Monthly Archives: September 2010

I liked this tweet by the Dialectical Playa so much I posted it on my facebook wall for my friends to enjoy too, properly attributed of course.

I wonder if the Politburo snarkily refers to Kim Jong-un as “Lil’ Kim” behind his back. *Snicker*

That’s funny. That North Korean Politburo would refer to Kim Jong-un, Kim Jong Il’s son and likely successor, “Lil’ Kim.” Then, a friend of mine who lives in Singapore, but is originally from Philly, whom I met in Honolulu, and who I can confirm is among the Earth’s finest individuals, replied thusly:

Dude, check this out, humerous fashion breakdowns of the world’s great dick-tators

No he couldn’t embed the link on a Facebook comment, although that would be cool (contact me to purchase that idea, Zuckerberg).  The link is an article in at ForeignPolicy.com titled “The Devil Wears Taupe,” whose lede is “Not all the world’s dictators are clotheshorses, but as these leaders show, sometimes politics, power, and polyester combine to make fashion magic.” It profiles the fashion sense of several of the world’s more notorious dictators, such as Kim Jong-Il:

It’s all about the taupe: North Korean leader Kim Jong-il has recently gone from man of mystery to international fashion icon. While the North Korean media frequently spit out unintentionally comedic headlines, it seemed oddly appropriate when the country’s state-run newspaper Rodong Sinmun boasted in April that Kim’s trademark khaki jumpsuit was now “chic.” Could it be his look – “two-piece army suit, bouffant hairdo, Ray-ban sunglasses, and platform shoes,” as one ABC reporter put it — offers some inspiration during these austere times? In any case, his fashion sense has more to do with function than form. Apparently, the often paunchy-looking ecru garment conceals a bullet-proof vest, while the hairdo and the shoes are height enhancers for the diminutive dictator.

And photos to boot. Pun intended.

My contribution to the conversation was this:

If Qaddafi had put his organizational talents, leadership skills, and overall savvy, to work in the fashion industry he’d be homeless. I base this on the success of his dictatorship, which illustrates why government terrifies Libertarians.

But he knows how to get on TV, which has to count for something, and at the end of the day, I like his clothes. That counts for something too. Like my friend says, you have to admit Nazi’s had great uniforms. He also says that’s why the Italians turned to Fascism. The Uniforms. They were sharp.

Now we await the DialecticalPlaya’s contribution.

So word is the GOP is going to pick up seats this November. Not because they’ve received a positive review or mandate of sorts from Americans, but because they’re the minority party and the majority party is sucking it. So says Gary Johnson, so take it to the bank. Yet, rather than let Democrats continue to orchestrate their loss of the House – lie low, in other words – the Republicans gave Democrats an issue to criticize them for by releasing the GOP’s newest pledge to America, which may charitably be described as a small step in the right direction that will be broken soon. (Spoiler alert.) So for American national politics it’s actually pretty good.

In spite of much chatter by the pinhead guild on Television, the Internet, and Twitter, no one seems sure if Republicans were foolish or wise to give Democrats ammunition for a final fall charge. When Democrats point out that Republicans can’t expect voters to take their Pledge very seriously for a lack of small government bonafides and fiscal credibility, Republicans retort that Democrats have less of each, and lost them faster. So that’s the choice. Actually it’s worse than that.

I watched the Daily Show tonight, and the joke went that if Jon Stewart were Bill O’Reilly’s size and sizzle he could influence the national debate as much as O’Reilly does, and everyone would have affordable health insurance. I assume that Stewart believes a better version of Obamacare would accomplish precisely that. So do Republicans, who are apparently now the champions of repeal-re-reform health care. No, it’s not a bill that tears down the regulation that prevents most aspects of health care from operating like the elective surgery industry. It’s something else. Perhaps they’ll call it “Republicare,” missing the irony. Like I said, that’s the choice. Not so animating.

By the way, GOP: do not call your repeal-re-reform “Republicare.” You’ll ruin “Republic,” a truly fine English word. Then again, Republics are inherently a compromise because, as a form of government, they necessarily restrict the freedom citizens principally charged them with preserving. Like the TSA. Yet most Libertarians fly, not really having an alternative. Now do you see why I like limited government?

It’s also why I’m a huge fan of the Seasteading Institute, whose quest is simply to live freely in the classical conception. I think that’s more noble than space discovery, which I long for with the same part of my soul that led every mariner to sea.

We must learn to live freely amongst ourselves. Our bounty of historical evidence predicts we’ll do so when pigs fly.

I added a page to DuelingBarstools a month or two ago called Freedom Animates Me. It’s basically my political worldview as I see things right now. Hopefully it gives my readership an idea of where I’m coming from. On a friend’s recommendation I trimmed it a bit from its original version, which ended with advocacy of Gov. Gary Johnson and detracted from its original purpose. But as far as I know Gary Johnson’s politics more closely reflect my own of any potential candidate. So I’ve posted the original version here, including why in light of my political worldview I endorse Gov. Gary Johnson for 2012, which in short is that he believes in freedom as I do.

Watch this video (embedded below) of Gov. Gary Johnson addressing the 9/12 rally in D.C. All assembled cheered when Gov. Johnson advocated his common sense, business approach to limited government. And they should. Government is the most petulant of spoiled children and must be guarded with common sense and fiscal restraint at all times. Government’s functions must be limited because there are many things in society that simply shouldn’t be legislated, and instead left to the people to choose. Furthermore, Gov. Johnson’s exemplary record in fiscally responsible, limited government makes him a political anomaly in America – one well worth cheering for, and certainly an individual whose positions should be given full consideration by anyone within a thousand feet of a Gadsden flag.

Yet, a loud portion of the crowd booed when he spoke of legalizing marijuana and ending the war on drugs. Apparently, those booing haven’t considered the application of Gov. Johnson’s method, for which they previously cheered, to their partisan or ideological beliefs about drugs. Nor do they appear to have considered the counterargument to their beliefs.

When they do they’ll see that same logic that ended the prohibition of alcohol, which even Sean Hannity must agree with since he regularly speaks of his fondness for beer, applies to all drugs, and marijuana in particular because marijuana is a substance more akin to alcohol than crystal methamphetamine.  As I’ve written before, legalizing marijuana – treating marijuana like alcohol – “will eliminate a substantial portion of the criminal element of drug distribution, conserve human and law enforcement resources, and permit society to deal with drug abuse as a medical, not criminal, issue.” Don’t take my word for it, though, consider what Gov. Gary Johnson recently had to say about it:

[C]urrent drug laws are contributing to an all-out war on our southern border — all in the name of a modern-day prohibition that is no more logical or realistic than the one we abandoned 75 years ago…

Prosecuting the war on drugs with sufficient fervor to satisfy the portion of the crowd that booed Gov. Johnson requires near religious zeal. And it forgets that Americans do not like being told what to do, or what we can’t do. Don’t each of us wish to be free to choose, and accept the consequences of our actions when they adversely affect others’ security or freedom? So why do social conservatives insist Government play parent to the nation’s adults when it comes to drugs? Especially when the war on drugs is a failure, and spectacularly so, which is Gov. Johnson’s point.

The reason is social conservatives too often confuse freedom for the exercise of governmental power over others, a sentiment common to many religions. As Ghandi said, however, “[a] religion that takes no account of practical affairs and does not help to solve them is no religion.”

Dear social conservatives, allow me to turn to the Good Book. When the Israelites tired of mana, and wanted quail instead, God gave it to them. Not because He thought it objectively good for them, but because God respected their freedom to choose for themselves, even to their detriment. Now will you permit your fellow adult citizens the freedom to choose whether or not to consume marijuana?

No? I’d like to point out that Thomas Jefferson smoked lots of hemp, as did George Washington, among other founding fathers and early presidents. Consider:

Dr. Burke, president of the American Historical Reference Society and a consultant for the Smithsonian Institute, counted seven early presidents as cannabis smokers: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor and Franklin Pierce. 41 “Early letters from our founding fathers refer to the pleasures of hemp smoking,” said Burke. Pierce, Taylor and Jackson, all military men, smoked it with their troops. Cannabis was twice as popular among American soldiers in the Mexican War as in Vietnam: Pierce wrote to his family that it was “about the only good thing” about that war.

In fact, Washington and Jefferson routinely exchanged hemp varietals. Legally. Now some rich quotes by individuals whom we all should listen to:

“Make the most of the Indian hemp seed, and sow it everywhere!” – George Washington, U.S. President, in a note to his gardener at Mount Vernon.

“Hemp is of first necessity to the wealth & protection of the country.” – Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President.

“Some of my finest hours have been spent on the back of my veranda, smoking hemp and observing as far as the eye can see.” – Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President

“We shall, by and by, want a world of hemp more for our own consumption.” – John Adams, U.S. President.

“Two of my favorite things are sitting on my front porch smoking a pipe of sweet hemp, and playing my Hohner harmonica.” -Abraham Lincoln, U.S. President, from a letter written by Lincoln during his presidency to the head of the Hohner Harmonica Company in Germany.

“Prohibition… goes beyond the bound of reason in that it attempts to control a man’s appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded” -Abraham Lincoln, U.S. President.

More on marijuana’s long service to human civilization here. Now, more common sense:

“The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world.” – Carl Sagan, renown scientist, astronomer, astrochemist, author and TV host

“Why use up the forests which were centuries in the making and the mines which required ages to lay down, if we can get the equivalent of forest and mineral products in the annual growth of the hemp fields?” – Henry Ford, whose first Model-T car was constructed from hemp fibers and built to run on hemp gasoline

“The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this.” – Albert Einstein, famous theoretical physicist [Editor's note: Obviously this was back when it was a secret that the war on drugs spawned violent crime within and without our borders. Now it's commonly known fact.]

“Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at face value, marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than marijuana ever could.” William F. Buckley, Jr., prominent conservative, author, commentator and TV personality.

Or, as Gov. Johnson put it in 1999:

A teenager today will tell you that a bottle of beer is harder to come by than a marijuana joint. The Partnership for a Drug Free America was bragging to me that it was responsible for the “Here’s your brain, and here’s your brain on drugs” ad. Well, some kids believe that, perhaps three-year-olds, maybe even nine- or ten-year-olds. But at some point, kids have friends who smoke marijuana for the first time. Like everybody else, I was told that if you smoke marijuana, you’re going to go crazy. You’re going to lose your mind. Then you smoked marijuana for the first time and none of those things happened. Actually, it was kind of nice. And then you realized that they weren’t telling you the truth. I envision advertising that tells the truth, which says drugs are kind of nice and that’s the lure of drugs. But if you continue to do drugs, they are a real handicap. We need to have an honest educational campaign about drugs.

And we must stop putting people in jail for making poor choices, for precisely the same reason Gov. Johnson observed that we don’t “retroactively punish the 80 million Americans who have done illegal drugs over the years.” More from Gov. Johnson:

Does anybody want to press a button that would retroactively punish the 80 million Americans who have done illegal drugs over the years? I might point out that I’m one of those individuals. In running for my first term in office, I offered up the fact that I had smoked marijuana. And the media were very quick to say, “Oh, so you experimented with marijuana?” “No,” I said, “I smoked marijuana!” This is something that I did, along with a lot of other people. I look back on it now and I view drugs as a handicap. I stopped because it was a handicap. But did my friends and I belong in jail? I don’t think that we should continue to lock up Americans because of bad choices.

Believe it or not, the failure of the booing portion of this purportedly liberty loving crowd to either identify their collective hypocrisy or be sufficiently convicted by it to reform their views on marijuana, or at least listen politely to someone who has considered the counterargument to his position, and takes care to consistently apply his governmental philosophy to all issues, is not the most noteworthy aspect of the video. It’s Gov. Gary Johnson walking onto a stage to address a crowd essential to Gary Johnson 2012 of which a substantial portion was certain to boo, ignorantly and rudely. That’s political balls, people. Big, cast iron, balls. On which Gov. Johnson bounces around the country advocating for a common sense, business approach to Constitutionally limited, fiscally accountable government. And he’s the only politician with a proven track record in doing exactly that.

Here. Glenn Reynold’s knee-jerk commentary on 9/11, written in 2001:

There’s a lot of bloviation on the cable news channels, most of which will turn out to be wrong or misleading later. Here, for your consideration, are a few points to be taken from past experience:

The Fog of War: Nobody knows much right now. Many things that we think we know are likely to be wrong.

By the way, if you haven’t seen The Fog of War, Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara, you should.

Overreaction is the Terrorist’s Friend: Even in major cases like this, the terrorist’s real weapon is fear and hysteria. Overreacting will play into their hands.

It’s Not Just Terrorists Who Take Advantage: Someone will propose new “Antiterrorism” legislation. It will be full of things off of bureaucrats’ wish lists. They will be things that wouldn’t have prevented these attacks even if they had been in place yesterday. Many of them will be civil-liberties disasters. Some of them will actually promote the kind of ill-feeling that breeds terrorism. That’s what happened in 1996. Let’s not let it happen again.

Key points on the slippery slope include the Patriot Act, Gitmo (compare this to this to this to this), Bagram, and warrantless executions of United States citizens. Witness Bobb Barr, DOMA-author turned ACLU Libertarian (talk about a change of heart), who voted for the Patriot Act:

I [regret voting for it]. I was hoping at the time that it would not be used as a floor but as a ceiling. But it’s been a taking-off point for expanded authority in a number of areas. Perhaps most important is the fact that the [Bush] administration seems to be pushing its application as broadly as it can in nonterrorism cases. [ed note: wonder what Barr thinks about Obama's warrantless executions of American citizens?] And despite the assurances by the administration that Section 215, which relates to obtaining records from libraries and other repositories, is not being used, the fact is it is being used.

Now, back to Instapundit’s excellent 9/11 analysis regarding 9/11.

Only One Antiterrorism Method Works: That’s punishing those behind it. The actual terrorists are hard to reach. But terrorism of this scale is always backed by governments. If they’re punished severely — and that means severely, not a bombed aspirin-factory but something that puts those behind it in the crosshairs — this kind of thing won’t happen again. That was the lesson of the Libyan bombing.

“Increased Security” Won’t Work. When you try to defend everything, you defend nothing. Airport security is a joke because it’s spread so thin that it can’t possibly stop people who are really serious. You can’t prevent terrorism by defensive measures; at most you can stop a few amateurs who can barely function. Note that the increased measures after TWA 800 (which wasn’t terrorism anyway, we’re told) didn’t prevent what appear to be coordinated hijackings. (Archie Bunker’s plan, in which each passenger is issued a gun on embarking, would have worked better). Deterrence works here, just as everywhere else. But you have to be serious about it.

For now, the terrorists have won. They’ve shut down the U.S. government, more or less. They’ve shut down air travel. They’re all over TV. But whether they really win depends on how we deal with this; hysterically, or like angry — but measured — adults.

Via Drudge. Discuss Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton’s political epitaph. I say we go with her own description of her *ahem* “service” – wait for it – “loo0ng and deep” (@0:56). Transcript of Norton’s soon to be infamous voicemail to a lobbyist, which “candidly” solicited a donation, is below:s

This is, uh, Eleanor Norton, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton. Uh, I noticed that you have given to uh, other colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I am a, um, Senior Member, a twenty year veteran and am Chair of the Sub-committee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management. I’m handling the largest economic development project in the United States now, the Homeland Security Compound of three buildings being built on the uh, old St. Elizabeth’s hospital site in the District of Columbia along with uh, fifteen other, uh, sites here for, that are part of the stimulus .

I was, frankly, uh, uh, surprised to see that we don’t have a record, so far as I can tell, of your having given to me despite my uh, long and deep uh, work. In fact, it’s been my major work, uh, on the committee and sub-committee it’s been essentially in your sector.

I am, I’m simply candidly calling to ask for a contribution. As the senior member of the um, committee and a sub-committee chair, we have (chuckles) obligations to raise, uh funds. And, I think it must have been me who hasn’t, frankly, uh, done my homework to ask for a contribution earlier. So I’m trying to make up for it by asking for one now, when we particularly, uh, need, uh contributions, particularly those of us who have the seniority and chairmanships and are in a position to raise the funds.

I’m asking you to give to Citizens for Eleanor Holmes Norton, PO Box 70626, DC, 20024. I’ll send you a follow-up note with appreciation for having heard me out. Thanks again.

[Academy Chairman] “Your final record is flawless…with one exception – I see you have applied to Starfleet as well.”
[Spock] “It was logical to cultivate multiple options.”
[Academy Chairman] “Logical, but unnecessary. You are hereby accepted to the Vulcan Science Academy. It is truly remarkable, Spock, that you have achieved so much – despite your disadvantage…”
[Spock] (Confused)”If you would clarify, Minister, to what disadvantage are you referring?”
[Academy Chairman] “Your Human mother.”
[Spock] (Quite sure of the decision he’s about to make)”Council, ministers – I must decline…”
[Academy Chairman] “No Vulcan has ever declined admission to this academy!”
[Spock] “Then as I am half-Human, your record remains untarnished.

Gary Johnson is a father, entrepreneur, and former two-term governor of New Mexico.  Now the chairman of the OUR America Initiative – an organization dedicated to championing civil liberties, free enterprise, and limited government – Gov. Johnson travels the country advocating for a common sense business approach to federal governance premised upon significant spending cuts, a return to Constitutionally limited government, and loosening the bounds that restrain free enterprise.  Among Gov. Johnson’s most receptive audiences has been the Tea Party.

The Tea Party is nothing if not a coalition of individuals spanning the political spectrum who share a common belief in Constitutionally limited, fiscally responsible government.  Recent polling suggests that Tea Party sentiment increasingly attracts moderates of both parties, non-branded conservatives, and Independent voters.  Like many political labels before it ‘Tea Party’ is fast becoming both a noun and an adjective.  The nouns are individuals who have attended a Tea Party event or self describe as a member thereof.  As an adjective ‘Tea Party’ may describe individuals who have not participated in a Tea Party event (and perhaps do not foresee doing so) but nonetheless share the overarching Tea Party ideal of Constitutionally limited, fiscally responsible government.  Of likely voters almost three to one favor less government than more.

Of course, deficit spending, expansion of government, and federal largesse, began long before the modern Tea Party manifested.  It is also true that no political equivalent to the Tea Party opposed the budget deficits that occurred in all but a handful of years in the post second world war era.  What produced and sustains the modern Tea Party – in name and sentiment – is the unparalleled size, scale, and far-reaching nature, of the federal government’s most recent barrage of deficit spending and economic intervention.

Advocacy, debate, and dissent, are what Americans do when politics takes unwanted turns.  The Tea Party sentiment surging countrywide demonstrates that a significant portion of Americans believe the federal government is overstepping its Constitutional bounds and regard that overreach as threatening economic and civil liberty, in addition to further bankrupting our nation and crippling the economy.

To be sure, Tea Party sentiment has a point.  The American government is out of money.  Unprecedented government intervention failed to stimulate the economy.  Current deficit spending levels are unsustainable.  Many existing state and federal entitlements are virtually insolvent. We cannot meet our present and future obligations without debasing our currency.

The solutions are plain as the problems.  Government must spend and promise much less.  It must increase real economic opportunity by breaking the bounds that restrain free enterprise.  Now and tomorrow, Government must better protect economic liberty, restore lost civil liberties, and ensure equal treatment for all Americans.

In short, what America needs is a common sense, business approach to Constitutionally limited Government.  This is precisely the approach Gary Johnson implemented in New Mexico.  As governor, his common-sense business approach reduced taxes, cut spending, and consistently delivered the best government product at the lowest price to taxpayers.  He vetoed over 1000 new spending items, slashed government waste, enacted major welfare reform, and left office with a balanced budget and treasury surplus.  And as a staunch believer in individual liberty Gov. Johnson championed free choice initiatives such as school vouchers to foster entrepreneurship in education and provide parents of all income levels with options for their children.

With a proven track record in fiscally responsible, limited government Gov. Gary Johnson is well suited to serving as the national voice for Tea Party sentiment.  Support the OUR America Initiative to the extent you’re able and put Gov. Gary Johnson’s common sense, business approach to Constitutionally limited Government into action.

Word.

From Instapundit:

Part one: America Has Become Too European.

Part two: A Return to Traditional American Virtues.

In Der Spiegel.

A few days ago I basically pledged to “throw my political advocacy and support behind Republican candidates whose limiting principles are consistent with the Constitution and freedom” in order to reform the Republican party’s limiting principles to being consistent with freedom. Enter Massachusetts congressional hopeful Sam Meas, an American of Cambodian ancestry. He doesn’t know how old he is, exactly, because after Pol Pot re-educated Meas’ father to death, he was separated from his mother during the mad scramble to get to refugee camps in Thailand, and never saw her again. Read the whole article for more info about his extraordinary personal story.

As far as Meas’ politics, he self-identifies as a Reagan Republican, because (in his words) “I owe my life to him; he allowed me to come here and he fought Communism.” Fair enough. He’s not a fan of government involvement in health care, appears to hate socialism only slightly less than communism, and thinks America is “heaven on Earth.” From his campaign page:

I am not a career politician or country club candidate. I believe that America is the greatest country on earth. I am Sam Meas and I am running for Congress. I ask for your vote on September 14th. I approve of this message and I approve of the American Dream.

Gosh, I like this guy (and typically I don’t care for Boston fans – I’m assuming he cheers for Red Sox / Patriots). Yet, the Reason article mentions – but doesn’t go into specifics about – Meas’ tendency towards standard Republican social conservatism (you know, legislating morals, mores, and traditions, that are inconsistent with individual liberty). Since Meas also self-describes as the new face of the GOP, I hope he realizes that social conservatism is inconsistent with the individual liberty we all cherish, himself perhaps most of all since he “lived under a totalitarian regime . . . [and] knows what it is like to have lost all of your freedom.” After looking Meas up on the Internet and reading his website, I don’t see any social issues discussed on his “home,” “values & pledge,” or “issue,” pages. In fact, he provides the motto “live and let live.” I’m down with that.

What I’m not down for is Newt Gingrich, whose definition of freedom of expression (particularly religious liberty) is inconsistent with individual liberty. Reason sums it up well:

Jews, Christians, or Hindus are free to build whatever they want at 51 Park Place. But not Muslims. Why? Because the terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks were Muslims. Once you strip away the Orwellian rhetoric equating peaceful religious activity with violence, Gingrich’s position really is as simple, and appalling, as that.

But Gingrich doesn’t limit expression only for Muslims, Nazi’s too: “Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington.” Here’s the problem with Newt Gingrich and individual liberty: the very criticism I have for the Democrat Party is true about Gingrich. Consider what I wrote about Democrats:

“My issue with the Democratic Party is its lack of concrete limiting principles.  Democrat party values are issue and identity group specific, waxing or waning with the polls.  They are insufficiently rigid.  This is inconsistent with equal treatment and incapable of conserving individual freedom.

Rewritten for Gingrich:

“My issue with the Democratic Party Newt Gingrich is its his lack of concrete limiting principles.  Democrat party Gingrich’s values are issue and identity group specific, waxing or waning with the polls.  They His values are insufficiently rigid.  This is inconsistent with equal treatment and incapable of conserving individual freedom.

Basically, individual freedom serves as Newt Gingrich’s limiting principle only to the extent that he agrees with you. That’s not freedom, Newt, and I won’t vote for you.

By the way, I haven’t written about the NYC Mosque yet. I was busy studying for the bar, then taking it, then traveling, and I’ve been at the bar (Stout) basically ever since. Here’s my view. There is absolutely no room for the force of government to deprive any member of the American community of freedom of expression or religion, no matter how rude their expression may be. Reasonable people can disagree as to whether the Mosque is or isn’t rude, in light of the people building the mosque, the money behind it, the selection of the location, the name Cordoba center, etc.. Personally, I think it’s pretty damn rude. I have my doubts as to the sincerity of the people building it, the intentions of the sources of money for it, and the symbolism of the name Cordoba. And if the intent truly is to build bridges with the American people, they should consider relocating since nearly 70% of the country (including Harry Reid) thinks it’s rude (inappropriate is the term the poll used), and building it there will likely prove counterproductive to their professed intentions.

The bottom line, however, is that this is America and we shouldn’t even be discussing using the immutable force of government to suppress anyone’s religion no matter how rude or inappropriate we may individually perceive it. Shit, Newt, even Palin gets that. If you profess to believe in individual freedom – economic, civil, and political liberty – then you must accept the consequences of freedom, one of which is that we often may be offended by one another. There is no right not to be offended. Your recourse to being offended is not suppression of another’s expression but exercise of your right to expression. Wtf is so hard about this?

Religion is a collective group of people’s conception of the natural order of things. Collectively religions accurately depict the natural order of things. Not because they are trying, however.  In fact, most religions tell believers it will elevate them above the natural order of things, or remake the others in its image in order to restore the rightful state of order.

Consider Judaism. It told a group of people they were more special than the natural order, and proved it by enslaving them in Egypt, bringing them out of Egypt, insulating them from the natural order for forty years, and then reintroduced them to the natural order of things, which is fighting to sustain their collective conception of natural order, which, like many other religions, offer interesting possibilities at what the natural order could be if it were the natural order, which it could be if it implemented its conception of natural order on everyone else.

Rather, religions together accurately depict natural order because the global concert of each religion’s actors all acting simultaneously and at once is precisely nature’s order. This is true even of Atheists who collectively function as a single religion. As do Voluntaryists, however non-coercively. And wouldn’t natural order be interesting if people, whom for so long have done nothing but coerce each other, just stopped it already? Then people could get on with figuring out whom they are, and being that person. What I’m saying is the great Greek aphorism – know thyself – is potentially unfulfilled.

Perhaps it requires a moment to understand that natural order is as natural order does. Whatever natural order may be, it always abides by the laws of physics, markets, and providence. So what all religions – and cultures, which like any collective group of people trying to achieve their conception of the natural order play a substantial role in shaping the natural order – have in common is a good indicator of what’s true about the human experience. For instance, no religion I’m aware of promises that the rain will fall only on the righteous, because clearly that’s not true. All religions that promise the return of its particular prophet or deity disclaim that the precise date or time is unknown. The exceptions to this all prove the rule, such as the Seventh Day Adventists who were so sure Jesus was returning in 1844 they didn’t bother to bring in the crops that year.

That’s why it’s important to consider how accurately a particular religion depicts the immutable laws by which all actors in the concert of natural order must obey, such as gravity and probability. Consequently, I’m particularly tolerant of religions that articulate and are consistent with the natural rights (see Locke, John; Hobbes, Thomas) that shape my conception of the natural order, which is freedom. I suppose that explains a lot about why some people think man made God in man’s image.

For instance, if God was made in my image he’d love freedom, hate coercion, but be a bit of a fatalist, being a big believer in providence and that the best we can do is to do the best we can. Of course, you can say the same of gazelles on African savannah.

Nature, then, provides the natural order with which the human experience is ultimately consistent. The obvious implication is that humans evolved directly from nature, which is scientifically true. Yet common to almost every human is belief in God or religion, befuddling Atheists. Perhaps gazelles marvel at the stars, thanking providence for sparing them from the day’s lions. That doesn’t account beyond nature’s order, however, for the gazelles the lions ate.

The fact is that natural life is short and brutal. Since humans are uniquely capable of attempting to recreate natural order in their conception of what natural order should be it should be no surprise that humans endeavor precisely that. Perhaps left to our own devices in a world devoid of government or religion – like in The Book of Eli, where the natural order of humankind was truly short and brutal – religion would be a most logical conclusion, as a preferable alternative to nature’s brute order. The logical end of that, though, is the same concert of religions, cultures, and individuals, as exist now, all fighting, one way or another, to assert their conception of natural order upon others. The common human experience, then, may be cyclical and never learns from its mistakes, something to which most religions stipulate. As does Cosmology (universe expanding, contracting, and over again).

If in a world devoid of government or religion life is short and brutal, rather than libertopia, one wonders how voluntaryism might take hold if not by force. Consider Ghengis Khan, the original neocon, who sincerely believed the only way to live at peace was to conquer potentially (and often actually) quarrelsome neighbors, and enforce a culture of peace with the hardest of iron fists – which he did. His only mandate to all within his ever-expanding territory was be peaceful. But it took many millions of lives to achieve that peace, and it lasted only as long as he could enforce it. George Bush might say that Khan violated his peaceful principles to implement his peaceful principles. Successfully, too, for a time.

Then again, hundreds of millions of lives have been wasted throughout history for reasons much less noble than creating a culture of relative peace. As a result I’m often convinced that neoconism is the lesser of the evils. The obvious counterargument to neoconism is that Alfred Nobel thought dynamite – his invention and at that time the world’s greatest weapon – would end large-scale warfare. And look how well that turned out. But as a friend pointed out the other day, Nobel may have actually been correct in principle, and his flaw one of scale. Perhaps hydrogen bombs are weapons great enough in global scale to end large-scale warfare, making irritating regional conflicts the norm rather than greater global upheaval.

Of course, regional conflicts involving nuclear weapons may quickly progress to global upheaval, which makes the neoconservative point about the importance of stopping unstable regimes such as Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. By contrast, neoconservatives tolerate Israel’s nuclear arsenal because they don’t think it’d be used for anything but self-preservation. Self-preservation is a natural right, and one superior to the right of coercion asserted by every invader – even those who claim the right of invasion to create a peaceful order. Human’s collective appreciation for the right of self-preservation may be precisely why implementing an aggressive neoconservative strategy effectively frightens the majority of us into inaction on the matter, leading then to the proliferation of nuclear weapons in unstable regions (e.g. Pakistan), the presence of which makes more likely the prospect of global warfare, which is ultimately much worse than irritating regional conflicts.

Worse, not only are we collectively unwilling to preclude the possibility of global warfare by forcibly stopping unstable regimes from obtaining nuclear weapons, we are unwilling even to destabilize those regimes by tearing down the restrictions on nuclear energy in the United States – ironically, the form of energy powering the Navy, our greatest projection of power – and instantly bankrupt unstable and unwanted regimes the world over. The mass proliferation of nuclear energy in America would reduce regional conflicts into simply national conflicts. Or at least nations in a given region couldn’t project their regional conflicts onto us, which would be outstanding.

So do we agree, then, on supporting nuclear energy? And did I mention Gov. Gary Johnson supports bustin’ down the door to nuclear energy in America? I’m on board.

Watch this fascinating, five part mini-documentary about Gov. Gary Johnson’s adventure to the top of Mount Everest. (Unfortunately I’m not able to embed it here. But do click on the link, watch the videos, and subscribe to OUR America Initiative’s YouTube channel.) Evidently Gov. Gary Johnson is too tough for Everest’s frostbite. I predict the mainstream media is going to break their collective teeth on his thick skin.

The Gary Johnson’s train is leaving the station. All aboard for a common sense, business approach to Constitutionally limited, fiscally responsible government. I’m driving the train, and informing the world.

As an aside, According to J.C. (a human friend, not Jesus Christ), I’m effectively Gary Johnson’s frontman. Although, come to think of it, I’d accept Christ’s endorsement on the matter. Yo Gary, I’m your Flavor Flav.

The truest thing I know about God is that “God helps those that help themselves.” That phrase, perhaps the best known, God-derived witticism not found in the Bible (nor to my knowledge in any other religion’s tenets), accurately reflects the common experience of human beings, as well as it reflects the natural, Darwinistic order of things.

Per Pila, Marinate on this for a while.