RedStateEclectic

The Constitution - Slinking Away without a Ruckus

Arriving at my hotel room in Montreal recently, I opened my garment bag to discover that the contents, which I had packed with care, had been invaded and left in disarray. Although nothing had been taken, something had been added: a courteously worded flier printed in English on one side and Spanish on the other, titled “Notice of Baggage Inspection.” [...]

The flier explains that the TSA’s invasion of my property was “to protect you and your fellow passengers” and is “required by law,” at which point it cited in a footnote Section 110(b) of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001. [...]

The flier notes that the TSA “appreciate[s] your understanding and cooperation,” as if I had willingly rendered either to this obnoxious state agency, and it adds that “if you have questions, comments, or concerns, please feel free to contact the TSA Contact Center” [And the questions etc are ...]

How does the TSA, or the enabling legislation on which it rests its warrantless invasions of persons and property, square itself with the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States? This part of the Bill of Rights states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be searched.” The Constitution also declares that it is “the supreme Law of the Land,” which I take to mean, among other things, that it overrides anything to the contrary stipulated by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001. Forgive me if I have failed to acquire mastery of Constitutional law, but on the face of the matter, the TSA’s actions and its enabling legislation would appear to be in transparent conflict with the Fourth Amendment and the Supremacy Clause.

Fine, you say, that’s all well and good, but it makes no difference to the TSA, which has been given a “job” to do, or to the travellers who wish to use the services of the airlines to go from A to B without having to overthrow the existing government of the United States to do so unmolested. As Dirty Harry Callahan put it, “a man’s got to know his limitations.” Judging by the travellers I see when I use the airlines, the people do know their limitations, and they behave themselves accordingly, like sheep.

As for the Constitution, well, it has demonstrated time and again that it can slink away without causing a ruckus. As the U.S. government’s Dear Leader himself has famously said of the Constitution, which he previously swore to preserve, protect, and defend, “it’s just a goddamned piece of paper.”

The source.

Ron Paul Supporters - A Major Force to Be Reckoned with

[Ron Paul's] views, as is well known, are diametrically opposed to those of the McCain machine, which is essentially that of the globalist neocons who hijacked the Republican Party during the Reagan years (the first major fruit of this hijacking was, of course, NAFTA).

Ron Paul would immediately end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He would bring home troops from the 130 nations around the world where they are stationed at taxpayer expense. He would dramatically reduce the size and scope of the federal government at home, moving to shut down numerous federal agencies such as the Department of Education (something the Republican Party once promised to do as recently as the Reagan era). And most controversially of all, he would move to have Congress repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and institute a sound, Constitutional money system.

In short, Dr. Paul’s agenda is antithetical to what the global elite wants — which is why the Republican Establishment tried to shut him out of the debates, why the mainstream media tried desperately to ignore him, and why his grassroots popularity is making the Establishment extremely nervous. After all, among Dr. Paul’s fiercest supporters are tech-savvy twentysomethings who this past year acquired their first taste of the struggle for liberty and discovered that they like it. These people are capable of becoming a major force to be reckoned with.

The entire post.

My Political Schism

For the dozen or so of you interested in my political conundrum I will lay it down in a brief personal history. I suspect that I am not the only one and I represent a silent minority.

I grew up in a Republican household - typical vote Republican but not politically active. Really very little thought into what it meant to be a Republican or what a Republican was. My general impression is that Republicans were against spending, big on national defense (confronting the Soviets), prolife, and pro-guns.

I went to the U of Michigan (a liberal school - in the modern socialist way) and my freshman year heard a talk from someone from the objectivist society. That led me to Ayn Rand which in turn made me research the Republicans more deeply and their history. I found what people usually discover at some point - the parties are usually two sides of the same coin. Both support wielding government power but in different ways.  That led me to the Libertarian Party and their national convention in 1996.

I was briefly drawn back to the Republicans with their success in 1994 and their calls for drastically cutting government largesse and taxes. That never materialized so I joined the Libertarian Party and haven't looked back... until Ron Paul.

I was busy with med school and residency and did not really get 'political' again until joining my practice 4 years ago. I quickly became chair of the local party and now serve on the state executive committee as an at-large delegate. That sort of metoric rise in the political party is only possible in a small party.

Historically,the party has had very limited success in partisan elections (probably in the dozens) and some slightly better success in nonpartisan races. Nationally (US Congress and Presidency) it has never won (or come reasonably close as far as I know). Being electorally successful outside of the two major parties is now virtually impossible with all of the regulations, ballot access restrictions, finance limitations, etc. The Republicans and Democrats may not be good at running government but they sure are good at keeping others from having a chance.

So... the question I have been dealing with for about a year is what to do? I am not the sort of person to not try (I wish I was - politics would be so much easier to stomach) but there are only two options. The Republican party which guarantees lots of electoral success but only at the expense of principles of smaller government and the Libertarian party that offers the pure ideology but virtual hopeless electoral success and any chance to affect policy. The Democrats are hopeless and in love with government power at all levels.

Ron Paul offered the hope of a reshaped GOP, maybe one focused on liberty and small government. But similar to 1994, its standard bearer is John McCain and his ilk which massively outnumber the forces for Constitutional limitations. I even signed up to be a delegate but one voice amongst 250 in my county is insignificant. Turning around the GOP which shows every insistence on staying the course is an unreasonable expectation.

The work to block out the Ron Paul people (many if not most Libertarians) was to be expected and will quash any real change to the party. There aren't even close to enough to affect change. So my interest in maybe working within the GOP has subsided. I will still help good candidates.

And the Libertarian party? I feel it still has a role to play and is the natural replacement to the GOP for people who believe in liberty but will be unsucessful as long as the rules to win are so difficult to overcome. And who has the time or fortitude to struggle for a movement that never seems to gain traction.

I will be at the LP convention in Denver over Memorial weekend and will take my wife. I suspect it will be a spirited debate with Barr seeking the nomination alongside Gravel, Ruwart, and Root. I have no idea who will win but I hope that they can succeed where others have failed.

Maybe I'll attend the national convention for the Republican Liberty Caucus in September in Detroit. I don't know... I'm so confused.

Bush Expulsion from GOP

Why are Republicans not expelling George W. Bush from their party?

What is your answer to that simple question?

My tentative answer:

(1) They would have to remember the raison d'etre of their party, rather than just happening to be Republicans. The former seems out of the question (why, I do not know,) the latter a lot easier and decidedly preferable. (Is inertness the meaning of conservatism?)

(2) If you throw out Bush, you would have to throw out a large number of other prominent party members, including McCain, who failed to "expel" Bush from the Republican party, at least by implication, i.e by taking a principled stance of resistance toward the unspeakable deeds of Bush over the last seven years.

Apparently, it is better to throw out large numbers of members of the Republican party, by default, that is, as they turn their backs on the GOP.

PS

McCain's chances at the election seem to hinge on two groups of potential voters: Democrats in and outside the Republican party, and the "my party, right or wrong" lot, who, of course, by their Myrmidonian attitude make it possible for the (usurpers of the) Republican party to drift into any direction (they)/it might feel drawn toward. Which, in turn, increases incentives to behave like Democrats, gaining popularity by making unprincipled promises.

Oh, America, why have you become a(n intellectual) colony of European socialism? Please be yourself again.

Actually, it is not quite that bad for McCain, because there are still more than enough fools around who vote on isolated pet issues. Oh, I don't like his stance on Iraq, but I like him on health care. It is these compartmentalising people that efforts at a war with Iran are targeting. Last time around, a war saved Republican governmental power. Why not try it again?

Which ever way, the Democrats have already won the election.

McCain on the Daily Show

From last week.  Part 1: 

Part 2:

I'm sure that Georg will be happy to remind us that this is an interview totally lacking in substance--and he's right.  Still, the manner and apparent sense of humor of McCain suggests, as well, some things that members of the voting public might find appealing. 

 

Ron Paul's Revenge??

Bring the disaster on?  Take a look at this article, and be sure to watch the video at the bottom, as well.

It might be too late for the Republicans to turn this around, though--the party establishment in a lot of states has really disrespected.  Bob Beckel really steps in it though.

LLE

RNC Critical Issues Survey (Rant)

Yet another correspondence from the RNC. Oh goody! A survey! How wonderful that the republican machine is so interested in my thoughts on important issues. They have demonstrated their level of concern with their treatment of the Ron Paul contingency, no?

Let’s see, first page… Instructions. Hmmm, very 1040-ish. They’re starting to become one with the government. No surprise there. Verify address, use blue or black pen (they’re really going to read my opinions!), return in seven days, and enclose your most generous gift for VICTORY! That’s so Spartan. I like that. Rest assured, I’ll be sending them something.

Section I, Jobs and the Economy. Let’s see here…. dribble, pap, dribble… Hey, they actually give “growth of government spending” as part of a multiple choice answer when considering possible factors adversely affecting the economy in my area. In a question about “the single most important economic issue facing you and your family” (it’s always good to prioritize) they list “inflation/rising prices overall”. Forgive me for being too technical, but shouldn’t that have read “inflation/devaluing dollar over all”? Then more questions: “should we reduce the deficit, reduce regulations, simplify the tax code, reign in spending, and eliminate pork-barrel spending.” You have to ask?!? Are they really waiting around to see if the majority of republican voters have changed their minds about these things? Those topics SHOULD read like a laundry list of things that they already accomplished! By now, the questions should be more along the lines of, “Should we get rid of other cabinet agencies like we did the Department of Education?” and “Should we reduce spending by 5% this year like we did the last seven years?” What have they been waiting for?

Section II, National Security – this'll be interesting. “Should the first priority of the next president be winning the war against radical Islamic extremists?” Well, at least they didn’t have us fighting “evil”. “Should we surrender in Iraq no matter what the consequences?” Deciding to leave is not surrender and nobody knows what the consequences will be. The war boys proved that when we weren’t welcomed as expected when they went marching in. Uh oh. “The democrats would slash defense spending.” The South will never go for that. A good push poll tactic, however. Nice job. “Do you support giving law enforcement the tools they need to monitor terrorist communications?” I’ve seen all of the “tools” law enforcement have already been given and am quite certain that they do not need any more. “Should there be a date for withdrawal from Iraq?” That’s a vapid question designed for the media in order to take up useless air time and one that leads away from more important questions. Grrrr.

Section III, Other Issues. There are other issues than the war? During the last presidential election, you couldn’t turn on a radio or TV where conservative talking heads weren’t going on and on about the war. No other issue existed. OK, back to the survey. Let’s see, “Interpretive judges vs. activist judges.” Is one better than the other? I’ve seen no proof of this so far. “Should the U.S. develop energy sources to slow inflation and keep fuel affordable?” It’s hard to say whether they’re asking me or telling me. The U.S. markets should develop other sources (and would if allowed) but the government should not be decreeing their one-size-fits-all policies. And how is this to slow inflation when our central bank is printing to the heavens? Double Grrrr. “Should we give parents with kids trapped in failing schools more educational choices?” You should give all parents more educational choices, you ninnies! “How should congress address the looming Social Security crises?” Gee, for a looming crises they sure haven’t done much. Maybe if they referred to its condition as “radically extreme evil” they could turn some conservative heads and invade the social security building. Who knows, they might be welcomed there. Then another push poll about national health care. Boo. “Which political party do you feel is best able to handle each of the following issues?” They only list the democrats and republicans here of course. That’s like asking which is more attractive, the lady on the left or her identical twin on the right?

Section IV, Campaign Strategy. Nope. I’m not going to go there.

They were nice enough, however, to include a postage-paid envelope for returning my “generous contribution”. Now where did I put those Ron Paul slim jims?

p.s. The words "Liberty" and "Freedom" do not appear anywhere in the survey.

Minnesota's Pawlenty to be McCain's VP?

This could change, of course, but Pawlenty's name has been tossed around quite a bit of late.  I'm not sure that Pawlenty would help McCain that much with conservatives--and certainly not conservatives of the libertarian type.  You'll need to scroll down on the video feed list (I'm learning how to make this particular feature work, and can't get the right story to show up at the top).

Nebraska and West Virginia Primaries Tomorrow

If you live in Nebraska or West Virginia, make sure to vote for Dr. Paul in your primary tomorrow, and to get as many people as possible out to the polls as well.

Those in Nebraska who need information such as where their polling place is can visit the Nebraska Secretary of State’s Voter Information Center here.  And those in West Virginia can check out WV Votes.  Both are closed primaries, although independents can vote on the Republican ballot in West Va.

Dr. Paul’s numbers in recent primaries have been attracting attention, and we have a great chance to build on our 1,000,000 + total. We’ll add a thread tomorrow so you can share your Primary Day stories.

Writes the Daily Dose.

Privatising the GOP

During my student days in England, I came across a political advertisement that I consider one of the best ever:

 

 

Now, there is another creative innovation from Britain- short version:

 

 

Bob Barr Leaves "Exploratory" Stage

Here he is, talking about Iraq.

LLE

O'Reilly Loses It

It must be stressful to be in front of the cameras every day. I'm sure that the work consumes a person and they find themselves in a situation where they get a little edgy. The video below is one of those times, apparently. Warning! Eff-bombs a'flyin!

This probably just confirms what was suspected all along concerning Bill O'Reilly.

We've Got 'Em Worried, But What of Evangelicals?

Robert Novak's column today suggests that the McCain people are a bit concerned about McCain's failure to really connect with the evangelicals in the party.  But they're even more concerned about something else:

At McCain headquarters, there is no doubt expressed about Huckabee's loyalty. "I feel we haven't used him (Huckabee) enough," McCain campaign manger Rick Davis told me. McCain's strategists are more concerned that the libertarian Rep. Ron Paul has not abandoned his candidacy, keeps fighting for delegates and says he will not endorse McCain.

That would perhaps explain why the word seems to have gone out at all levels that Ron Paul supporters are to be turned back whenever possible. 

On the question of the evangelical support, I always kind of wonder why many of those folks are so enthusiastic about continuing war in the Middle East--that seems a little contradictory (as one bumper sticker seen out side of my church said: "When Jesus said 'love your enemy', I don't think he meant 'kill them'").  I have a theory about that, which may or may not be accurate: in a nutshell, it's a desire to help prophecy  along (subconsciously, I suspect, in most cases). 

Not all evangelicals, of course, are for the wars in the Middle East.  But I've certainly run into some who are.  The theology of some of the more fundamentalist/evangelical churches focuses on pre-millenialism, and the coming apocalypse as interpretted in John's Revelation.  For those pre-millenials (as opposed to those of us who tend toward the amillenial side of things), certain things have to happen before Christ returns.  If you're particularly eager for that to happen, you look for certain things which signify that something big is soon to happen--and war in the Middle East is generally considered a sign.  So if you believe that war in the Middle East is yet another sign that Jesus will soon return, why wouldn't you be willing to follow a policy that at minimum, didn't discourage the bad things from happening--sort of "let the bad happen, because it will be followed by good" mentality.

I don't really think that most evangelicals are "neo-cons"--I think some of them have just come to the same conclusions about war that the "neo-cons" have, but for vastly different reasons. 

LLE

Questions for John McCain

Not from me (although I have some of the same ones), but rather from conservative columnist George Will, who asks many of the same questions many Ron Paul supporters are asking. The first one:

You say you are not "ready to go to war with Iran," but you also say the "one thing worse" than "exercising the military option" is "a nuclear-armed Iran." Because strenuous diplomacy has not dented Iran's nuclear ambitions, is not a vote for you a vote for war with Iran?

LLE

Sinkholes

This video reminded me of an e-mail that was going around a month or two ago--about large "holes"--including the bottomless one that we seem to throw our money into called the government.  No one seems to know how the hole got so big. 

Dear GOP

Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard is usually pretty good for puffing Republican hopes up.  But his recent article takes a realistic look at the numbers, and suggests that John McCain (and congressional Republicans) may be in trouble.

The empirical evidence is well known. More than 80 percent of Americans believe the nation is heading in the wrong direction. Democrats have steadily maintained the 10 percentage point lead in voter preference they gained two years ago. And President Bush's job performance rating is stuck in the low 30s, a level of unpopularity that weakens the Republican case for holding the White House in 2008.

There's another piece of polling data that is both intriguing and indicative. In a Wall Street Journal/NBC survey last month, John McCain fared better with Republican voters (84 percent to 8 percent) than Barack Obama did with Democrats (78 percent to 12 percent). McCain was also stronger than Obama among independent voters (46 percent to 35 percent).

These are terrific numbers for McCain. But they aren't enough. In the overall match-up, McCain trailed Obama (43 percent to 46 percent). The explanation for this seeming paradox is quite simple: The Republican base has shrunk. In 2008, there are fewer Republicans.

"It's the erosion in party affiliation that's pulling McCain down," says a Republican strategist, and it could doom his chances of winning the presidency. The strategist fears Republican leaders and McCain campaign officials "don't realize the trouble they're going to be in."

"The erosion of party affiliation"....  And what is the Party doing about that?  They have one candidate who has inspired a members of a new generation to try out the GOP tent.  And rather than let those "new Republicans" play a part in the political system--even if it means having the total unity of the party questioned just a bit--the party tries, instead, to lock them out of the system, and alienates them for the future.

To my friends in the Republican Party:  I'm one of you--I've always been a Republican.  But if you don't start standing for something real, and stop demanding lockstep agreement on every issue, you're going to start losing even more people who would agree with you on most issues, and you're going to lose out on a generation of activists who will take the GOP into the future--beyond this year's General Election.  So, for those of you who haven't had your convention yet: if Ron Paul supporters show up, why don't you welcome them.  Talk to them and find out what motivates them.  Try to get them involved in the party.  And yes, if they are able to do it within the rules, let them take some delegates to St. Paul in September.  It's not going to hurt the party in the long run, and you're a lot more likely to capture some of those voters in the fall for John McCain by being open to letting them playing a role in the party into the futue than you are by trying to shut them out.  Just a thought.

LLE

Sanding Down the "R"

Democrats, Republicans, as far as I am concerned, they (the leading figures of them) are all one lot: Demublicans, to borrow Eric Parks' phrase.

It is immaterial which Demublican becomes President, Barack Clinton, Hillary Obama, or John O'Barack McClinton. Derivatively, six months before the election, which of these has better chances to win is irrelevant. What does matter is the fact that no one seems to be able to stop the inevitability of this dangerous non-choice.

Therefore, the below article is of interest to me not for the assiduous efforts at prediction and the great drama attached to a much-ado-about-nothing, but for these telling sentences:

[...] does McCain have even a chance of winning in November?

    The McCain camp thinks so - but only if he sands down the "R" next to his name. "Nobody ever gets elected president by running on their party label," said Charlie Black, a senior McCain adviser. "The character, the qualities, the independence - that certainly allows him to rise over the party label. It is more important than usual to rise above the party label."

Staunch supporters of John McCain understand, of course, that this stratagem is absolutely requisite in order to preserve Republican principles, ultimately.

After all, be careful of the wording, he is rising over the "party label," not the "party."

Therefore, this strategy has nothing to do with an attempt to gain power by being more dexterous at spreading confusion and being more plausible, yet intangible and non-committal and more open to any sufficiently opportune special interest helper than the competition, as malicious pundits would have it.

This great, historically unique man is quite simply much, much better than the party, er, label.

The source.

Happy Mother's Day

A heartfelt "Happy Mother's Day" to Laura and all mothers everywhere. I hope it is a special day for each and every one of you.

Songs for My Mother

By Anna Hempstead Branch

I

HER HANDS

My mother’s hands are cool and fair,

They can do anything.

Delicate mercies hide them there

Like flowers in the spring.

 

When I was small and could not sleep,

She used to come to me,

And with my cheek upon her hand

How sure my rest would be.

 

For everything she ever touched

Of beautiful or fine,

Their memories living in her hands

Would warm that sleep of mine.

 

Her hands remember how they played

One time in meadow streams,—

And all the flickering song and shade

Of water took my dreams.

 

Swift through her haunted fingers pass

Memories of garden things;—

I dipped my face in flowers and grass

And sounds of hidden wings.

 

One time she touched the cloud that kissed

Brown pastures bleak and far;—

I leaned my cheek into a mist

And thought I was a star.

 

All this was very long ago

And I am grown; but yet

The hand that lured my slumber so

I never can forget.

 

For still when drowsiness comes on

It seems so soft and cool,

Shaped happily beneath my cheek,

Hollow and beautiful.

 

II

HER WORDS

My mother has the prettiest tricks

Of words and words and words.

Her talk comes out as smooth and sleek

As breasts of singing birds.

 

She shapes her speech all silver fine

Because she loves it so.

And her own eyes begin to shine

To hear her stories grow.

 

And if she goes to make a call

Or out to take a walk

We leave our work when she returns

And run to hear her talk.

 

We had not dreamed these things were so

Of sorrow and of mirth.

Her speech is as a thousand eyes

Through which we see the earth.

 

God wove a web of loveliness,

Of clouds and stars and birds,

But made not any thing at all

So beautiful as words.

 

They shine around our simple earth

With golden shadowings,

And every common thing they touch

Is exquisite with wings.

 

There’s nothing poor and nothing small

But is made fair with them.

They are the hands of living faith

That touch the garment’s hem.

 

They are as fair as bloom or air,

They shine like any star,

And I am rich who learned from her

How beautiful they are.

"No Ethical Standards"

Saturday Night Live's Hillary take:

Oil and Energy Independence - Worrying about the Wrong Things

Mark Twain once suggested: 99% of the problems that bother us never materialise (often because assuming they exist to begin with is a mistake).

Politicians and large sections of the media want us to be scared, so scared that we are more preoccupied with our unexamined fears than with the plentiful sources for sound insight that especially the internet provides.

Consider, for instance, the below conclusion of an article entitled "Energy Alarmism: The Myths That Make Americans Worry about Oil."

Many Americans have lost confidence in their country's "energy security" over the past several years. Because the United States is a net oil importer, and a substantial one at that, concerns about energy security naturally raise foreign policy questions. Some foreign policy analysts fear that dwindling global oil reserves are increasingly concentrated in politically unstable regions, and they call for increased U.S. efforts to stabilize—or, alternatively, democratize—the politically tumultuous oil-producing regions. Others allege that China is pursuing a strategy to "lock up" the world's remaining oil supplies through long-term purchase agreements and aggressive diplomacy, so they counsel that the United States outmaneuver Beijing in the "geopolitics of oil." Finally, many analysts suggest that even the "normal" political disruptions that occasionally occur in oil-producing regions (e.g., occasional wars and revolutions) hurt Americans by disrupting supply and creating price spikes. U.S. military forces, those analysts claim, are needed to enhance peace and stability in crucial oil-producing regions, particularly the Persian Gulf.

Each of those fears about oil supplies is exaggerated, and none should be a focus of U.S. foreign or military policy. "Peak oil" predictions about the impending decline in global rates of oil production are based on scant evidence and dubious models of how the oil market responds to scarcity. In fact, even though oil supplies will increasingly come from unstable regions, investment to reduce the costs of finding and extracting oil is a better response to that political instability than trying to fix the political problems of faraway countries. Furthermore, Chinese efforts to lock up supplies with long-term contracts will at worst be economically neutral for the United States and may even be advantageous. The main danger stemming from China's energy policy is that current U.S. fears may become a self-fulfilling prophecy of Sino-U.S. conflict. Finally, political instability in the Persian Gulf poses surprisingly few energy security dangers, and U.S. military presence there actually exacerbates problems rather than helps to solve them.

Our overarching message is simply that market forces, modified by the cartel behavior of OPEC, determine most of the key factors that affect oil supply and prices. The United States does not need to be militarily active or confrontational to allow the oil market to function, to allow oil to get to consumers, or to ensure access in coming decades.

Mark Portaro, a valued commentator of our posts, helped me order and summarise some of the ideas on these issues that were more or less vaguely floating around in my mind:

(1) I agree with you that America should give up its self-destructive energy policy, which, amongst other things, has brought about a situation whereby the country is far from making as much good use of its substantial domestic resources as it could and should. America's self-defeating energy policies are home-made, however, simply the result of the kind of irrational hotchpotch of legislation and government measures that are inevitable in a political system based on rewarding politically well organised special interests. As long as this system prevails, the American government will simply not be able to embark on a policy of strict autarky, irrespective of the reasonableness of such an approach; there are too many contradicting demands to pander to. By and large, I see little hope for a fundamentally improved energy situation for America, unless she overhauls her political system.

(2) Free trade is free trade is free trade: I see no place for basic vs non-basic (free) trade. Incidentally, we can all learn a lot from the trading skills to be found in the Middle East; just think of the fabulously rich United Arab Emirates, whose wealth is not based on oil but on trade. Like the Dutch that had no natural resources to speak of but understood the reciprocal wealth-creator 'trade'. These great trading nations teach us how the have-nots and utterly dependent on other countries can turn this state of affairs into a tremendous advantage. In fact, countries that can achieve (a larger measure of)autarky thanks to favourable resource endowments have frequently walked into the trap that self sufficiency can be, staying poor or achieving less wealth than they could have achieved by international trade.

Going back as far as the economic writing of Aristotle, one discovers time and again that fear of trade is the fundamental axiom of anti-capitalism and a great intellectual facilitator of inward-looking tyrannies. Aristotle's views have played a major role in keeping Europe abjectly poor for thousands of years, and the tribal hubris implied by it that treats a society like a household, fears change and foreign contacts and requires a master to see to it that everything is "under control" rather than being left to an impersonal, self-generating order, i.e. the rule of law and the attendant market economy.

Autarky may sound a good idea, but in the final analysis it degenerates into authoritarianism and tyranny, apart from being economically inefficient, that seems to be lesson of history.

To make sense and be well-defined, autarky requires one final authority that knows better than millions of interacting individuals what the term is supposed to mean and what restrictions and actions all must subject themselves to so as to achieve that goal.

(3) In my view, the term "oil addiction" is not helpful. It is a catchy slogan playing on many misconceptions about oil (being supposedly environmentally detrimental, a commodity cornered by Big Oil etc.), it tends to mislead us about the enormous benefits that we have enjoyed for more than one hundred years from dealing sensibly with oil. Of course, one might say that Americans are addicted to e.g. "modern housing," but is that a proper way to speak about something that is beneficial?

At any rate, Mark, your always inspiring thoughts encourage me to look into these vital issues more carefully in the coming weeks. One thing I can say already: when one studies oil, energy policy issues etc in earnest (which is greatly facilitated by the internet available to all of us) one quickly discovers that matters are rather different from what is presented to us by politicians and the media. Looking at energy sends one on an exciting journey of discovery.

Here are some useful starting points for those who wish to embark on that journey: a fine primer on oil,  a free market approach to energy security,  a thoughtful look at recent oil prices, an analysis of the true incidence and likelihood of supply shocks and the problems government creates with a strategic petroleum reserve, and another set of ideas about autarky or trade.

The D.O.D. is Sorry

This is a strange story, and a little disturbing.  Be sure to watch the video attached. 

LLE

Need to Go to the Dentist

Georg started the silliness!

Dust in the Wind

One of the reasons that I posted very little today is that it was graduation day here in my hometown.  I have no children graduating this year (unless you count my daughter's boyfriend), but as a member of the local school board, one of our few "official duties" is to go to the high school graduation, process in ahead of the graduates, have a seat, and then at the opening strains of "Pomp and Circumstance", we stand up so that the audience understands that they should stand while the graduates walk in.  Otherwise, we get decent seats (and one of the advantages of being a school member is the privilege of presenting your own children with their diplomas--I got to do that for my daughter last year).

Every year, the school choir, joined by the graduating seniors who were members, sing a few songs--usualy chosen by the senior class (or at least the seniors in the choir).  I kind of chuckled today--here's one of the songs that they chose to sing--a 30 year old, somewhat mournful piece, by Kansas (from my high school years).  This has got to be one of the strangest songs I've ever heard sung at a high school graduation--at a time when the students are supposed to be full of hope for the future.

I Used to Be the Next President of the United States of America

but then he found another way to wreak havoc.

Al Gore shamelessly portrayed Saturday's Myanmar cyclone catastrophe as a ‘consequence' of global warming.

[T]he Nobel Peace Prize winner exploited the deaths of over 22,000 (reported and still rising) human beings to egoistically advance his threatened AGW political agenda while callously protecting his personal financial interest [...]

And with 41,000 reported missing since Cyclone Nargis devastated the former Burma, the death figures are sure to rise to unthinkable numbers.  Meanwhile, the nation's corrupt military rulers are making aid delivery to ease survivor misery nearly impossible.

And while these poor souls will undoubtedly see years of unimaginable suffering and the arduous rebuilding of over a million destroyed homes, this man -- who professes his desire to save the planet - saw another opportunity. That it arrived at the end of a one month period in which another wheel fell off the greenhouse gas disinformation bus almost daily only adds to the morass.

This was an astonishingly nauseating display -- even for the likes of Gore.

Read the entire article.

Dinner for One

A true oddity: Entirely unknown in the English speaking world, this little performance is being watched by the German nation every year a quarter of an hour before the turn of the year: