Looking at Oregon in a different skin - Race has nothing to do with it

I'm not going to go into the details of the situation in Oregon. Anyone reading this is likely already familiar with it. For those that may not, here are a couple sources on the subject.

My general stance on the situation is that I sympathize and support the Hammond family where I feel it's a pretty clear case of govt abuse of power. However, I am on the fence regarding the protesters/militia. I like that they are supporting the Hammonds and agree with their general animosity of govt overreach. It also feels like the militia protest was largely a publicity stunt to raise awareness of the treatment of the Hammond family. If so, then I'd call it a success (notwithstanding the horrendous misreporting of the situation). However, due to the weapons involved and almost invitation for direct physical conflict, it goes beyond the standard peaceful "sit-in" type of awareness protest or even civil disobedience. I guess my views will become more clarified as we see what they do, what govt does, and how each reacts to the other.

In a broader scope, however, I've seen many who appear antagonistic to this group of protesters and the Hammonds largely due to their race and politics. I've heard people decrying how the reaction and the types of support would be completely different if it was black people or Muslims who had taken over this glorified campgrounds.

So I started thinking ...

Say there was a [Muslim] family - the [Mohammeds]. They have been harassed by govt for years. They get pulled over constantly. The city continues to try to force them to sell their house. They have their taxes audited every year. Prohibited from buying guns. They are placed on and off of the no-fly list. All without any evidence of any real wrongdoing. Then, say the patriarch gets distracted and hits a mailbox with his car. A few years later, his son swerves and runs over a post-office box. They are arrested, charged with "terrorism" (destruction of govt property) and found guilty. Suddenly a large group of [Muslims] comes and sets up in a public parking lot next to the family's home and occupy a pay-for-parking booth. This group is armed and is protesting for the release of the [Mohammed] men and to raise awareness of the govt abuse and harassment of this family. They claim they will resist any attempts to remove them.

While I know this is not an exact parallel to the situation in Oregon, it's fairly close. In such a situation, I, as a libertarian, would feel pretty much exactly the same way about this hypothetical as I do the actual situation. I would sympathize and support the family. I would be on the fence with regard to the protesters.

Now, replace [Muslim] with [black] and [Mohammeds] with [Jacksons] - and I'd again have the same view.

This, at least for me, has absolutely nothing to do with race. I don't care whether the family and the protesters involved are white, brown, black, or any other race. The issue is the abuse of govt power and bringing the attention to govt harassment.

Ron Paul Next Steps

With Santorum having dropped out, many are concluding that Romney has virtually won the nomination. Ron Paul, however, is not dropping out and will continue to try to push his delegate strategy. However, in my opinion, with the vacuum of good news about the primary, I'd like to see Paul do something bold to get the attention of people and let them know that not only is this thing not over, but he is a viable (and better) alternative to Romney.

RP Supporters: How to handle a Talk Show Interview

Say that a Ron Paul supporter calls into and gets on a radio show. If the caller isn't already upset/angry, then often the host asks some loaded questions, interrupts when the caller tries to set the record straight, and at that point the caller starts to get flustered. Once a Ron Paul supporter, who is generally calling to try to set the media's misinformation straight, gets flustered by that very media, things go downhill and in the end, Dr Paul's supporters, (and by association, as is the intention, the good Dr himself), end up looking "crazy" and irrational.

So how can you carry yourself well and help the good Dr Paul instead of hurt him? Here's a few thoughts.

Another Look at this Ron Paul Racism thing

Ron Paul's rise in the polls brings with it increased scrutiny. One of the few "sideshow" issues (there aren't many) that the media is trying to raise is regarding supposedly racist newsletters that he supposedly wrote.


Let's look at those claims a little more in detail. If you are think this country is on the wrong track and that freedom is under assault, please ensure that you are making an informed decision instead of relying on "edited reality". Please read on as well as the links referenced to get a better understanding of this controversy.

Under the cover of darkness

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has the responsibility to police the business world (in the name of "Protecting America's Consumers"). They have a great deal of power to regulate corporations. And their power to enforce of these regulations is even greater. At the very least, they can just drag the process out to the point of enormous expense and loss of business.


With such power, in our government, there are supposed to be checks and balances. Congress should have bipartisan discussions about the power the FTC and all sub-organization agencies have and specifically those in positions of power in those agencies. Instead, what often happens is wholesale bypassing of discussion/debate.




These appointments (and who knows how many others) get tossed in at the end of the day (~8pm) with about a dozen people in the room, many of which are probably clerks and staffers (see video - slider time; ~625:30).  No discussion of qualifications, biases, philosophy; just basically "Approve them all."

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consider Executive Calendar Nos. 603, 604, 610, 625, 629, 630, and 700 so that the nominees be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; that no further motions be in order; and that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate’s action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

This is incredible. Now I'm not Congressional parliamentary procedure expert, so I may be reading this all wrong, but it seems that just  saying, "I'd like to pass this as long as nobody objects." when nobody else is in the room doesn't smack of a republic (or even a democracy). 

If you look at the description of the Senate Executive Calendar, you'll see that it does contain nominations: 

Nominations

This section identifies Presidential Nominations submitted to the Senate for confirmation, placed on the Executive Calendar with a sequentially assigned calendar number and ready for Senate floor consideration.

But that description doesn't seem to imply that they can just bypass consideration. So I take this to mean that these nominations are supposed to considered by both parties on the floor.  Apparently not.


Here's how I read these statements individually:

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consider Executive Calendar Nos. 603, 604, 610, 625, 629, 630, and 700 

Ok, nothing major here. It seems this is just wanting to elevate these particular items to the floor for consideration [tomorrow?].  Then they will discuss each of them individually, right? 

so that the nominees be confirmed en bloc

Oh.  Well, at least they can't be confirmed with the Republican motions to reconsider (objections) blocking them.

the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc

huh? All of them?  Just like that? Well, as long as the the Republicans can resubmit their motions before confirmation...

that no further motions be in order

Wait, what? Now Republicans CAN'T submit motions to reconsider?

and that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate’s action, 

Read: "Appropriate paperwork be done"

and the Senate then resume legislative session. 

"Just move along. Nothing to see here." Well surely nobody would allow this to just go by unchallenged.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Oh come on! 


I'm not only getting on the Democrats, I'm sure Republicans did the same blasted thing during their tenure. But that doesn't excuse the practice of what appears to be rubber stamp approving all the weasels while the farmer is asleep.


Almost makes one wonder if someone could just slip in there real quick right before adjourning when there are like 2 clerks and a transcriptionist and say, "I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consider Executive Calendar number 777 to direct all tax dollars to this offshore account; that a small island be granted to me; that all motions in objection be tabled; that no further motions be in order; that take-backs aren't allowed; that I'm rubber and you're glue; that no paperwork be filed on this in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of my retirement; and the Senate then resume legislative session."

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Forms of Government

I believe this video explains well the various forms of government.

While it can be debated whether there have been actual monarchies and about what anarchy would look like, I think it effectively conveys the difference between a republic and a democracy. We were not intended to just be simple majority rule nation. That can be seen in how the US founders required 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress to pass it AND 3/4 of all states ratifying it to enact a Constitutional amendment. It was not intended to be easy to make changes; to increase the reach and power of the national, federal government.

And I hope that everyone agrees that an oligarchy is undesirable. Even in the case where that oligarchy is several thousand in size, consisting of elected officials, bureaucrats, and various "experts", you still run into problems of bias, corruption and mistakes creating unforeseen problems that pervade the entire country or market.


Though I disagree with the 1 dimensional description of the political spectrum. I believe that it is a 2D  spectrum similar to the  Nolan Chart.

To me, this is a good example of the two ideas of Liberty and "Security" with regard to both Personal and Economic issues.

In this particular example, it places individuals to represent where their views are located. While you can disagree with the placement of the individuals in that example, the chart itself is great to map out most anyone's nuanced political views.

At the same time however, I'm willing to settle with simply going back to federalism. As long as the federal government gets out of the habit of making national laws regarding personal and economic matters and leaves that up to the states as was originally intended (see Ninth and Tenth amendments) then I think we'd all be better off.

Even many progressives believe that the idea of "laboratories of democracy"; of having 50 individual states attempting to find solutions to problems is more efficient and effective than a single national attempt which can take 20, 30, 50, 100 years to recognize as a bad idea. And by then, the political debate all too often revolves around how to fix the problem created by the implemented solution instead of asking, "Is there a different, better solution to the original problem?"

For the curious, I believe I fall between the classical liberal and the market liberal. 

I suppose there could be some entertainment from telling people I'm a liberal, then go on to describe my views :)

How to Heal Newspapers

Over the course of the last couple years, many newspapers have began to lose their circulation.  One theory for this is that since the internet began to explode in the 90's, millions began to get their daily news from online websites.  That has only increased over time until now half claim to primarily get their news from online sources.  Thus, as current events and daily news became more easily accessible online, for free, the need for a paid subscription to a newspaper which gave them almost the same thing was redundant.  In addition, since many papers and online news sites both take advantage of wire services like Associated Press or Reuters, much of what they find in the newspaper match exactly, word-for-word what they read online.  Some think that it is simply a short term problem while others believe that unless newspapers perform a major reorganization, they will go extinct in an age where digital information is easier, faster, and more plentiful than its ink-and-paper predecessor.  There have been many recommendations and suggestions about different strategies to reorganize, but let me toss mine in there.

Dump the Duplicates
If your newspaper carries the same wire services articles contained in virtually every other newspaper and online, then it doesn't make sense to pay for your paper if they can get the same thing from any other or even online for free.  So, while it may seem like an easy way to pad the size of your paper at relatively low cost, it's not a significant driver of people to your paper. 

Omit the Opinions
The internet is full of opinions.  Any subject, any perspective is freely available on the web.  Many reputable and others not so much.  So why do we need a newspaper to give us the same opinions?  In fact, newspapers often give credibility to opinions that should be dropped.  Good writers with bad opinions have jobs all over the country.  Turn them loose and let them start a blog and have their ideas compete with others for credence.  If they truly have good views, thoughts and ideas, their blog will rise in popularity.

Local is lovely

Perhaps the days of international papers with thousands to millions of subscribers in nearly every country of the world are indeed coming to an end.

Investigations are Interesting

This is the meat of my idea.  I CRAVE a good investigation; I search for undercover exposes. I want the resources of newspapers to push for transparency in the government by publicizing details found from FOI requests. Investigate the connections between politicians and corporations or lobbyists or criminals or any other unsavory characters.  TRULY speaking truth to power often requires more research and time than the average blogger with a day job can keep up with.  

RR

* Forgive the alliteration abuse. :)

Can the media impact gas prices?

I've seen this title before and I'm going to take a different direction in answering this question from most. Most stories which ask if the media can impact gas prices generally have one of two views: 1) Can the media, through persistent and vocal "calls to action", cause those evil, greedy, price gouging oil companies to lower their prices in deference to the poor? or 2) Does the media, through scare-tactics and overemphasis of a non-story, cause gas prices to skyrocket?

My thought is a little different; a little longer in scale. What if the media's criticism of high gas prices have actually created an environment where it is no longer in the oil companies best interest to increase supply?

Follow me on this...

Over the last several years, whenever gas prices go up, there is a constant criticism of oil companies by many in the media. Cries of gouging and beratement of profits and CEO salaries are frequent. Shortly following this, there is a push of substitute energies and alternative fuels. Between this and the constant barrage of global warming warnings, there is an ever growing motivation for people to move off of oil/gas. Currently we are enjoying $3+/gal gas. Many blindly call this a ploy by the oil companies, however, others are pointing out that the price of oil is $10/barrel cheaper this year than last when the prices were slightly cheaper. They then call attention to the fact that much of the influence on our supply of gas is the ability to refine it from oil. As many have noted, the refining capacity (amount of oil we can convert to gas per day) is virtually the same now as it has been for 3 decades since there hasn't been a new refinery built in over 30 years. This does NOT mean that the demand for gas has similarly remained static. Economics 101 says increased demand and static supply results in increased cost.

Now, here's where the media comes in to play. As they've pushed new sources of energy and alternative energies, they are TRYING to create an environment where we lower our usage/need for oil/gas. What if the oil companies believe them? If the oil companies prognosticators look at oil in 50 years and see an End-Of-Life. What motivation is there for them to spend millions/billions of dollars to create additional refining capacity now if the demand for gas will begin to decline in the next few years? Business-wise, it makes more sense for them to wait out this last peak (as they see it) in demand before it begins to decline and alternative fuels begin to take over.

So in the media's constant criticism of high gas prices and push for new fuels, have they themselves been (unintentionally) complicit in the rising of current prices?