Smut Provides Advice

Last night I was complaining to no one in particular--only my black Labrador Retrievers Smut and Mischief were with me--about how miserable I felt because of a nasty cold.

Smut, attired in his favorite silk smoking jacket and fez, was sitting in an armchair quietly listening. Finally, tired, no doubt, of my complaining, he leaned back, took a couple of puffs on his cigar, and said, "Well, if you had listened to me yesterday, you could have short-circuited your cold, and you wouldn't be sitting here all miserable and out-of-sorts."

"What did you say to me yesterday?" I asked. "I don't remember."

"That's another thing," Smut replied, after taking a small sip of his favorite whisky. "You just don't listen to me. How often you ignore me when I un-assertively suggest that we go for a walk. Walking is good for you, by the way."

"Yes, but what did you say yesterday?" I asked again. I was quite short with him, I'm afraid.

"No need to get upset," he said calmly, putting his cigar on the edge of the ashtray and leaning forward a little. "I advised you to step out back and eat some grass. That's what I do when I feel bad, you know. It works very well." He sat back, crossed his legs, picked up his whisky and smiled at me.

"That doesn't work for humans," I said, laughing at him.

Smut puffed on his cigar again and, raising an eyebrow, asked, "How do you know? Have you ever done it?"

"Of course not," I replied derisively, sniffing and coughing.

Exhaling a cloud of smoke, he said with a distinctively superior air, "There you are, then. Don't look down your nose at me."

Quick--Turn the Teleprompter Back On

In a White House ceremony today President Obama presented a Congressional Medal of Honor to Army Staff Sergeant Salvatore Giunta. While lauding Sgt. Giunta, the president said, “Now, I’m going off script for a moment,” at which point the sphincters of a dozen White House advisors and handlers no doubt (and perhaps audibly) tightened, and their hearts collectively jumped within their chests. We offer prayers for their quick recovery.

Pass the Krispy Kremes, Please!

Did you know that Pfizer forces pills down people’s throats, Smith & Wesson shoots people and General Dynamics wages war? Yep. Some regulation-loving, responsibility averse do-gooders allege that drug manufacturers are responsible for people’s addictions, firearms manufacturers are responsible for gun deaths and weapons manufacturers are responsible for wars. Law suits filed against companies like the ones mentioned have resulted in large awards for plaintiffs. Reference what happened to tobacco companies.

Do these people realize how stupid that is? Doesn’t someone have to pull a trigger? Doesn’t someone have to put the pills in his mouth and swallow? Doesn’t someone have to push a button to fire a missile? Could hot smoke from burning vegetation drawn deeply into your lungs possibly be harmful?

Today I caught the last few minutes of the Diane Rhem Show on NPR. The topic was “DNA Sequencing & Personal Genomics (http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-11-03/dna-sequencing-personal-genomics).” I didn’t hear the introduction of the guests, so I don’t know which one commented—I’m paraphrasing here—that driving home past 10 fast-food restaurants also put him at risk for obesity.

Now, I suppose that the comment was intended to discount to some extent the role of genetics in obesity, but it sounded as if the speaker were assigning some of the blame for obesity to fast-food restaurants. Indeed, some have alleged that MacDonald’s is a major cause of Americans’ obesity.

That is just anti-capitalist shite. If people didn’t want to buy Big Mac’s, there would be no MacDonalds. “Yes, your honor, I was driving home, minding my own business when Bojangles placed a tractor beam on my vehicle, pulled me in, restrained me, and forced me under threat of anorexia to gnaw all the meat off a fried-chicken leg.” “Well, yes, Judge, I admit, it was pretty tasty.”

Fast-food restaurants (and candy manufacturers, soft-drink companies and—yum!—Krispy Kreme) are not villains—they’re legal businesses that provide what people want, and people want them to the tune of billions of dollars a year.

If you’re overweight and have a grudge against MacDonalds and other fast-food purveyors, don’t eat biggie-sized double quarter pounders! Don’t buy a dozen Krispy Kremes and eat them all! Use your will power and exercise some self-restraint, and take some responsibility for your own actions.

Writing this post has made me pretty hungry. Excuse me please, while I get a cup of coffee and just a half-dozen Krispy Kremes.

What it Means

The outcome of the mid-term election, in which the Republicans won control of the House of Representatives, and the Democrats retained control of the Senate, means that Congress will not be able to conduct meaningful business for the next two years. Thank God!

Whenever there is gridlock in Congress, the American people are well-served. Last night I switched television channels frequently to see how the news media treated this emerging change in government. For the most part, the pundits agreed with my conclusion that little would be accomplished in Congress for the next two years, but most did not think that was a good thing. Comments like, "the American people want the government to take care of the business of the people," made me wince. That is why we are IN such a sorry mess: Congress has been conducting business, spending more money, expanding its power over the American people, and generally fucking up everything they address.

As for the message the people sent in the vote last night, it was not that they like Republicans; rather, it was that they want jobs and they don't want government-run health care. Republicans are reading into the result that people want limited federal intrusion into their lives, so that's now the party mantra--not that they believe it or will practice it, given their track record. But in the event, they're wrong; Americans will accept big government if they have jobs and can live fairly well economically. Does anyone think that the Republicans would have won last night if the state of the economy had been good?

So, given that Americans are not as discriminating about the size and power of the federal government as Republicans think, and are not as accepting of socialist health care and higher taxes as the Democrats think, the best we Libertarians can hope for is that Americans keep voting for split government so that neither party gets total control and gets what they want. That's a sorry state of affairs, but we'll take it for now.

Whither the Election?

The election is upon us. Tuesday, about 50% to 55% of those eligible to vote, plus some dead citizens, some non-citizens and others totally ineligible to vote, will head to the polls and cast their votes to be tallied with the votes of those (dead and alive, and otherwise eligible and ineligible) who already have cast votes in the early voting periods, and those who voted by absentee ballot.

The probable outcome: The Republicans will not do as well as they expect, and the Democrats will not do as poorly as they fear.

There are several reasons for this. One is that the news media have beat it into our heads that the Republicans are going to accomplish a sweep this election, so many Republicans who might have voted will not show up at the polls. Conversely, the Democrats will have instilled enough fear in their ranks that they can expect a more vigorous turnout than predicted.

Another reason is that the Democratic Party in particular is quite adept at voter fraud—it will do whatever possible to prevent absentee votes or to conveniently “lose” absentee ballots, on the assumption that the majority will be military personnel who tend to vote Republican; and we have heard numerous reports of people voting straight Republican tickets, only to have the voting machine record the vote for Democrats, a phenomenon explained away by elections commissioners (always Democrats) as “machine malfunctions that of course have been corrected,” who always follow that by claiming that the Republicans are guilty of “voter suppression” (and to be sure, that probably is true).

But the main reason is this: Americans are divided into three main political categories: Liberal (Democratic Party) and Conservative (Republican Party) compete in elections for the votes of a third group: independent Americans, meaning those the pollsters cannot ascribe to one of the other two groups. It is a fluid group generally comprising those who are honestly open-minded about which candidate for whom they’ll vote, those who have become disillusioned with the candidate or party for whom they last voted, those who don’t like either of the two major parties, and those who simply are ignorant of the candidates or issues attending a particular election, but who insist on voting anyway.

There are many more Democrats than Republicans, so elections are decided by the independents. Only if a large number of them vote Republican can Republicans win. In this particular election, a lot of independents who in 2008 voted for Obama are disillusioned with him; however, that doesn’t necessarily mean they will vote Republican. Some will, of course, and others just will not vote at all. But the bottom line is that if a significant number of those independents who voted Democratic in 2008 do so again in 2010, the Democrats will not fare as poorly as the media has predicted, especially if even a few Republicans are complacent and fail to vote.

My prediction is that Republicans will gain 60 seats in the House of Representatives to win control, but only 8 Senate seats, not enough to win control of that body.

That will be a good outcome. With Republicans controlling the House, but Democrats controlling the Senate, and a Democratic president who will wield a veto over legislation, the Congress will be able to do little for the next two years. When the Congress is deadlocked, Americans are safer, if only for a little while.

Prescription for (Real) Hope and Change

From continuation of the war in Afghanistan, to passage of a healthcare bill that is the first step toward socialized medicine; and from passage of a wasteful stimulus bill that does nothing to increase jobs but does everything to increase the national debt, to an unparalleled expansion of the national government and a corresponding limitation of the power of the states and of the people, the Congress and the Obama administration have run amok and pissed off the American people. At this writing, Republicans seemed poised to regain a majority in the House of Representatives, and possibly (but not likely) to regain a majority in the Senate. As of 2010, we can do nothing about Barack Obama.

But will Republican control of Congress (and, looking to 2012, a Republican in the White House) do anything to stop the rampant expansion of federal power and the loss of Americans’ liberties? Judging from the actions of Congress and the president during the previous administration, an unqualified “no” is the answer to that question.

Stopping the erosion of freedom and liberty will come only from more fundamental change. Here is my prescription for a healthy America:

1. Amend the Constitution to limit federal spending to a set percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP) except in pre-defined emergencies. [This is necessary if the government is to operate within a realistic budget.]

2. Amend the Constitution to provide for, upon the concurrence of three-fourths of the state legislatures, a veto by the states of Congressional spending in excess of the set percentage of GDP. [This is a necessary check on Congress’s ability to suspend its rules and ignore the Constitution.]

3. Amend the Constitution to prohibit unfunded federal mandates to the states. [This is necessary for the states to operate within their budgets and not be blindsided by Congressional whim.]

4. Amend the Constitution to mandate a presidential line-item veto of Congressional bills. [This is just common sense; the party in power in the Congress typically protects items in danger of a veto by loading into a bill other items that a president dare not veto.]

5. Amend the Constitution to require that Congress shall pass no law that does not apply equally to the Congress and the people. [e.g., Congress has its own wonderful health care plan of which most Americans could only dream.]

6. Amend the Constitution to require that all congressional bills cite their constitutional authority. [This actually was, and perhaps still is, a proposed House rule]

7. Repeal the 17th amendment to the Constitution. [The 17th amendment provided for Senators to be elected by popular vote rather than by state legislatures. The intended effect was to dilute state influence over the Congress. Let’s give some power back to the states so they can exert more influence over Congressional excess. For those who argue that the people should elect Senators, consider that they elect U.S. Representatives and they elect the members of the state legislatures who would in turn elect the Senators]

8. Amend the Constitution to change the presidential term of office from four years to six years; and to prohibit presidents from serving more than one six-year term during a lifetime.

9. Amend the Constitution to change the term of office of U.S. representatives from two years to four years; and to prohibit representatives from serving more than one four-year term during a lifetime.

10. Amend the Constitution to prohibit U.S. senators from serving more than one six-year term during a lifetime.

11. Amend the Constitution to restrict Congress from meeting more than six months in every two years. [This provides plenty of time for Congress to address its truly necessary business, and it will force the leaders to set efficient agendas and not to entertain unnecessary and frivolous proposals. It will have the added benefit of giving Congressmen and Senators time to pursue their real livelihoods, and in so doing, more fully understand the effects of laws they pass, and more fully engage with the people.]

Two points: First, there are inevitable arguments against passing the term-limit amendments. Restricting service to one term during a lifetime is drastic—it will destroy continuity in the Congress and White House. Yes, it will. It will prevent career elected officials from catering to lobbyists in order to achieve financial gain, and it will mean that elected officials no longer will be beholding to powerful interests with money for reelection. I listened last week to an NPR interview with U.S. Representative Mike Castle, who was defeated in Delaware’s Republican Congressional Primary by Christine O’Donnell. At the end of the interview, Castle was asked what his plans were for the future. His reply was that he “really had no idea.” That, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with Congress—those elected anticipate, accurately, that once elected, their incumbency will propel them to a career in the office. Many career Congressmen have no other vocation, and expect to earn a living from Congressional pay and from dubious other remuneration from relationships with lobbyists. Another argument is that the power of the federal government will be curtailed if such amendments pass. Well, that’s the point, isn’t it?

The second point is that it is not likely that two-thirds of both houses of Congress will propose such a set of amendments. Certainly, any set of proposed amendments must come from a convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures; or a Constitutional Convention demanded by the people. Ten years ago I would have considered such action either by the states or by the people to be no more than wishful thinking. Now I think that it is not outside the realm of possibility if government continues to ignore the Constitution and the wishes of the people.

Finally, a more light-hearted proposal: Let’s pass an amendment to the Constitution that fines Congressmen and Senators $1,000 for every law passed; and pays them $2,000 for every law repealed. Who knows; the federal code may eventually become readable!

Hope and Change

Keep in mind that, as much as President Obama and Congress want to change the American gvernment and the economy, the people still are the ultimate power to affect change in this country.

As Jefferson said,

"I consider the people who constitute a society or nation as the source of all authority in that nation; as free to transact their common concerns by any agents they think proper; to change these agents individually, or the organization of them in form or function whenever they please; that all the acts done by these agents under the authority of the nation are the acts of the nation, are obligatory on them and enure to their use, and can in no wise be annulled or affected by any change in the form of the government or of the persons administering it." (Italics mine)

Thus, if the people do not like what Congress and the president are doing, then they may vote them out of office. It will be interesting to see on Nov. 2 if enough of the people who say they are outraged by the shenanigans of Obama and Congress will vote incumbent representatives and senators out of office in the hope of correcting the actions of the last two years; and whether a new majority in Congress will do what those who elected them expect.

It is in no way assured that Republicans, if they regain control of Congress, ultimately will succeed in reversing the egregious acts of the Democrat-controlled Congress, or that they even will try to do so. Republicans, under the 2nd Bush Administration, were as guilty of expanding the federal government as the Democrats. The only significant difference is that the Republicans have did not try to push the nation down the road to a socialist national health system. But that doesn't excuse them from their excesses in the Iraq war and in TARP.

So will there be a change away from "hope and change," or will it be business as usual? If Republicans regain control of Congress and do not correct the course down which the Obama administration has steered us, they will be pounding nails into the coffin of their own party.