Beyond The Broken Spectrum

After reading an article over at Yahoo! regarding the next steps that the Republicans should take to get back in power, one line caught my eye, and leads me to believe that the Republicans might be out of the game for a little while longer.

Rep Mike Pence said that while the GOP does need to adopt new technology and ideas, it really needs to “get back to basics.”

“We need to be willing to fight for freedom, free markets and traditional family values,” he said.

It’s pretty clear that they intend on making the same mistakes all over again. They’re going to “fight for freedom” while fighting for traditional family values. With Republicans trying to legislate morality, there will be no fight for freedom, as they try to infringe on the private lives of citizens. They’ll also fight for free markets, whatever that means by their standards. Sounds like more bad regulation or no regulation, all the while keeping in the back pockets of lobbyists. Then again, that sounds like the Democrats as well. It’s so hard to tell the difference between the two parties these days when it comes to running our economy.

The only way the Republicans are coming back into power any time soon is if the Democrats screw up royally, which is likely. It’s just a shame that people will keep voting one or the other in every time the other screws up instead of looking for something new and better.

A father is suing the Turkish Education Ministry for forcing his 11-year-old daughter to watch a “racist” and “disturbing” film countering claims that Ottoman Turks committed genocide against Armenians in 1915 with graphic allegations of Armenian atrocities against Turks.

The landmark case takes on what human rights activists have called the state’s militarist policy of brainwashing Turkey’s schoolchildren to the point of racist paranoia, aiming to preserve a nationalist status quo criticized by the European Union, which Turkey is keen to join.

“My daughter was very disturbed and frightened by the documentary and kept asking me if the Armenians had cut us up,” said Serdar Kaya, an ethnic Turkish doctor, who is suing the ministry and the child’s school for inciting racial hatred.

“There are many mass graves, bones and skulls in the DVD. They have interviewed old grandads who inspire confidence and compassion. When they say things like ‘They cut off his head’ and ‘They used it instead of firewood’, that is bound to stay with the children,” Serdar Degirmencioglu, a psychologist, told the Armenian newspaper Agos when news first broke that the documentary was being shown to primary school children — including ethnic Armenian Turks.

The Education Ministry says that it has stopped the distribution of the documentary, “Sari Gelin (Blonde Bride),” named after an Armenian folk song. But it has apparently not recalled it and critics say that it remains part of the curriculum.

Click here for the full story from the Times of London.

NORML – A majority of west coast voters support regulating the sale of marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol, according to national poll of 1,053 likely voters by Zogby International and commissioned by California NORML and Oaksterdam University.Fifty-eight percent of respondents residing on the west coast agree that cannabis should be “taxed and legally regulated like alcohol and cigarettes.” Only thirty-six percent of west coast respondents oppose regulating the sale of marijuana for adults.

Nationally, support for taxing and regulating cannabis stands at 44 percent. Among likely voters on the east coast, 48 percent endorse legalizing marijuana. Respondents’ support fell to approximately 37 percent in the southern and central regions of the United States.

In January, a national CBS/New York Times poll reported that 41 percent of Americans support legalizing marijuana – up from just 27 percent in 1979.

Responding to the latest Zogby poll, NORML Executive Director Allen St. Pierre said, “Public support for replacing the illicit marijuana market with a legally regulated, controlled market similar to alcohol, complete with age restrictions and quality controls, continues to grow, and appears to have achieved majority support on the west coast – where many voters are already familiar with the state-licensed use and, in some cases, sale of medical cannabis.”

He added, “As voters and legislators continue to look for alternative ways to raise tax revenue for public services and reduce law enforcement costs in this troubled economy, we expect the public’s support for taxing and regulating cannabis to continue to grow — not just on the west coast, but nationwide.”

Nationally, younger voters age 18 to 29 are most likely (55 percent) to support regulating pot. Older voters age 50 to 64 are nearly evenly divided (48 percent) in their support for legalization.

The poll found that a majority of registered Democrat voters (53 percent) back taxing cannabis, versus only 32 percent of Republicans.

For more information, please contact Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director, at (202) 483-5500 or Dale Gieringer, California NORML Coordinator, at (415) 563-5858.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/25/boxer-seeks-ratify-treaty-erode-rights/

Senator Barbara Boxer of California has seen fit to revive talks and urge President Obama to push forward with the ratification of a UN treaty, Convention of the Rights of the Child. This treaty has been ratified by 183 countries with the exception of the United States and Somalia. Advocates of the treaty are using the comparison of the US to Somalia in an attempt to grief us into ratifying a treaty that would infringe on our own society’s laws and regulations.

While the treaty can be seen as noble, it is ultimately irrelevant. We as a nation are quite capable of establishing our own civil laws and require no outside help in the matter. If we were to ratify this one of many UN treaties, we would ultimately give up a degree of control of our society to foreign rule, which is unacceptable. We shouldn’t be concerned with ratifying treaties just for the satisfaction of the rest of the world, we should be focused on our issues and come up with our own solutions rather than allowing outside governing bodies dictate our policy to us.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7909563.stm

A woman has been found guilty of manslaughter after a shopper was killed following a row over queue jumping.

It seems that while a man had been waiting in line, this woman pushed past him and cut in line. The guy had words with her so she called her boyfriend who was outside in the car. The boyfriend then got out and walked inside the store, where his girlfriend pointed out the guy that had yelled at her. The boyfriend then walked up to the wrong man and hit him in the head, which resulted in him falling and hitting his head even harder. This caused the innocent man that was hit to have fatal brain damage.

Both the girlfriend and boyfriend have been charged with manslaughter, to which the boyfriend pleaded guilty, however the girlfriend plead not guilty. The girlfriend told the court she was shocked and disgusted when her boyfriend hit the wrong person.

At the time of the attack the boyfriend was out on bail, tagged and under curfew for shoplifting, while the girlfriend has previous convictions for deception and handling stolen goods. They’ll both be sentenced at a later date.

Hopefully they get at least 7 years each with eligibility for early parol for probation after half of the sentence has been served. These kind of irrational acts of violence should be punished every time.

Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell

I don’t know whether this belongs in the comic-relief category or the future-threats category, but the Harvard Law School is having a conference to analyze the “free market mindset.” The basic premise of the conference seems to be that people who believe in limited government are psychologically troubled.

The conference schedule features presentations such as “How Thinking Like an Economist Undermines Community” and “Addicted to Incentives: How the Ideology of Self Interest Can Be Self-Fulfilling.” The most absurd presentation, though, may be the one entitled, “Colossal Failure: The Output Bias of Market Economies.” According to the description, the author argues that the market “delivers excessive levels of consumption.” Damn those entrepreneurs for creating so much wealth!

In the good old days of Soviet dictatorship, the regime classified dissidents as being mentally ill (after all, only a nutcase would fail to see the glories of communism).

Now that leftists at Harvard want to portray laissez-faire philosophy as being somewhat akin to a mental disorder, maybe the next step will be re-education camps for Cato staff? Maybe the next “stimulus” bill could include a few earmarks for such facilities? I’m keeping my fingers crossed that I get sent some place warm.

Article originally found at http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/02/25/is-libertarianism-a-sign-of-mental-illness/

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19365.html

I felt that today, I don’t even have to write an article concerning this, as the numbers speak for themselves. Anyone putting Obama and fiscal responsibility in the same sentence is delusional and in very deep denial.

A small tidbit from the article says a lot about where we’re headed.

“The 2009 deficit, for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, is now projected at $1.75 trillion, after a final White House adjustment allowing $250 billion in more aid for failing banks. Even if Obama should succeed with all his proposals, the 2019 projected deficit is $712 billion and the national debt will have almost doubled again to $23.1 trillion.”

I’ve almost considered refusing to pay taxes down the road for all of the wreckless spending happening on the hill. Funny how it’s illegal for me to not pay taxes to the government, but it isn’t illegal for the government to steal money from me and spend it wrecklessly in ways that our government was never intended to cover.

Fox News – A study conducted by Northwestern University showed people are now getting high on and abusing a legal substance: caffeine.

It seems people are starting to abuse caffeine as a drug and this is simply intolerable. I plan to raise legislation to make consumption of caffeine illegal due to this gross misuse of the substance. Our children are abusing this drug and it is simply no longer safe to allow people to consume the drug caffeine. Caffeine is a gateway drug and will only lead them to harder drugs down the road such as pcp and meth. We have to stop this now!

I had a discussion with a woman on facebook today concerning my support of gay marriage. While I generally do not practice posting conversations I’ve had with other people on my blog, I felt the need to post this one up.

Her: Stephen, you don’t know me from Adam, but I must say something here. I hope this message is private and doesn’t show up on your wall, as a way of avoiding controversy.

The reason why gay marriage is not a good thing is because God is very clear about marriage being between a man and a woman. God did not create a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, he created a man and a woman. He is very clear about homosexuality being an abomination, and he gives homosexuals over to themselves and their passions.

Without regard to popular opinion, this country WAS founded on Christian principles. Don’t you see the effect of pushing those principles out of the way for the ever increasing liberal agenda.

Hope you care to continue the conversation.

———-
Me: Separation of church and state guides my beliefs here, as I believe that regardless of my own personal beliefs, the law of the land supersedes me.

We can not make something that is considered a “sin” illegal on the basis that God said it wasn’t right, if he did say it isn’t right.

If you want my very personal opinion on the subject, I have very little faith in the bible, a man made document that has been passed around and continuously edited by man during translation for years. The bible is just not credible due to the greed of man. If we are all truly created in the image of our creator, then what a person does in their personal lives is none of our business, and if they are wrong, they will answer to God for any wrongs they have done when the day comes.

———-
Her: Ah, very little faith! Yes, that is the thing. Well, I could talk (type) until your ears (eyes) turn blue and not be able to help you understand, so I leave it at that. You are right though, everyone will be held accountable to God at the end of their lives. I, personally, wouldn’t want God to say to me, “Who are you? I don’t know you.”

Just one more thing, and I am surprized that you do not know it already being as how you seem to be so smart and savvy politically. There is no separation of church and state in the constitution. What is there is about not forming a national religion, like the Church of England. Aside from that, there is nothing about separation of church and state.

———-
Me: My faith has little to do with this. I believe the motto is, In God We Trust, not In The Bible We Trust. There is no doubt in my mind that the bible has been edited and is therefore not 100% trustworthy. Also I point to the fact that God is the judge of us all, so I or anyone else are in no position to judge another person’s private beliefs.

As for the separation of church and state, yes it is true, there is no actual clause that says, separation of church and state. The clause actually reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .”

From there, everything is subject to interpretation, and based on the thoughts of our founding fathers, they clearly intended to keep affairs of the state and affairs of the church separate. Therefore the reason why I believe in the separation of church and state.

Passing a law restricting marriage between a man and woman is an infringement of the law, which restricts congress from passing laws that pertain to religious matters, which clearly gay marriage is.

As for state’s individually, the matter becomes a little tricky. The constitution does not govern state legislation, unless the legislation conflicts with a law delegated by the constitution. Since banning gay marriage does not fall under federal jurisdiction, the constitution has no bearing on the matter and the issue falls to the people of each individual state to decide. At this point, it is a matter of being the will of the people, and at this point I am no longer bound by the constitution in my decision making, and it falls to my belief system.

My belief system tells me to not infringe on the private lives of others.

We are a society of many beliefs and religions, with some religions allowing same-sex marriage. Therefore, banning same-sex marriage can be construed as religious persecution. One religion, that being Christianity, cannot be held up above others just for the fact that we are largely a nation of Christians.

Some of our greatest leaders have believed in and supported the separation of church and state. While this does not necessarily mean that I have to believe in the same thing, I feel that this was always the original intention of our founders, not to mention that it is a personal belief of mine that we should have the separation of church and state in order to show that all religions are equal and so as to not infringe on the rights of people of other religions besides my own.

———-
Her: Oh just never mind. You are so busy being right that you have no room in your mind or heart to listen to the truth.

“Therefore, banning same-sex marriage can be construed as religious persecution.”

Shut up. That is the most stupid statement I have read in a long time.

——————————-

Looks to me like tolerance isn’t a strong suit for her.

Fellow Americans,

Please know: I am black; I grew up in the segregated South. I did not vote for Barack Obama; I wrote in Ron Paul’s name as my choice for president. Most importantly, I am not race conscious. I do not require a black president to know that I am a person of worth, and that life is worth living. I do not require a black president to love the ideal of America.

I cannot join you in your celebration. I feel no elation. There is no smile on my face. I am not jumping with joy. There are no tears of triumph in my eyes. For such emotions and behavior to come from me, I would have to deny all that I know about the requirements of human flourishing and survival – all that I know about the history of the United States of America, all that I know about American race relations, and all that I know about Barack Obama as a politician. I would have to deny the nature of the “change” that Obama asserts has come to America. Most importantly, I would have to abnegate my certain understanding that you have chosen to sprint down the road to serfdom that we have been on for over a century. I would have to pretend that individual liberty has no value for the success of a human life. I would have to evade your rejection of the slender reed of capitalism on which your success and mine depend. I would have to think it somehow rational that 94 percent of the 12 million blacks in this country voted for a man because he looks like them (that blacks are permitted to play the race card), and that they were joined by self-declared “progressive” whites who voted for him because he doesn’t look like them. I would have to be wipe my mind clean of all that I know about the kind of people who have advised and taught Barack Obama and will fill posts in his administration – political intellectuals like my former colleagues at the Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.

I would have to believe that “fairness” is equivalent of justice. I would have to believe that man who asks me to “go forward in a new spirit of service, in a new service of sacrifice” is speaking in my interest. I would have to accept the premise of a man that economic prosperity comes from the “bottom up,” and who arrogantly believes that he can will it into existence by the use of government force. I would have to admire a man who thinks the standard of living of the masses can be improved by destroying the most productive and the generators of wealth.

Finally, Americans, I would have to erase from my consciousness the scene of 125,000 screaming, crying, cheering people in Grant Park, Chicago irrationally chanting “Yes We Can!” Finally, I would have to wipe all memory of all the times I have heard politicians, pundits, journalists, editorialists, bloggers and intellectuals declare that capitalism is dead – and no one, including especially Alan Greenspan, objected to their assumption that the particular version of the anti-capitalistic mentality that they want to replace with their own version of anti-capitalism is anything remotely equivalent to capitalism.

So you have made history, Americans. You and your children have elected a black man to the office of the president of the United States, the wounded giant of the world. The battle between John Wayne and Jane Fonda is over – and that Fonda won. Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern must be very happy men. Jimmie Carter, too. And the Kennedys have at last gotten their Kennedy look-a-like. The self-righteous welfare statists in the suburbs can feel warm moments of satisfaction for having elected a black person. So, toast yourselves: 60s countercultural radicals, 80s yuppies and 90s bourgeois bohemians. Toast yourselves, Black America. Shout your glee Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Duke, Stanford, and Berkeley. You have elected not an individual who is qualified to be president, but a black man who, like the pragmatist Franklin Roosevelt, promises to – Do Something! You now have someone who has picked up the baton of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. But you have also foolishly traded your freedom and mine – what little there is left – for the chance to feel good. There is nothing in me that can share your happy obliviousness.

-Anne Worthum LewRockwell.com

President Obama plans to reduce our annual deficit to 533 billion by 2013.

Is it just me, or is this more of the same deficit spending that he so adamantly opposed? At a time when we need to start reducing our total debt, our president plans to take us even several more trillion into debt. In the very near future, foreign investors and other countries will begin to stop buying our debt, and the federal government will start printing money out of thin air. I guess money does grow on trees…

This in turn will lead to more devaluation of our currency and massive amounts of extra taxes down the road in order to pay off our debt. Our children may not even get the chance to be taxed to death if we have nothing left by that time due to horrible decisions made by our politicians.

So far we’ve spent around 2 trillion trying to save an economy that obviously needs a reboot that will allow for stronger, better, more efficient companies to pick up the ball and run with it where others have failed and done a poor job. The biggest failure here was the federal government in allowing such poor regulations to lead us to this problem, and then thinking that throwing money at the problem and bailing out poorly handled businesses would solve everything.

Also with all of this money being spent are promises of creating or saving 3 million jobs. Creating and saving are two very different things, yet no one seems to be picking up on this. Also while they continue to use the 3 million mark, most experts have said it will more than likely create around 1.3 million jobs rather than the very optimistic view of 3 million jobs. With the scare tactics currently being used to prod people into supporting these horrible policies, I have to say that at this point, I believe we are flat out being lied to, or our president and members of congress are complete morons.

I do applaud some governors for refusing to accept the stimulus money, as I hope they have come to the realization of what kind of damage this will do to us. Though I somehow believe that this is merely a political stunt more then an effort to oppose this sort of reckless spending.

Instead of attacking the real problem by altering poor regulation rules, they’ve decided to push us even further towards bankruptcy, and may possibly push us over the cliff. A free and fair market will get us out of this mess along with everyone taking a little fiscal responsibility. The only problem is that democrats don’t believe in the free market system and republicans don’t believe in the fair and honest market system. With these people in control, we’re headed for the edge, there is no doubt at all about this. It could be too late.

Shortly after class, an economics student approaches his economics professor and says, “I don’t understand this stimulus bill. Can you explain it to me?”

The professor replied, “I don’t have any time to explain it at my office, but if you come over to my house on Saturday and help me with my weekend project, I’ll be glad to explain it to you.” The student agreed.

At the agreed-upon time, the student showed up at the professor’s house. The professor stated that the weekend project involved his backyard pool.

They both went out back to the pool, and the professor handed the student a bucket. Demonstrating with his own bucket, the professor said, “First, go over to the deep end, and fill your bucket with as much water as you can.” The student did as he was instructed.

The professor then continued, “Follow me over to the shallow end, and then dump all the water from your bucket into it.” The student was naturally confused, but did as he was told.

The professor then explained they were going to do this many more times, and began walking back to the deep end of the pool.

The confused student asked, “Excuse me, but why are we doing this?”

The professor matter-of-factly stated that he was trying to make the shallow end much deeper.

The student didn’t think the economics professor was serious, but figured that he would find out the real story soon enough.

However, after the 6th trip between the shallow end and the deep end, the student began to become worried that his economics professor had gone mad. The student finally said, “All we’re doing is wasting valuable time and effort on unproductive pursuits. Even worse, when this process is all over, everything will be at the same level it was before, so all you’ll really have accomplished is the destruction of what could have been truly productive action!”

The professor put down his bucket and replied with a smile, “Congratulations. You now understand the stimulus bill.”

-Original Author Unknown

According to the Dallas Morning News, the Texas Restaurant Association has decided to support a state-wide smoking ban in an attempt to “level the playing field”. This can only be construed as a cut and run tactic as they have folded their hand for business rights. Instead of advocating for all business owner’s rights to decide what activities can be performed on their own property, the restaurant association has decided that a state-wide smoking ban would be more fair due to businesses being forced to instate smoking bans by local communities, which in turn has driven potential customers away from their businesses to others outside of the cities that do cater to smokers.

One aspect to consider is the impact of such a state-wide smoking ban. What about all of the businesses that have invested heavily to ensure their ability to cater to both smokers and non-smokers? All of this money will have been wasted if a state-wide smoking ban is instituted. So not only will this hurt businesses and deeply infringe on property rights, it will also severely hurt those businesses that have taken the time to invest in seperate rooms and ventilation systems that will not be able to be used along with losing the money involved in all of the other costs associated with this sort of re-tooling. Another point to consider is that with less customers patronizing businesses due to smoking bans, these businesses will lose money and will ultimately pass the costs on to you, the customer.

Let business owners decide what activities can be done on their private property. People seem to be confusing public places with public property, and want to enforce the same rules for public property on privately owned public places. Let the customers decide which businesses to patronize based on the policies of the business. There are already several businesses that have voluntarily instated smoking bans at the request of their customers, so there are businesses out there where people can go that have a no smoking policy; there is no need to inact smoking bans.

If businesses feel that smoking bans by cities have hurt their business by deflecting their patrons to other businesses that do cater to smokers, then these businesses should take up the cause of having these bans removed, or move their business to an area that does not have a smoking ban in effect. Each area has its own set of regulations, therefore there is no such thing as a “level playing field”. I would urge those businesses that feel they have been wronged and pay dues to the Texas Restaurant Association to immediately stop paying dues until the association starts protecting the rights of business owners again.

Legislation such as this is generally pushed by greed rather then reason. Please see through the greed and support the rights of business owners by speaking out against the state-wide smoking ban.

Yahoo! NEW YORK – Crude oil prices have fallen to new lows for this year. So you’d think gas prices would sink right along with them.

Not so.

On Thursday, for example, crude oil closed just under $34 a barrel, its lowest point for 2009. But the national average price of a gallon of gas rose to $1.95 on the same day, its peak for the year. On Friday gas went a penny higher.

To drivers once again grimacing as they tank up, it sounds like a conspiracy. But it has more to do with an energy market turned upside-down that has left gas cut off from its usual economic moorings.

The price of gas is indeed tied to oil. It’s just a matter of which oil.

The benchmark for crude oil prices is West Texas Intermediate, drilled exactly where you would imagine. That’s the price, set at the New York Mercantile Exchange, that you see quoted on business channels and in the morning paper.

Right now, in an unusual market trend, West Texas crude is selling for much less than inferior grades of crude from other places around the world. A severe economic downturn has left U.S. storage facilities brimming with it, sending prices for the premium crude to five-year lows.

But it is the overseas crude that goes into most of the gas made in the United States. So prices at the pump will probably keep going up no matter what happens to the benchmark price of crude oil.

“We’re going definitely over $2, and I bet we’ll hit $2.50 before spring,” said Tom Kloza, publisher and chief oil analyst at Oil Price Information Service. “This is going to be an unusual year.”

On the last day of 2008, gas went for $1.62 on average, according to the auto club AAA, the Oil Price Information Service and Wright Express, a company that tracks transportation data.

The recession in America has dramatically cut demand for crude oil, and inventories are piling up. So prices for West Texas crude have fallen well below what oil costs from places like the North Sea, Saudi Arabia and South America.

That foreign oil sells in some cases for $10 more per barrel — and that doesn’t even include shipping.

Brent North Sea crude, which feeds some East Coast refineries — and therefore winds up at many gas pumps around America — now costs about $7 more per barrel than the West Texas crude. Deutsche Bank analysts say the trend should continue.

Historically, West Texas International crude has cost more. So nobody bothered building the necessary pipelines to carry it beyond the nearby refineries in the Midwest, parts of Texas and a handful of other places.

Now that the premium oil is suddenly very inexpensive, refiners elsewhere can’t get their hands on it.

“It’s so cheap,” said Lynn Westphall, the senior VP of external affairs at San Antonio-based Tesoro, which owns a half dozen refineries on the West Coast and Hawaii. “But you can’t just build a pipeline to everywhere. We know we can’t get it.”

Tesoro’s refineries in North Dakota and Utah use locally drilled oil and Canadian oil, which also has been running about $10 more per barrel than West Texas crude.

So why not build more pipelines? Because investing billions of dollars over several years makes no sense when the prices could just flip a year from now to where they were before.

“How long is WTI going to be cheaper than Venezuelan oil? Than Canadian?” asked Charles T. Drevna, president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association. “You just don’t build a pipeline like that.”

At the same time, refiners have seen the same headlines as everyone else about job losses and consumer spending. They’ve slashed production just to avoid taking losses on gasoline no one will buy. Result: Higher gas prices.

“Why should a refiner produce more gasoline when the stuff we produce is not being used?” Drevna said.

Of course, complex explanations of the diverging price paths of West Texas crude and gas are unlikely to placate frustrated drivers. Memories of last summer’s $4-plus gas have not receded.

“Drivers are being ripped off even more now than before,” said Stuart Pollok, who was filling up recently at a Chevron station in downtown Los Angeles. He pointed out Exxon Mobil Corp. reeled in billions in profits last year when oil prices neared $150.

Others see the conspiracy reaching higher.

“It got really low during the elections and now it’s going back up,” said Christel Sayegh, a 23-year-old graphic designer in Los Angeles. “They do that every election, though, right?”