Liberty Maven

As a retired public school teacher, I find it useful to define terms by imagining how I would define them to children. The trick is to present a term with its most basic meanings. This works particularly well with political terms, since the media already defines them in childlike ways. Thus, if children ask me what Republicans and Democrats are (and they have) I might lift a simple definition right out of the media: “Republicans are people who don’t want to spend money, while Democrats want to spend money.” That would, of course, be an oversimplification, but it would satisfy the needs of the typical adult newspaper reader and might lead a child to ask more.

These days I don’t talk to as many kids as I used to, but the discourse is surprisingly similar. Consider, for instance, the reply of a California Democrat to this question: “What do you think state money should be spent on?” You’ll get a simple answer: “It should be spent on services for society’s most needy: children, the indigent,” etc. That’s an answer a child could understand. And most children, hearing such a statement, would think, “Well, why would anyone not be a Democrat? We should help children and poor people.”

Thus partisanship, the adherence to one party over another, is born. The problem, of course, is that adult political life is not so simple. To put it bluntly, Democrats don’t particularly care about children and poor people. Quite the reverse, in fact.

Take, for instance, the question of President Obama’s Race to the Top (RTTT) grant, which, we’re told, is supposed to help children. In California, as in the rest of the nation, almost all office-holding or appointed Democrats are for it, while many Republicans are against it. What I am arguing here is that, while this is a partisan struggle, it is not about whether or not we should help children.

To begin with, RTTT applicants must commit to adopting new federal “Common Core” academic standards (CCS). The reason given is that many states have poor standards. But California, in the estimate of virtually everyone who has studied its standards, is not in that category. Nonetheless, the Schwarzenegger appointed state school board approved paying, according to the non-profit group EdSource, up to $1.6 billion to cover the costs dropping our standards and adopting the CCS, and the board’s new members, appointed by Democratic governor Jerry Brown, are not perturbed at the prospect. Meanwhile our RTTT application was rejected and we will receive no federal money, so we will be paying the $1.6 billion with state funds, increasing by that amount our $25 billion deficit.

Read More »

Governor Jerry Brown is known for short speeches, and most people who watched Monday evening’s State of the State address were no doubt appreciative of that. I know I was, but I would have liked an additional few moments for consideration of a state budget problem that is currently beneath the public radar: In spite of California’s $25 billion deficit, we are about to pour $1.6 billion down the drain.

That’s the estimated cost of replacing the California education standards with President Obama’s Common Core Standards (CCS). The Schwarzenegger appointed State Board of Education voted last summer to make the switch in pursuit of Obama’s Race to the Top (RTTT) education grant. Our RTTT application was rejected and we will not receive a dime of the grant, but as all eyes are focused on California’s dire budget options, we are still blithely planning to spend $1.6 billion of state money on testing companies, publishers, and school staff training, for no apparent reason.

To all appearances the Governor has what it takes to tackle such a gravy train. His speech made reference to his proposal to reduce the deficit through reversion of Community Redevelopment Agency funds, derived from property taxes, to their original uses, e.g. support of schools, police and fire fighting. Brown’s stand is brave, considering the clout of CRA defenders, headed by major players like L.A.’s mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a critic of excessive public sector wages and benefits who is apparently unperturbed that CRA secretaries make $80,000 a year. The question then becomes: Can Brown face-off against the clout of the education service industries, as he has with those who feed off the CRA?

Read More »

How is it possible that omitting Ron Paul’s name from this Reuter’s article about CPAC was not done on purpose? CPAC begins today with several presidential hopefuls attending and making speeches. One of those speeches is from last years run away CPAC straw poll winner, Ron Paul, yet the article excerpted below ignores him. I had to re-check the agenda for CPAC to see if they had somehow erased Paul’s name, but no, it was still there.

My only question is did the memo about Ron Paul from the mainstream media czar go out early this time around? Here is the relevant excerpt suspiciously omitting Paul:

“It’s one of the first times that they get to showcase their actual credentials among key constituencies and generate publicity for themselves early on in the cycle,” said Republican strategist Ron Bonjean.

Among the speakers are two former governors, Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota; former House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich and sitting governors Haley Barbour of Mississippi and Mitch Daniels of Indiana.

Gingrich and two other possibles, Representative Michelle Bachmann and former Senator Rick Santorum speak on Thursday.

Romney, Pawlenty, South Dakota Senator John Thune, Texas Governor Rick Perry and Daniels speak on Friday and Barbour speaks on Saturday. Attendees will decide their favorites in a Saturday straw poll.

Ron Paul hasn’t even announced he’s running in 2012 yet and the media is already trying to ignore him. I ask again, how can this not be on purpose?

After the mostly nauseating SOTU speech by Obama… I noticed that Rand Paul’s press release earlier today announcing his bill to cut spending by $500 billion in 1 year. Not only that but he posted the bill itself along with a 37 page overview with highlights of specific departments/funding he would cut. It’s quite interesting to read and rather bold. In other words… I love it.

Yes, it will never pass, but I still love it.

Some highlights if you are not interested in opening the pdf linked above (though I recommend it because he explains why the cuts can be made):

• Legislative Branch – Cut by 23%
• Judicial Branch – Cut by 32%
• Dept. of Agriculture – Cut by 30%
• Dept. of Commerce – Cut by 54%
• Military/Dept. of Defense – Cut by 6.5%
• Dept. of Education – Cut by 83%
• Dept. of Energy – Cut by 100%
• Health and Human Services – Cut by 26%
• FDA – Cut by 62%
• CDC – Cut by 28%
• NIH – Cut by 37%
• TSA – Cut by 40%
• Housing and Urban Development – cut by 100%
• Eliminate Amtrak Subsidies
• EPA – Cut by 29%
• International Aid – Cut by 100%
• NASA – Cut by 25% (mentions fostering private space exploration/tourism)
• FCC – Cut by 22%

The great Robert Higgs makes the best argument yet against the idiotic neo-conservative “blame America” accusation in his latest commentary.

Higgs writes:

In discourse about public affairs, words matter much more than most people appreciate. We live immersed in language so twisted and abused, in part by the design of interested parties and in part by the sloth of inattentive speakers and listeners, that we often fail to notice or object to linguistic miscarriages that pass for intelligent expression. The examples are legion, but here I have in mind a particular turn of phrase that American conservatives, especially neocons, have employed in recent years as a counterstrike against critics of U.S. foreign and defense policy:  They describe such critics as “blaming America” or sometimes as “blaming America first” for attacks against this country or its citizens abroad.

Thus, for example, those who fault U.S. Middle East policies for creating the conditions that caused Muslim fanatics to attack Americans, both at home and overseas, are said to be blaming America for what the policy’s defenders’ take to be the unprovoked acts of terrorists bent on imposing Sharia on the United States, destroying this country’s freedoms, or attaining another such farfetched objective.

Applications to earlier events and policies include use of the expression to fend off the arguments and evidence of those who maintain that the Roosevelt administration waged economic warfare in 1940-41 to provoke a Japanese attack that would justify and lead directly to full-fledged U.S. engagement in World War II; and use of the expression against those who argue that the Truman administration bore at least partial responsibility for the onset of the Cold War. People accused of blaming America are commonly called “America haters.”

Although this riposte to criticism is the rhetorical tactic of first resort for the more simple-minded, flag-waving species of self-anointed patriots, it is by no means their exclusive property. Neocons writing in such elevated outlets as the New York Times and the Washington Post have not been bashful about smearing their critics as people who “blame America.” I noticed this linguistic resort most recently in a commentary by an intelligent, reasonable economist and was shocked that he would embrace this trope while suggesting that “pacifists” and others who criticize U.S. foreign and defense policies are unrealistically imagining that international disputes and warfare can somehow be eliminated from human affairs.

In my view, replying to policy critics by accusing them of “blaming America” is worse than linguistically crude and ideologically twisted; it is stupid.

Read the rest of Higgs at The Independent Institute.

I often grow sleepy reading the incessant and inane Twitter comments from the Left about Rand Paul. Granted, it’s hard for some to be enlightening in 140 characters or less. Given some of the comments though, I doubt they’d be enlightening with more characters at their disposal. So in that regard, thank gods for Twitter’s character limit!

Rand Paul’s ideas, like his fathers, do go beyond the length of a tweet, or a debate soundbite. And they are even enlightening, sometimes. To demonstrate this here is a recent tweet from an un-named and un-enlightening liberal individual:

DADT REPEALED!!
65-31. Sorry for your loss, Rand Paul…SUCK ON IT!

The casual reader would automatically assume that Rand Paul’s position on “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” would be strong on keeping it in place. However, Rand Paul’s actual position is that it should be left up to the Pentagon (or “the leadership of the military“) to decide whether to repeal it or keep it. The statement from his campaign also denounced the “political posturing” associated with the issue.

Paul’s position, at first glance, could be seen by some as political posturing in its own right, but digging a bit deeper, isn’t his position the correct one? Isn’t it also a libertarian one? It is essentially, a states rights argument. Shouldn’t the decision be made by those that are closest to the issue? This statement hardly demonstrates that Paul is against DADT repeal.

Read More »

Editor’s Note: After a long hiatus, we’ve just received another article submission from Richard Deekbag. His previous submission was posted here in an effort to represent a perspective opposite of Liberty Maven’s typical material. You can read that previous article, Why Ron Paul is wrong on every damn thing!, here. This new submission is being posted for the same reason. Remember, he’s an anti-Ron Paul neocon who runs the following website (we apologize for the length of the URL):

http://ohmygodronpaulwilleatallofourbabiesandourbabiesbabiesandtheirbabiesbabiesuntiltherearenobabiesleft.com/

————————–

By Richard Deekbag

What a joke! All these idiots complaining about their junk being touched by the TSA. I say we should just stand there and take it like real men. I say, “If it’s for national security then TOUCH MY JUNK, PLEASE!!” It’s the patriotic thing to do. If you opt-out of the junk-touching then the terrorists win, pure and simple. If you opt-out of the junk-touching then you hate America!!

I do think there is room for the TSA to improve this process though. It appears that all females get to be felt up by female TSA agents and all males get to be fondled by male TSA agents. This is a discriminatory practice. The TSA should ask the traveler if he or she is a homosexual. If the answer is affirmative then the traveler should be appropriately touched by a member of the opposite sex.

Yes, all touching in the name of national security is appropriate. Other than that small change I applaud the great work of the TSA over the past few weeks. The skies are infinitely safer and there can be no one who says they aren’t friendlier with this policy in place. In fact, they just published a children’s book to help children adapt to the new policy. Here’s is the cover:

Read More »

With all of the “sky is falling” melodrama over Wikileaks all over the media, I find Robert Gates refreshingly honest in this answer to Michael Yon. Yon asked Gates an intriguing question regarding Wikileaks and the potential damage it may do to sharing information between intelligence agencies. Among other things, Gates said the following:

Now, I’ve heard the impact of these releases on our foreign policy described as a meltdown, as a game-changer, and so on.  I think — I think those descriptions are fairly significantly overwrought. The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it’s in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets.  Many governments — some governments deal with us because they fear us, some because they respect us, most because they need us.  We are still essentially, as has been said before, the indispensable nation.

So other nations will continue to deal with us.  They will continue to work with us.  We will continue to share sensitive information with one another.

Is this embarrassing?  Yes.  Is it awkward?  Yes.  Consequences for U.S. foreign policy?  I think fairly modest.

Of course, now some people are making the claim that the information leaked may end up benefiting the Obama administration and the source of the leak may be the administration itself. Is this some kind of weird reverse trutherism? I doubt this claim is true, but it’s an interesting thought when coupled with Gates response above. Read more about this claim at reason.com.

While touring in support of his recently released children’s book, the self-proclaimed pro-lifer and Christian, Mike Huckabee, called for the death of the WikiLeaks leaker.

From Politico:

By Craig Hensler

They say, “To cook a frog, don’t toss it into boiling water, put it into cool water and turn the heat up slowly”.

Our government would tell us that for the right (they call it a privilege) to fly on a commercial flight, we must submit either to a dose of radiation and provide a naked rendering of our body or submit to a government groping. . . or both. Either option, would be considered a crime if committed without a claimed “government authority”. The history of airline/airport security for the past forty years clearly shows that security is not the goal

Although airline hijackings have existed since, at least, the 1930′s, they didn’t “come into vogue” until the 1960′s with demands from hijackers to be taken to Cuba or some other political venue or for the payment of a ransom. This changed in 1970 when three airliners were hijacked by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The aircraft were forced to fly to Jordan where the passengers were ultimately released and the aircraft were destroyed. Today, this would be classified as a major “terrorist” event. In reality, they were political hijackings, which occurred only because they were allowed to occur. In 1970, as today, the existing security measures did not address the problem nor were they meant to correct the problem. At best, they were (and are) all theater meant to provide a sense of security.

Each of these hijackings could have been prevented – at minimal cost, without government involvement and without the sacrifice of personal liberties. Simple: lock and reinforce the cockpit door. Although, we’ve all been herded through metal detectors, emptied our pockets and had our bags x-rayed, nobody thought to “lock the door” for more than thirty years; until after 9/11.

Read More »