Libertarian – Page 10 – Zombies Uncensored

National Debt Increase by President

The Rachel Maddow Show has posted this debt graph to point out Republican Presidents have increased the national debt more than Democratic Presidents.

On the same page is a video, Pin the Debt on the Donkey!, in which contestants guess which presidents saddle the US with the most debt, the answer being “Republicans.” Rachel Maddow questions why Republicans are considered the “natural party of fiscal responsibility” when they don’t have a history of fiscal responsibility.

The answer is the Republican Party isn’t the natural party of fiscal responsibility, and neither is the Democratic Party.

Its a cruel trick to have you believing that one party would do a better job at handling the nation’s budget. Going by this graph, you could assume the current Democratic President is adding less to the debt than the Republican Presidents. This is not the case. In the first year of President Obama’s administration, 1.5 trillion has been added to the national debt. 1.5 trillion is half of the 3 trillion added under President Bush’s 2nd term. 1.5 trillion is equal to the amount of debt added during both President Clinton’s terms in office.

Its a good example of the damage done in the us-vs.-them of politics, because neither party has shown it has any natural fiscal responsibility. In terms of fiscal responsibility, the us vs. them mentality is simply enabling both parties to be fiscally reckless.

With both parties driving the country towards the cliff of bankruptcy, it’s a poor selling point to say our party will get you there the safest and fastest way possible.

Guilty Pleasures of Government Spending

Obama aims to ax moon mission (orlandosentinel.com)

NASA’s plans to return astronauts to the moon are dead. So are the rockets being designed to take them there — that is, if President Barack Obama gets his way.

White House to Outsource Space Flight (foxnews.com/scitech)

NASA’s Constellation program should replace our aging fleet of space shuttles, which make their last flight in July. But reports indicate Obama may eliminate the program entirely, leaving the U.S. relying on Russian vehicles for space transportation.

Outsourcing space flight is a better option for the future of space travel, because it will reduce costs and spur innovation. NASA should set a price per pound to orbit, or to the moon, and let businesses compete and innovate to meet the goal. Some of the biggest innovations in air-travel were the result of the USPS using this same model to handle the costs of airmail.

That last paragraph sounds fairly reasonable, doesn’t it? But wait; there is a problem, I’ve tricked myself again. I’ve allowed myself to be seduced by the ends side of the force. If I am not careful, forever will it dominate my destiny, consume me it will..

When it comes to spending money on NASA, I usually keep my mouth shut because I like the benefits from NASA. I craftily push out of consciousness the dangers in using the-ends-justify-the-means arguments by focusing only on the good things about NASA.

NASA is far from worthless; benefits from NASA programs include –

Good Science – We have a much better understanding of Earth’s environment, and by environment I don’t mean just what happens on Earth. Our real environment is a big as the universe.

Technological Spin-offs – The Apollo program shows what happens when you have a concentration of geeks in one area; they will solve problems you didn’t know existed. Geeks are not at the top of the ego charts and work well together to achieve goals.

Survival of our species – If Earth takes a big hit from an asteroid, humans could be gone forever. The sooner humans spread out from Earth, the better the changes for our survival.

The budget crisis will continue to grow as long as we are unwilling to forgo the guilty pleasures of government spending. NASA is just one in a long list of guilty pleasures Americans have indulged in.

The love of money is facing stiff competition from the love of force to do good, as the root of all evil. The love of force to do good easily seduces the purest of hearts, who are unwilling to delay gratification of good goals.

The philosophy of the ends justifying the means is retarding evolutionary progress towards respecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Maybe there is a yet to be discovered force of nature slowing our progress in the conquest of space, until we are ready to respect the rights of others species we will encounter.

Even when the fate of our species hangs in the balance, it’s wrong to use force to preserve our species. We aren’t a species worthy of survival if we are willing to force others to our vision of what is beneficial.

Call the Police, I’ve been attacked on Facebook

(wivb.com) 7th grader busted for Facebook attack

A seventh grader in suburban Syracuse is in deep trouble after police say she attacked a teacher through Facebook.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YnisVNClqc

Are weapons available on Facebook?

Iowa Considering Everclear Ban: Where’s the Spirit of Rebellious Youth?

(DesMoinesRegister.com) State regulators weigh ban, limits on Everclear:

State liquor regulators are putting Everclear – one of the most potent alcoholic beverages – under the microscope following a November drinking incident that nearly cost the life of a Drake University student. College students, liquor industry officials and other Iowans are debating the merits of restricting or banning its sale.

It is popular at parties frequented by young people. State records show the leading counties in 2009 for sales of 1.75-liter bottles of Everclear were Story, home to Iowa State University, and Johnson, home to the University of Iowa. The 1.75-liter bottles, nearly two quarts, are the largest available.

College students say Everclear is often added to potent punch-style drinks and sometimes other types of liquor.

“Personally, I don’t drink it, and I wouldn’t have a problem with banning it,” said Drake senior Matt Poindexter, 22, of Kansas City, who is majoring in marketing and information systems.

But Chris Donahue, 25, a Drake freshman from Norwalk who is studying health sciences, is skeptical. He believes restrictions on alcohol only make young people more curious. “I think they should do a better job of educating kids and telling them that it is not necessarily a great thing to go out and get drunk,” Donahue said.

It makes sense we don’t value freedom as much as Americans did after the revolutionary war, because we haven’t experienced the same loss of freedom. I’ve mistakenly believed young Americans would always be some of the best defenders of freedom, because they could remember a time would they weren’t allowed to make decisions for themselves.

Has the spirit of rebellious youth died? Mr. Poindexter has had the freedom to choose for himself to drink alcohol or not for only a year, and is already willing to go back to having someone else make those decisions for him. Mr. Donahue is only seven years removed from parental control, but seems undisturbed by parental figures forcing their advice on himself and others.

Rebellious youth are supposed to be one of the first lines of defense for liberty. Young Americans are supposed to remind others what it’s like not to be able to decide things for yourself. Being an adult doesn’t mean its your turn to start running other peoples lives.

To Mr. Poindexter – Your comments suggest it is fine for the majority to tell others what to do. That works as long as you are in the majority. What if the roles were reversed? You don’t have a problem with banning Everclear, but would you have a problem being forced to drink Everclear? From this perspective, as long as the group you are in isn’t impacted, there is no problem. Would it be OK with you to ban a different ethnicity or women from college? It’s no loss of freedom for you personally, after all.

To Mr. Donahue – Alcohol is for adults, not kids; one of the responsibilities adults have is deciding for themselves if something is a great thing or not, Mommy and Daddy’s opinion notwithstanding. I suppose it would be fine for me to better educate you to the dangers of allowing others to run your life?

To the Iowa Alcoholic Beverages Commission – If it exists, there is a stupid way to use it. If being able to harm yourself with an object is criteria for a ban, then virtually everything would be banned! College students also do stupid things with cars, food, clothes, etc.–in fact, sometimes they do stupid things because they enjoy doing stupid things!

It is a mistaken belief that there is no loss of freedom to ban something you would never do. I’ll probably never be a Moonie in the Unification Church, but if Moonies were banned, we all lose freedom of religion.

I don’t drink Everclear, and I have a problem with banning it. I don’t think it’s great thing to get drunk, but I wouldn’t force my opinion on other adults. And as as reminder to the lost rebellious youth: there is always a loss of freedom allowing others to make decisions for you.

Tips for the President: Customer Service for an Angry Nation

President Obama has lots of angry customers, and the State of the Union address on Wednesday will probably exacerbate the problem.

To that end, here are some suggestions on how to approach the speech to an angry nation.

Some time-honored steps to follow when dealing with angry customers:

1. Listen – Each time a customer has to repeat or explain a problem the anger grows, so listen carefully and take notes.

2. Repeat the problem back – This helps to make sure you understand the problem and the customer will know they’ve been heard and understood.

3. Empathize – Saying something as simple as, “I’d be calling about this problem, too,” makes it clear you see them as a person and you care.

4. Explain the steps to resolve the problem – A long, drawn-out process is made easier to deal with if you know all the steps and you know someone is working on it.

5. Provide updates – Not all problems can be solved immediately. From the customer’s point of view, not hearing anything is the same as nothing being done at all.

6. Follow through – The most important step of all. Following the previous steps goes a long way to tone a situation down. Not following through will only make the customer angrier.

What not to do:

1. Argue with the customer – Do not tell them they are wrong for feeling angry. Don’t put the customer on the defensive by making them justify their anger.

2. Make foolish promises – If they are already angry, don’t make the situation worse by promising something you can’t deliver. It is better to say “I don’t know, but we’ll work on a solution,” than to promise to fix something you haven’t dealt with before.

3. Blame someone else – Problems don’t get fixed through blame. Letting the customer know you think a coworker is lazy might make you feel better, but the problem will still be there after you are done complaining. Working to solve the problem regardless of the cause will earn their trust.

4. Personalizing the problem – avoid using “I’s and You’s” in your discussion, which can trigger defensiveness and come across as ordering the customer around. “You have to bring your car in before I can repair it” feels much different than, “When the car is brought into the shop, repairs will be started.” By staying factual, you can maintain focus on what’s important: solving the problem.

Dreaming of a Libertarian Network News Channel

Fox News coverage is aimed towards Republicans and MSNBC is aimed at Democrats. I’d like cable news network aimed at Libertarians. If being liberty-minded catches on, there will be a market for news Libertarians find important.

There is some Libertarian coverage on the networks now–and the coverage seems to be growing. Libertarians are let into the media pool for an hour each week with John Stossel’s show on Fox Business News. CNN has been throwing in Libertarian-leaning guests on their shows. I appreciate CNN for bringing Penn Jillette and Ron Paul into their discussions.

Lip service from the major outlets doesn’t cut it, though. There is still a need for a network with a Libertarian bias. As Penn Jillette put it while discussing his show Bullshit!, “We are trying to be fair and extremely biased.”

That’s what I want: factual reporting, unashamedly biased towards liberty–a network where reporters are required to ask politicians, “Will this lead to more or less freedom?” Reporters that will challenge the “majority of people want this legislation” with questions about the tyranny of the majority.

While a politician is speaking, I want the bottom of the screen to scroll the biggest donors to their campaigns. I want a cha ching sound when tax increases or incentives are mentioned and chain rattle when victimless crimes are mentioned.

When an election is mentioned, all the candidates for office will be listed, but in freedom-minded order. If there had been a network with a Libertarian bias, Joe Kennedy would have been mentioned on-air before the Massachusetts special election was held, instead of as a footnote afterward when the results had been tallied.

Polling for the Libertarian Network would be freedom-biased:

What is the least popular government program?
Do you feel more free now than you did four years ago?
Rate how much federal servitude interferes with your life: [ none/somewhat/too much/ready for a revolution]
Why do you feel Washington hates you?

A nightly lineup of opinion shows would include people like Penn Jillette, Drew Carey, John Stossel and Larry Elder. Have the people over at Free Talk Live do specials on police abuses.

And…last but not least, the hosts and guests could drink and smoke on the air if they choose.

Cheech and Chong “Get it Legal” Tour on Fox and Friends

Cheech and Chong Get it Legal – Comedy tour discussed on Fox and Friends morning show.

They joke for a bit about how Tommy Chong can’t vote for corrupt politicians because of his felony conviction for shipping a bong across a state line. The scary part about the war on drugs is the built-in self defense mechanism drugs laws have. In several states, you can’t vote if you have a felony conviction. It’s a cruel trick to liberty: self-protecting legislation that takes away right to change the law from those who most adamantly oppose it.

A driver was twice sent speeding tickets after parking in front of a camera because police officers failed to notice his vehicle was stationary, it has emerged. Jeff Buck parks in front of the camera outside his home on Watnall Road, Nottingham, because he does not have a drive or a garage.

I hope every ticket generated from this camera will be contested.

Tag: Libertarian