? What would you say the fundamental difference is in your party’s coming together in the online era.
The BTP platform is 1 sentence that can never be changed; whereas the LP platform is tweaked or majorly overhauled every two years. The BTP also offers a bottom-up approach to party organization, whereas the LP (and most other parties) prefer a top-down approach.

4) How many candidates will the BTP be fielding in 2012?
That is a good question. Aside from the Presidential ticket at this time only one party member has announced plans to run for office in Florida for a position on the Soil and Water Conservation Board in Hillsborough County, FL.

5) As a political party, what has your role been in challenging the onerous ballot access laws in many states?
I wish the BTP were able to file lawsuits to challenge these laws – however, the bylaws prohibit the National Committee from soliciting donations – which makes spending money on lawsuits difficult. However, the BTP is a member of COFOE, a group which has assisted others in lawsuits against these laws. I’ve personally spoken with half a dozen legislators in NH about easing ballot access, as well as sent letters to countless other legislators in many States.

I also published a book in October of last year which was written to inform people about the various ways in which the two major parties have taken control of the electoral process and ways in which the “playing field” can be leveled so that independent & minor party candidates have the same path to ballot access as the “big boys.”

If you have further questions about this fledgling political party, please leave them in the comments and we’ll try to have Perry answer them. If you’d like more info on the Boston Tea Party happenings, their website — bostontea.us — is simple enough to remember.

Dearest Frenchmen and Turks,

We here in Washington, DC would like to applaud the French parliament for breaking new ground in the policing of people’s thoughts. If President Sarkozy steps up and signs the legislation it will be a crime to express doubt about the Ottoman Empire’s supposed Genocide of Armenians. The French are making revolutionary progress in the arena of thought crime! Bliss it is to be alive in this dawn, and to be a young bureaucrat is very heaven!

Turkey is already accomplished in this arena. Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code makes it a crime to insult the Turkish Nation. Now that France has weighed in on Turkey’s history, the Turks may want to return the favor. As the descendant of Protestants allow me to propose that Turkey make it a crime to deny the Huguenot Genocide! The Huguenots were French Protestants. France’s Catholic government exiled and exterminated them in the 16th and 17th centuries.

There was all manner of religious cleansing. Huguenots were exiled, sold into slavery, and massacred in great numbers. This century and a half of persecution culminated in the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes. The Edict of Nantes was a sensible piece of paper that said that people could worship as they wished. Louis the XIVth revoked it in 1685, making it illegal for a whole class of people to exist. Over the next decade almost a million Huguenots were forced to leave the country.

What’s that you say? This isn’t quite a genocide? Doesn’t matter. That’s the beauty of what the French are doing. If you legislate historical fact you can’t discuss it. We’re not interested in historical truth here, just political gain. If we wanted truth, Turkey could focus on the Vichy regime’s eager participation in the Nazi holocaust, but that would be too close to rational. The truth doesn’t need to be legislated.

Great job guys! Once we deal with this pesky 1st Amendment thing, we’ll be doing the same!

Hugs,
The Federal Government of the United States of America

Satire, Obviously

The Federal Government tweets @TheFederalGovt. More from Robert Morris can be found at the More Freedom Foundation.

President Obama wants us to imagine an America that is within reach. I would rather have you imagine a world a little further down the road. The President wants “[a] country that leads the world in educating its people. An America that attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs. A future where we’re in control of our own energy, and our security and prosperity aren’t so tied to unstable parts of the world. An economy built to last, where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded.”

I prefer to imagine a world in which governments allow you to educate your children as you see fit, without interference. A world in which governments allow you to start and run your own business and create jobs without interference from bureaucrats. A world where you are allowed to purchase energy from any number of sources or companies that do not have special government privilege, or supply your own energy from wind or solar and be able to share the excess with your neighbors without government regulation. A world where you are able to use the currency of your choice without threat of violating a legal tender law. Such a world would have an economy built to last, where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded.

The President also said “We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.”

If the President were serious about having an economy where everyone plays by the same set of rules; he would immediately ask Congress to revoke all government contracts, abolish the IRS, abolish the Federal Reserve which serves to protect the large banking institutions, and work with the Governors of the 50 States to abolish the use of eminent domain, abolish special privilege given to “corporations,” repeal zoning laws and abolish welfare and licensing laws which do little more than stifle the free market. A world without government interference would be a world where everyone gets a “fair shot.”

President Obama additionally said that he will “fight obstruction” in Congress. As long as bills that create more laws, continue funding the military occupation of foreign nations, take away more rights of the people and increase spending are being proposed, I believe that obstruction is the only admirable action that any member of Congress could commit.

In closing, the President says “[m]illions of Americans who work hard and play by the rules every day deserve a government and a financial system that does the same.” I am curious what President Obama means by this statement. I doubt that he intends to remove the special privilege given to the Federal Reserve System. I doubt he will remove government contracts and privatize all government agencies. I doubt he will ask Congress to abolish the postal monopoly that prohibits competition on delivery of first class mail. I also doubt that President Obama will request the repeal of “sovereign immunity” which protects governments from civil suits when a government (or government employee) violates someone’s rights.

As long as there is a central bank (whether private or government run) there will be “phony financial profits” and “bad debt;” two things Obama says he wants to eliminate. If the President were serious about moving forward with a blueprint for an economy built to last; he would heed the advice I’ve already mentioned. The only way forward, is to remove the obstacles – placed by government at all levels – from the road.

I love the new year of the political season because so many great talented patriots use it as a fresh opportunity to weigh in on the pressing issues of the day in their own great ways. My tip of the tricorner hat goes first to The folks over at Songify The News (previously called Auto-Tune The News until the lawyers from Antares intervened and made them change it) for their little diddy poking fun at all the silly candidate hijinx in song form.

Newt Gingrich actually is not a terrible singer, but that’s thanks to some very painstaking and creative editing by the schmoyoho crew.

Ron Paul is curiously silent during the song, which seems like a fitting observation of his relative exclusion at the debates, and the fact that there’s at least a million other channels on YouTube alone trying to pimp Ron Paul in some song or another. The slow clap was a great touch though.

In related news, Rand Paul was sidelined at a TSA checkpoint yesterday after he refused to be groped. The White House made the amazing blunder of siding with the TSA in what is arguably the flashpoint of the clash between freedom of movement and the security state. I will be mailing him a complimentary copy of the Big Brass Balls TSA card to proudly carry in his wallet for the next encounter:

The Ron Paul campaign has expertly taken this latest personal confrontation with the encroaching police state and started a potentially devastating fundraising drive called “End the TSA.” Paul has promised vehemently to dismantle the TSA and other odious police state agencies at home and abroad along with cutting a trillion dollars in a bold spending reform plan.

The campaign stated, “The police state in this country is growing out of control. One of the ultimate embodiments of this is the TSA that gropes and grabs our children, our seniors, and our loved ones and neighbors with disabilities. The TSA does all of this while doing nothing to keep us safe.”

My tip of the tricorner hat to the Paul’s today as well, for fighting the good fight against those agencies and polices that so desperately needs to be reformed and having the long game to back it up this time around.

UPDATE: It has come to my attention that the Paul family will soon announce their hereditary medical condition:

h/T to George Faulk

Mass action on January 18, 2012 won a small victory for opponents of the internet censorship bills SOPA and PIPA. Many websites “blacked out” in protest and asked visitors to sign an online petition. Google reports that 4.5 million people added their name to an online petition to Congress to oppose internet censorship. Possibly in response to these actions, Lamar Smith, the main sponsor of SOPA, announced on Friday that he would delay further action on the bill. The Washington Post reports, “The action by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) on the Stop Online Piracy Act came a couple of hours after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said that he would delay a cloture vote on a similar Senate bill, the Protect IP (Intellectual Property) Act.”

Neither Reid nor Smith said that they would not attempt to add the text of SOPA or PIPA into another piece of legislation with a better chance of passing. In fact, it is not unusual for Congress to combine unpopular proposals to legislation that is almost guaranteed to pass. DownsizeDC reports, “The REAL ID Act is a perfect example of how Congressional leaders pass laws that lack majority support. This bill created a scheme Americans have always opposed — a national ID card. This idea had so little support that it couldn’t even be brought to a vote in the Senate. Yet , Congressional leaders got it passed anyway, by attaching it to a bill Senators were afraid to oppose — the ‘Emergency, Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief.’ (May, 2005)” In similar fashion, a provision to ban online gambling was added into a port security bill.

Voters could lobby their so called “Representatives” on every piece of legislation. However, since Congress doesn’t have time to read bills before voting – and sometimes before debate; voters certainly don’t have time to read the bills AND lobby Congress. However, there is an easier way to get Congress to 1) know what they’re voting for (or against); 2) not combine multiple pieces of legislation; and 3) no longer hide the true subjects of their bills behind propagandistic titles such as the “USA PATRIOT Act,” the “Protect America Act,” or the “No Child Left Behind Act.”

I urge you to contact your Congressional representatives asking, nay demanding, they introduce and pass the bills of the DownsizeDC Agenda. The DownsizeDC Agenda consists of the Read the Bills Act, One Subject at a Time Act, Write the Laws Act, Enumerated Powers Act, Free Competition in Currency Act and proposals to have Congress “Cap the Debt” and Fight Deficit Spending.

Fresh off of a (hopefully not temporary) victory over SOPA, Jimmy Wales has a new campaign unrolling in Turkey. He’s selling watches.

This particular “Oh shit, globalization” moment happened on my commute yesterday. American actors have long used their celebrity to hawk goods in foreign markets. It’s odd to see Wales doing the same. When you think about it though, it makes sense. Wales is in that odd class of individuals who have been revolutionary in information technology without making any real money. It is hard to begrudge him some extra cash. Really, there are few items in commerce less morally objectionable than Swiss watches. I could be wrong, but I don’t think there are many sweatshops in Zurich. Now that Wikipedia has taken such a political stance, however, some will try to call him out on it.

This is apparently quite old news. He has been involved in the campaign for over a year. It is new to Turkey and this correspondent, however. Expect the haters to try to make hay of in in the coming weeks.

This correspondent talks about all sorts of old news, especially the drug war, here.

From time to time, here at Hammer of Truth one of us will liveblog a debate or something. This is what it looks like.

On Thursday January 19th, 2012 four GOP candidates for president got on stage to once again lay into each other in the new public blood sport democratic process of of getting to know our next commander in chief. From left to right on the stage were Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul. Rick Perry recently dropped out and a lot of us are pretty fucking glad.

The order is chronological, dere’s probably mistakes in it. Onward! Continue reading →

PUBLIC NOTICE 2 TEH PUBLIC PEEPS REPUBLIC OV TEH INTERWEBS ON LIBERTYSUCKERS REFUSAL 2 SHUT DOWN OVAR SOPA/PIPA/CENSOR-BS-9000:

NO – WE WONT CRIPPLE OURSELVEZ WHEN FIGHTIN TEH CORRUPTIV FORCEZ OV EVIL (RUN COMPANY AN U WILL UNDERSTAND WUT THEY R). THOUGH WE DO FIND IT NEWSWORTHY AN AMUSIN WHEN OTHERS DO (4 LIEK TWELVE HOURS, WHICH LAZY PEEPS TOOK AS HINT 2 GO WATCH TV WHILE TEH NERDZ FIGURE DIS COMPLICATD STUFF OUT).

YEZ – WE LUV ANARCHY ON TEH INTERNET (WELCOM 2 2012, UR REPLICATOR IZ ALMOST HUR), BUT WE ALSO LUV WHEN US TECHNOGEEKZ/PIRATEZ/CYBERFREEDOMWARRIORS REACT BY OFFERIN NON-GUBMENT SOLUSHUNS 4 PUBLIC EDUMACASHUN AN FREEDOM AN JUSTICE 4 ALL INSTEAD OV STOOPIN 2 TEH SIZE/POWR POLITICS GAME OURSELVEZ. WERE WATCHIN KEENLY AS TEH NEW PLAYERS ASSERT THEMSELVEZ, AN WE STILL KNOE WUT IZ AN WUT ISNT.

STAY TRUE 2 UR INNOVATIV STREAK, KEEP SCRATCHIN TEH ITCH!

SINCERELY,
TEH CUTEST KITTEH HANGIN IN THAR

No. But his policies might have some awesome unintended consequences. You may be aware that the Department of Justice has recently invaded the state of California. The state’s well established medical marijuana community is being destroyed by the DOJ’s enforcement of Federal drug laws. The Obama administration’s choice to prosecute these “crimes”, that are not crimes in the state of California, is a betrayal of his campaign promises, and a reversal of two years of policy. As awful as this is it might have some salutary effects.

In November 2010, California voters rejected Proposition 19, which would have legalized Marijuana (ed- fully legalized and taxed like alcohol). This was a bit surprising. If any state would be pro-legalization, surely hippy-dippy California would be the one? Medical marijuana has been legal in California for years.

Surprisingly, this hurt the legalization vote. Medical marijuana users already had access to marijuana. They were leery of a change in the system that might endanger their supply, or put it in the hands of larger corporations. Many farmers and owners of medical marijuana dispensaries were also reluctant to wholeheartedly support legalization efforts. They did not want the competition. Much of legalization’s natural constituency, users and producers, was at best ambivalent about Proposition 19.

Eric Holder’s Department of Justice put the final nail in the coffin. The DOJ threatened to rigorously enforce the federal drug laws if Proposition 19 passed. This didn’t just mean legalization wouldn’t happen, it meant that California’s medical marijuana system would be crushed as well. Marijuana was already functionally legal in California, why risk what they had?

The DOJ’s invasion of California this past fall shows the folly of that approach. Holder got what he wanted, and then invaded anyway. Small businesses have been destroyed, people are being arrested for providing a service to their community, and patients can no longer access the medicines they need. This is all horrible, but there is a silver lining.

The pro-marijuana community in California will not be fooled again. The DOJ has already done its worst. The next time California decides a marijuana legalization proposition they will be much more likely to vote for it. Proposition 19 lost by a small margin, 46% to 54%. Obama’s heavy-handed approach is likely to have moved that 4% and more. Thanks to the DOJ, we may see individual states legalize marijuana as soon as this year.

Rob has put together a series of videos to advocate legalization that can be found here

Huffington Post reports a small victory against SOPA (H.R. 3261 “Stop Online Piracy Act”) and it’s counterpart in the Senate, PIPA (“Protect IP Act”), claiming that President Obama will not support the current legislation. A statement released on behalf of the Obama Administration states, “… we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet. Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small.”

The statement issued by Victoria Espinel, Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator at Office of Management and Budget, Aneesh Chopra, U.S. Chief Technology Officer, and Howard Schmidt, Special Assistant to the President and Cybersecurity Coordinator for National Security Staff further states, “We expect and encourage all private parties, including both content creators and Internet platform providers working together, to adopt voluntary measures and best practices to reduce online piracy.”

Some people may interpret this statement by the White House as a sign that Obama will veto SOPA or PIPA if either passes. However, I’m not that optimistic.

Huffington Post further reports “Moving forward, we will continue to work with Congress on a bipartisan basis on legislation that provides new tools needed in the global fight against piracy and counterfeiting, while vigorously defending an open Internet based on the values of free expression, privacy, security and innovation,” the letter also read. SOPA sponsor and House Judiciary Chairman (R-Texas) Lamar Smith issued a statement of his own, “I welcome today’s announcement that the White House will support legislation to combat online piracy that protects free speech, the Internet and America’s intellectual property. That’s precisely what the Stop Online Piracy Act does.”

I previously wrote about SOPA, citing that it could be interpreted to blacklist sites such as YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, Flickr and many more. Since then, the bill has been amended to include “immunity” for sites that voluntarily censor themselves, which means it will be harder to share information online. I do not believe for one second that SOPA, PIPA or any other “anti-piracy” legislation from Congress will protect the free flow of information.

Jihadis all

In the beginning of the 21st century it’s weird to have a prominent American figure focus on that topic who isn’t some sort of disgusting bigot. This is a refreshing change, but doesn’t get at what is truly interesting about Tebow.

Whether or not his play is divinely-inspired, it is clear that he is an inspiring leader. His faith is what lets him do this.

In 634 the Caliph Omar began his reign. He was the second person to hold power after the death of Muhammad. When he came to power the Muslims controlled a series of dusty towns in Arabia. The epic battles of Islam’s founding had mostly been tribal squabbles. When his reign ended 10 years later, Islam had conquered most of the known world, and defeated two great empires, absorbing one of them completely. This feat of military expansion was more significant than anything Alexander the Great had done.

We are still feeling the effects almost 1400 years later. The Byzantine and Persian empires had no idea what hit them. Faith powered the conquest. The more sophisticated militaries of the day wanted land and riches, but the Jihadis had something more. They had an idea.

Caliph Omar had these successes with un-inspiring material. The Arabs were the poor inhabitants of the dusty wastes on the periphery of two great empires. The Denver Broncos were a mediocre team at this season’s outset. Tim Tebow himself has many draw-backs as a football player. Both of these phenomena, the Broncos success and the Jihadis conquest of the known world, are due to the power that a unifying idea can have. Every NFL player is well-paid, but you need more than that to reach greatness. Tebow’s religion provides that intangible motivation, much as Caliph Omar’s did.

Will Tebow’s jihad prove powerful enough to carry him through to the Super Bowl, or will the New England Patriots prove to be his own personal walls of Constantinople? I haven’t been this interested in the NFL in years.

When Rob is not doing pretentious sports journalism he is complaining about the drug war and more here.

This Mitt Romney video mashup shows how undecided he is on his own platform, he’s found lacking principles of any kind and contradicting himself numerous times:

Follow the money trail and you’ll see it flowing from establishment players, to the establishment candidates, which gets funneled back through the establishment media. It’s a slick racket.

It’s been more and more apparent that without solid guiding principles and a real sense of humility, power is attracting the worst kinds of megalomaniacs and sociopaths. Check out this Fox News interview and listen to Romney chuckle at misfortune caused by his own hands when asked if he feels anything about taking the poor family dog that went on a 12-hour road trip — on the roof of the car:

Is America finally having a light-bulb moment? Yup.

Petty Plutocrats

The Republicans will give your money to defense contractors and energy companies. The Democrats will give your money to the same people, and take some more to give to the health insurance companies. Some claim they have meaningful differences on tax policy, but this is largely an illusion.

We all get fooled into voting for these petty plutocrats (Russian Oligarchs at least own and do things). They are very good at convincing us to look for the lesser of two evils. I can’t see the lesser evil anymore. I’m not saying we should all vote for the Libertarians (though I wish we would). Those of you who still believe the federal government has some positive potential can vote Green. This two party system has lasted for 150 years, but it is not immortal. All we have to do is stop voting for it.

The concept of divided government used to be very appealing. As long as two packs of scoundrels were working at cross purposes, the rest of us could get away relatively unscathed. Two recent developments have convinced me that even this last-ditch consolation no longer functions. We are losing rights that used to be sacrosanct. Our government now maintains death lists featuring American citizens. With the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act, Congress has endorsed the executive branch’s past decade of tyrannical over-reach. No one in power is challenging these decisions. Our leaders are so ignorant of our own traditions that they don’t see these developments as problems. Government is no longer divided on anything that matters.

Third party candidates, who have been working at the margins for decades, at least have principles of their own. They have thought about issues, and have ideas. Most of our current leaders think exclusively of campaign donations. It is hard to imagine how a Congress full of Libertarians and Greens could be any worse than the one we have now. So let’s fire the bastards. Its time for a new party system, one that respects the rights that any 19th century subsistence farmer could have taken for granted.

The Democrats are the party for killing Americans (Al-Awlaki, Waco). The Republicans are the party for killing everyone else. I’m voting Libertarian.

More propaganda from Rob Morris can be found at The More Freedom Foundation.

An interesting passage from Matt Mullenweg’s Open Web FTW article at Gigaom:

Everyone’s doing app stores now. Chrome has their store, Firefox has their store, and Microsoft is going to launch a store. As distribution mechanisms they’re going to be incredibly powerful, but they’re actually going to end up bringing more power back to the software creators and the developers. Because as they compete with each other, they will all be forced to open up and become better.

The Internet needs a strong, independent platform for those of us who don’t want to be at the mercy of someone else’s domain. I like to think that if we didn’t create WordPress something else that looks a lot like it would exist. I think Open Source is kind of like our Bill of Rights. It’s our Constitution. If we’re not true to that, nothing else matters.

The independent web is growing quite a bit. Although we have these great cloud servers for WordPress, the software that people run and install themselves is still as popular as ever. Our services are bringing more people online, but they’re also bringing more people who want to own their own space on the web–they want to own a house instead of rent an apartment. When we were first starting out, I thought, “Downloading and uploading software, managing databases, no one wants to do that.” But it turns out, a lot of people do.

Or as I like to call it: The second American revolution everyone in the world will want to attend (extra emphasis on the want part, men knowing that “anything is possible” across the globe is an incredibly motivating force in getting amazing things done, consult your history books and skylines).

Consider the comedian who gets on stage and commands a large audience, he is independent of the crowd (who I hope like hell are drunk) telling his hilarious truths and mistruths. Sometimes a joke will land flat and a critic in the audience will heckle. Any comedian worth his salt knows how to shut down that fella’s drunken free speechification on the spot.

Unfortunately, stratification is the obstacle open source advocates often seem to ignore once they grow in power and influence to become a kingmaker themselves. Mullenweg gets it half right here, but we’ll probably see the larger corporate app stores fall victim to more claims of bias and app censorship from the higher ups, and given enough practice they’ll become better at squashing them without too much fanfare or outrage. They’ll also be consolidating power in bolder ways. Open source communities are not magically immune from this creeping order pyramid either.

I enjoyed the part where he acknowledges the obvious motivator of every true elite, “my primary motivator is not money, it’s to make an impact on the world.” Just this world? There’s a whole giant universe out there to make an impact on.

Earlier today, some of you probably noticed that Hammer of Truth linked to an article in a links post with an interesting quote from a Mitt Romney campaign event where he allegedly said “I like to fire people.”

The quote is inaccurate, and worse, it seems the article we cited — written by Union Leader’s John DiStaso — has gone 404 from their site. We’re unable to retrieve that article, it has disappeared down the memory hole (we’ll take that as a retraction).

Update: The article referenced has an updated permalink. It’s not clear why that is since the quote is still paraphrased.

As for what Romney actually said, he told reporters, “I like being able to fire people…” but he then continued, “who provide services to me. If someone doesn’t give me the good service I need, I’m going to go get somebody else to provide that service to me.” That’s a lot more than the snippet we had gotten from the downed Union Leader article.

Aside from not actually addressing the growing concern over the monopolistic nature of many of these services (how do you fire the electric company again?), it makes for a great soundbite in TV news clips and is nigh impossible not to agree with.

We’re all adults (mostly) and if you’ve ever managed a business of any size you can appreciate knowing that sometimes a sandbagging employee has to be shit-canned rather than be allowed to fester and infect employee morale. On the flip side, mass layoffs can have a predictably demoralizing effect on those who don’t get cut, making the company worse off. Given the length of his career at Bain Capital, Romney’s no doubt fallen on both sides of this coin many times.

It seems the campaigns are enjoying the attack opportunity afforded by latching onto this latest 2012 presidential brouhaha. As voters go to the polls this evening in frigid New Hampshire, Ron Paul’s National Campaign Chair Jesse Benton took a different tack on the controversy, coming to the defense of Romney and issuing stern words on respecting the truth:

“Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman, and Newt Gingrich are once again proving why they are unfit to be President and why this has become a two man national race between Mitt Romney, the candidate of the status quo, and Ron Paul, the candidate of real change.

“Two important issues that should unite Republicans are a belief in free markets and an understanding that the media often use ‘gotcha’ tactics to discredit us. Rather than run against Governor Romney on the issues of the day Santorum, Huntsman, and Gingrich have chosen to play along with the media elites and exploit a quote taken horribly out of context. They are also using the language of the liberal left to attack private equity and condemn capitalism in a desperate and, frankly, unsavory attempt to tear down another Republican with tactics akin to those of MoveOn.org.

“Santorum, Huntsman, and Gingrich are employing leftist tactics because they can’t run on their questionable records and can’t distinguish themselves from Romney. Like Romney, they all supported bailouts, big spending, deficits, and individual healthcare mandates. And, all three have disqualified themselves from the race for President of the United States, first with their records, then with their inability access major state ballots, and finally with these desperate and deplorable tactics.

“Dr. Paul is committed to running the kind of substantive, issues-based campaign the American people deserve. Our campaign will talk about real issues – real spending cuts, a sound monetary policy, protecting individual liberties, and promoting a pro-American foreign policy. We will win what is now a two-man race on these issues, the issues of grassroots America.”

Oddly enough, Ron Paul himself entered the fray telling an ABC reporter, “I think they’re unfairly attacking him on that issue because he never really literally said that,” Paul said. “They’ve taken him way out of context. … He wants to fire companies.” Except in this case Paul needs to go back and check the recording, because Romney really did say he likes to “fire people.” This is the same Mitt Romney who also said “corporations are people”, so the words could be interchangeable to him.

At this point, it’s extremely likely that undecided voters are growing weary at the torrents of negative press a few words out of context can generate. It’s unfortunate that many in the media (even on the internet) have a bad habit of doing hit and runs when it comes to the truth, rarely apologizing for factual error in the race to some mythical infallible future.

If information truly is a commodity, “caveat emptor” still makes the most fitting consumer warning label.

UPDATE: Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have stuck their fingers in the political winds and smartly joined Ron Paul in calling off their attacks, for now. And speaking of Bain-related attacks, I’m extremely curious how the Gingrich camp’s King of Bain videos have been going over with their select audiences. There’s really not much helpful to judge it by yet except a short trailer.

Best quote in the trailer is after some random old lady tells it like it is, her friend just casually replies, “You goan’ be on a hit list, you know that.” LOL, what the fuck, GingrichWhateverPAC?

UPDATE II: I should probably divulge that used to work at Bain & Company in Los Angeles for a short stint in 1997-98 as a mail room clerk way down the ladder in administrative services. I honestly don’t remember if I ever met Mitt in person (I probably didn’t, Bain Capital is a supposedly different arm than the consulting branch), but I remember racking up ridiculous amounts of overtime grinding out powerpoint stuff for these guys in these odd client cram sessions. I enjoyed being a busy bee in their extremely fancy pants offices and the company retreats to Palm Springs and Coronado were booze-filled frat parties. You wouldn’t believe the office supply budget this powerful consulting company had — for the prima donnas who had to have different pens than everyone else — it was adorable.

Overall, I enjoyed learning about business and economics at scale through my immersion with them, not to mention the many beers I clinked back with them as a minor. I am certainly not ungrateful of the experience.

With the major party Presidential nomination process coming full swing and the number of contenders dwindling, the more those who remain need to answer the tough questions. However, I recognize that the tough questions will not be asked by the mainstream media. With that in mind, I ask the following questions in hopes that one or more candidates (from a major or minor party) supply answers to the public.

1. Congress routinely passes bills that are hundreds of pages long and contain multiple unrelated sections. Some examples being the “indefinite detention provision” of the National Defense Authorization Act; a provision to ban online gambling added into the 2006 SAFE Port Act and REAL ID (which failed to pass on it’s own merit) added to a military spending bill. If elected President, would you urge Congress to stop this practice? Why or why not? If yes, would you urge Congress to pass the One Subject at a Time Act?
    
2. Many bills – especially the “major legislation” – are hundreds of pages long and many are not finalized until hours before being brought up for a vote, thus giving Congressmen little time to read the bill. Do you believe that Congress should read the bills that they vote on? Why or why not? If yes; would you urge Congress to pass the Read the Bills Act, which would require bills to be read in full on the floor of both houses of Congress and posted online at least seven days before being brought up for a vote?
     
3. The U.S. military currently has troops in 158 nations (not counting military personnel at Embassies) with undeclared “wars” in at least a half-dozen countries. Do you support the continued presence of military around the world? Why or why not? If yes; please explain how this ensures “freedom” (even though the Congress has passed laws that have destroyed the Bill of Rights) and does not create enemies?
    
4. The Congress has been passing legislation to infringe on the individual rights of people for decades. Do you support a repeal the USA PATRIOT Act, Military Commissions Act & FISA? Do you support abolishing the NSA, TSA, CIA and any other federal agency that infringes on individual rights? Why or why not?
    
5. Before the creation of the Federal Reserve, inflation was virtually non-existent in the United States; since it was created and given a monopoly on creation of currency, the value of the U.S. Dollar has declined 97%. Do you support abolishing legal tender laws that force people to use the Federal Reserve Note instead of a commodity backed currency of their choice? Do you support auditing and/or abolishing the Federal Reserve? Why or why not?
    
6. Do you have a plan to balance the federal budget and reduce the size, scope & power of the federal government? If so, what is your plan? If not; why not? What is your opinion of repealing the 16th Amendment and thus repealing the federal income tax? If in favor, how do you propose funding the federal government?
    
7. Do you support allowing citizens of the several territories of these United States of America to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to become a State or an independent country? Why or why not?
   Do you support extending the rights of self-determination to members of Native American Indian tribes? Why or why not?
    
8. Since Congress is authorized by Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution of these United States to create federal election law, would you urge Congress to pass a federal ballot access law which eases the requirements for placing a minor party and/or independent candidate on the ballot for Congress and President? Why or why not? If yes, what is your ideal ballot access requirement?

Publisher’s note: We are looking to you, everyone in the public sphere, to aid us in continually pressuring these politicians to address the questions we believe are of of critical importance. Be persistent and respectful, especially if you believe they are trying to dodge and weasel and change the subject. Repeat the question again if this happens.

We will be cataloging and publishing interviews (video responses are ideal) for these questions we are asking of ALL candidates on an ongoing basis — at both Free Patriot Press and Hammer of Truth — well in advance of the November general elections.

Thanks/Congratulations in advance to the growing ranks of independent reporters and video bloggers who truly are making a visible impact on the 2012 elections. The future of this country is more in your hands than your corporate competitors will ever admit. Don’t be shy, and good luck on the 2012 campaign trail of fear and loathing!

There was a lively exchange between Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich at the ABC/Yahoo! debates in New Hampshire. The sparks flew over Gingrich’s failure to serve in the military, yet later becoming a very vocal war hawk as a statesman. Paul originally called Gingrich out as a “chickenhawk,” and it seems the label is going to stick this time as the former House Speaker’s numerous skeletons again come to the light of day.

Gingrich used the old marriage and education deferment strategy to avoid the draft board, even going so far as shacking up with his old High School Geometry teacher at nineteen and popping out their first child in 1963.

His first practice at love — something he’s won/failed at oh so many times — is tainted by a shockingly bizarre relationship even by today’s standards, youthful desperation to “escape the totalitarian regime of his stepfather’s home” and yet another of America’s military conflicts that threatened to take his chubby ass to the front lines of the bloody empire. These teenaged glimpses are the most telling images of Newt’s inner character struggles.

Gingrich has been truthful in the past about his unease with the decision to fold diapers rather than lug a machine gun through Vietnam jungles, saying “Given everything I believe in, a large part of me thinks I should have gone over.” Or, he could just admit he’s grown up to be an over-compensating, loudmouth bully with nothing to back it up except other people’s children.

During the debate however, the moderators sought to find out if Paul was capable of taking on the ‘Grich in person. The end result was a one-two body blow, the first truth hit administered by Paul who contrasted himself with the former speaker, saying “When I was drafted, I was married and had two kids — and I went.”

And then funnily enough, Gingrich unwittingly administered a second brutal blow to himself while the audience was applauding, offering up, “I wasn’t eligible for the draft. I wasn’t eligible for the draft.” Wuss.

Wikipedia defines chickenhawk as “a political epithet used in the United States to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who strongly supports a war or other military action, yet who actively avoided military service when of age.” Gingrich has often saber-rattled at the Middle East on the campaign trail, referring to the Muslim Brotherhood as “a mortal enemy of our civilization.” In May, he fear-mongered to an audience that “if they can kill us, they will.”

It’s obvious to even the casual observer that Gingrich’s foreign policy would be a continuation of American militarism around the globe. It’s even more obvious that the one calling for it is indeed a chickenhawk. We’re waiting patiently for the Paul campaign to level the same criticisms at Romney, another notorious draft dodger.

Update: Leave it to CNN’s cynically named Truth Squad to expose themselves as nothing more than a Pack of Liars omitting the real story and shilling for…. who gives a damn what reason, stop shilling!

Update II: Screencapped, because I know how these CNN jackasses would like to try and control their epic failure in ethical journalism.

Update III: Newt “I wasn’t eligible for the draft” Gingrich is a member of a cute club called the “war wimps” for good reason. Funny thing about a guy not eligible needing so many draft deferments. Cool lie, bro.

Update IV: We’re waiting for a correction from CNN, just don’t hold your breath for a speedy one. It’s sad to see any information company behave as though their customers are stupid and should be kept that way as long as possible.

Update V: Justin Raimondo eviscerates, then deep fries the chickenhawks in his article at Lew Rockwell. I’m glad at the very least the Internet is allowing our fighting men and women to see which politicians are upstanding and which ones have big yellow stripes running down their backs.