Jeff Goldstein's Pinocchio, identity politics and the importance of rhetoric, has just turned into a real boy thanks to a few Democrats. Some serious background here on Jeff's views of identity politics and rhetoric, and a post that really wraps a lot of these issues up into a nice little package. It's an issue that Jeff's been floating for quite a while that deals with everything from affirmative action, to how a person's language can be hyjacked by those who never spoke it. Of course, until recently it was sort of an idea, a logical underpinning of certain views or positions that was never openly addressed. Whether it was because proponents of issues like affirmative action didn't realize it, or do realize it and think no one notices, is up for grabs I suppose.

I swear, he's the only person that speaks on the issue of identity politics, and how some people are allowing external conditions, nee forcing them, to define everything from who we are to what we say - regardless of who we are or what we're saying.

For instance, Goldstein asserts that what Lisa Gladden means when she says "party trumps race" and what Steve Gilliard is saying when he throws racial epithets at someone is that:


Please, lavish compliments upon my graphic arts skills. Really though. I don't own Photoshop, so that image was a pain in the ass.

Posted by: shank at 05:20 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 237 words, total size 2 kb.

Sometimes, I wish she'd open her mouth a little more often. No Bane, not for that. You sick bastard. And if you ever even remotely hit on my sister again, I will ekick you in the enuts.

Posted by: shank at 06:50 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.

This has been bugging me. Not Ilyka's post itself, but rather the topic dissected therein. You see, there are three things I really can't stand: idiots, poseurs, and idiot poseurs. They rankle me. It seriously bothers me that people without a basic rational understanding of logic can pretend to offer arguments.

This fellow Robert Crook, a blogger for Salon, makes the following arguments:

Cindy Sheehan is against the Iraq war.

Her opinion is valid because her son died there.

Tammy Pruett supports the Iraq war.

Her opinion is invalid because her son did not die there.

Lets boil that down:

The prerequisite to having a valid opinion on the war in Iraq is the traumatic loss of a son in Iraq.

Given that Mr.Crook has not lost a son in Iraq, his argument invalidates his own opinion of the war in Iraq.

That, my friends, is the mental misfiring of an idiot poseur.

UPDATE: Charmaine's post, where Crook supporters are busy saying "HE DID NOT!"

Well, HE DID TOO:

Tammy [Pruett] can get back to us with what she thinks of Gee Dubya's Gulf War II if one of her immediate family members is killed.

Posted by: Jim at 08:52 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 1 kb.

The Governator is apparently in the shit-house with California Democrats because he can't get them to actually work on fixing the state's many problems and he is readying himself to *GASP* take the issues to the voters.

To me this seems eminently logical. I have two paths to completing my job. The preferred path isn't working. I take the other path.

This is not logical to the Democrat led state legislature. They feel that they cannot work with the Governator now since he has basically said he is willing to take things up with their bosses. Ummmm...wasn't it the not working with the Governator part that is forcing him to take things up with their bosses in the first place? So what's the loss here?

Dems: We're sorry. We know you mean well but we simply can't work with you on these initiatives to solve the massive financial problems that our programs have caused.

Governator: Ah you sure? Ah would really lahk to work dis out wit you.

Dems: Yeah, we're sure. There's simply no way we are going to give up the ability to draw our own districts or limit spending in any way whatsoever and we feel very strongly that job security should be a reflection of time served, not some mythical ability to do a job. We are especially against the very concept that union leaders might need permission of union members in order to give us our kickbacks.

Governator: Dat's too bad. Ah will have to go to de voters den.

Dems: If you do that we won't work with you!

Governator: Vatever, little girly men.

No, I was wrong. I'm not really surprised at the Dems being pissed at him. He's trying to give workers a say on where their money goes, make job performance more important, limit spending and eliminate a politician's ability to decide who votes for him. Those things are the lifeblood of the liberal elite.

Worst of all, he's going to let actual voters decide on these things.

Posted by: Jim at 08:49 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 345 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, maybe not my kingdom but I am awarding points to the best slogans from the Slogan Challenge. Here are the long awaited results:

Serious slogans

Third place (1 pt): "More Talk, Less Action" - Dafyd

Second place (2 pts): "Working to create your children's nation." - Kenny

First place (3 pts): "We the people." - Garret

Irreverent slogans

Third place (1 pt): "Slogans are way tough to come up with." - Ilyka

Second place (2 pts): "85 percent less wacky than the Libertarians." - Kenny

First place (3 pts): "The party for real people. Whiney socialists and religious zealots need not apply." - Clancy

Coming soon:

Another contest to come up with a new name for the party, since this one reminds Ilyka of Barbara Boxer.

Posted by: Jim at 09:05 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 145 words, total size 1 kb.

I need a motto for the Nationalist Party of America. This is the political party I started up back in December to make a home for all of us who are either too right for the Dems, too left for the Reps, plain sick of partisan politics or think government needs to get its nose out of our personal areas.

It sort of fizzled out due to lack of participation and a very busy Jim but Michele's cry for help and a well timed comment by Ilyka have revived my fighting spirit. As everybody knows, the key to success in politics is to have a catchy slogan so that's my next order of business.

Here are a couple I thought of:

"Yes Virginia, there is a viable third party."
"Don't settle for the lesser of two evils, pick the least of three."

But they sort of don't really ring out too well. So I'm throwing open the floor to y'all. Come up with party slogans. There will be two categories: serious and seriously funny. Points will be awarded to the top three in each category.

Posted by: Jim at 03:57 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.

Congress is investigating the Major League Baseball steroid abuse scandal. Say what?

Just what the hell gives Congress the power to investigate a private enterprise in this manner? Does steroids in baseball compromise national security? Is a drug free baseball league some sort of little known right of the American people?

Lemme check...

Nope. Nothing at all in the Constitution says that Congress is the regulatory body for private sports organizations. Understandably, the League has an opinion similar to my own.

Stanley Brand, a lawyer for the baseball commissioner's office, said the committee had no jurisdiction, was trying to violate baseball's first amendment privacy rights, and was attempting to "satisfy their prurient interest into who may and may not have engaged in this activity."

This isn't just any Congressional panel either. It's the "Government Reform Committee". What is the purpose of the Government Reform Committee? According to their website, they don't have one. There is no overall guiding focus noted for this committee anywhere in their literature. Isn't that wonderful?

The subcommittees are a bit more forthcoming. The subcommittee for Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources has this little "About us" blurb:

The Subcommittee is responsible for authorizing legislation for the Office of National Drug Control Policy and its programs as well as general oversight for all U.S. government drug control efforts (including international and interdiction programs, law enforcement, and prevention and treatment initiatives). It also has oversight jurisdiction for several cabinet departments, including the Department of Justice, certain activities of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce, and other agencies including the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and the federal court system. In addition to its ongoing work on drug policy matters, the Subcommittee has most recently completed an intensive review of U.S. border agencies and policies and the impact of enhanced homeland security requirements on federal law enforcement.

So it sets and authorizes legislation on drugs and has oversight power over a bunch of government departments. This would seem to give them the power to subpoena and question people in those departments. Where in this mass of gobbledygook do they invent an authorization to directly investigate a private enterprise? According to the Committee this sweeping power comes from "House Rules":

Reacting to Brand's comments, committee spokesman David Marin said: "Mr. Brand has his facts wrong. He failed to recognize that House rules give this committee the authority to investigate any matter at any time, and we are authorized to request or compel testimony and document production related to any investigation. It's a shame that Major League Baseball has resorted to hiding behind 'legalese' -- and inaccurate 'legalese' at that."

Hiding behind 'legalese'? How about improper use of unregulated and illegally appropriated power?

These people make me ill. I sincerely hope we see Major League Baseball v. Associated Congressional Fucktards in the courts soon.

Posted by: Jim at 08:26 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 495 words, total size 4 kb.

It started innocuously enough. On an ostensibly cooperative "humanitarian" mission to the tsunami ravaged Far East, the senior George Bush connived to get ex-President Bill Clinton, a post-operative heart surgery patient, to sleep on the cold, hard floor.

The next morning, Bush said he peeked in and saw Clinton sound asleep on the plane's floor. [The article does not mention how Bill then slept through Bush's cackling, maniacal laughter. - ed]

Now we learn that Clinton must undergo another round of surgery to attempt to repair damage to his lungs.

Former President Clinton will undergo a medical procedure this week to remove an unusual buildup of fluid and scar tissue from his chest, six months after he underwent quadruple bypass surgery [And just a few weeks after being forced to sleep on the cold, hard floor. - ed], his office said Tuesday.

You don't have to take your tin foil hat off to connect the dots here, people. You can almost taste the taint of Karl Rove on this plot. This is obviously an attempt by the Bush Monarchy to head off the Hillary Clinton presidential run in 2008. If they succeed in killing off Mr.Clinton they will send poor Hillary into a trough of despair from which her broken heart will never recover. Even if they have a near miss and only turn Bill into a bed-ridden differently-abled individual they know that Hillary will immediately resign her Senate seat and forgo all political ambitions to nurse him and be constantly by his side.

Now the truth is revealed. Who has the guts to brave the stormtroopers of Halliburton to do something about it? The first step is obvious. Everybody needs to link to this post and spread news of the plot. Eventually, if we all do our part, somebody at Reuters who isn't compromised by the jackbooted government thugs will pick it up and spread the truth to the world.

Only the truth, shouted loud and proud, can save Hillary and Bill from this diabolical threat. And as we all know, only Hillary can end the neocon threat, restore us to a life of liberty, and deliver the holy grail of free medical. more...

Posted by: Jim at 08:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 344 words, total size 3 kb.

RP is having some fun with taxes ( <-- note: very heavy sarcasm) and asked if there are any volunteers to re-write the Tax Code and Regs.

I am the man.

First, let me state that the ultimate goal would be to eliminate income taxes altogether. Yes, it would too work just fine. It worked wonderfully before the Constitution was ammended to make this government theft legal. Restricting the government's access to money and the carrot/stick of monetary levies and gifts keeps government small and efficient. We have a bloated monster precisely because the government has given itself the power to take as much as the public will bear.

Anywho...that's not going to happen without open rebellion so I've come up with a simple and effective tax system that will work, will be perfectly simple and will be fair to all.

10% of income over $20,000 is paid as income tax. As many people as want to may form a household and file together. A family of five would pay 10% of any collective income over $100,000. There are no other taxes on income and there are no other exemptions. There are no loopholes.

Oh, yeah - almost forgot. As a corollary to promote fiscal responsibility, any politician submitting or approving a deficit spending budget gets a toe cut off. See the comments in RP's post for a bit more in-depth look at the toe-ectomy issue.

Posted by: Jim at 08:49 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.

1 You know, that with every plan, the devil is in the details. The problem is defining income. Right now, gifts of money are not income (up to a certain point they are tax free and then a gift tax return is required). Proceeds from life insurance policies are not income. Money or property taken by inheiritance, not income. Would you eliminate all those exclusions from income? How about giving to charity? That is favored by the tax code by giving you deductions. I have to say I don't envy the job of the people making these decisions today.

Posted by: RP at February 18, 2005 08:58 AM (LlPKh)

2 Forgot to say, thanks for the link, Jim! If anyone chooses to follow the link and come over, please remember that you may not look at any other post on my blog. You can't look at anything else. Nothing. Not one single other thing. And no smiling. Let's see how that works. It usually works great with the kids.

Posted by: RP at February 18, 2005 09:01 AM (LlPKh)

3 We'll paraphrase Miriam-Webster here. Income is a gain measured in money that derives from capital or labor. Gifts are not income. Insurance payments and inheritance are not income. Work benefits are income as they are derived from labor. Gifts are not income as they do not. There would be no loopholes, no deductions at all ever except the $20,000 per human one.

Posted by: Jim at February 18, 2005 09:24 AM (tyQ8y)

4 Yeah, but I don't think it really makes sense to exclude gifts, for instance, from income. Income ought to be defined broadly as benefit (to capture money and property or anything in any form) accruing to you or to your beneficial ownership from any source. Then you avoid the scams as people try to move around the definition. I don't think income should only be defined as coming from labor or investment. Then you exclude intergenerational transfers of wealth by way of gift. It certainly spends like income from the point of view of the grantee and it feels like money from the point of view of the grantor.

Posted by: RP at February 18, 2005 10:10 AM (LlPKh)

5 We're getting away from income tax there. We aren't trying to generate a profit tax. The reason the current tax code is such a convoluted and bloated mess is precisely because the government is using customized definitions of income in order to assess a profit tax.

Posted by: Jim at February 18, 2005 10:13 AM (tyQ8y)

6 I disagree. I think that the problem is that naturally any benefit you receive is really income and the problem has been distorting the definition to make all the exceptions. Once you start carving out exceptions, you get the massive mess we have. Simply define everything as income and then, among other things, I bet you can lower the rate to much, much lower that we ever conceived of being possible.

Posted by: RP at February 18, 2005 10:55 AM (LlPKh)

7 Okay, we can do that. Scrap the income tax idea and institute a profit tax instead. Personal profit tax is as described above; 10% of all profits made over $20,00o.

Posted by: Jim at February 18, 2005 11:06 AM (tyQ8y)

8 I think that we could probably end up a lot lower than 10% if for no other reason than, by way of example, I understand that $3.5 trillion alone is paid in the form of corporate dividends each year.

Posted by: RP at February 18, 2005 12:33 PM (LlPKh)

9 Maybe, but I doubt it. Most folks won't be paying anything at all. Since we moved to a profit model it's gains vs. losses. If I make a salary of $50,000 and spend $30,000 during the year (for a $20,000 profit) I owe no taxes. The folks who'd actually be paying are mostly investors and savers.

Posted by: Jim at February 18, 2005 01:18 PM (tyQ8y)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Get Syria out of Lebanon!

I still find it odd that the Arab states have no problem with Syria conquering Lebanon, holding them in thrall as a puppet state, killing their prime ministers, etc. I thought the Arabs were all about (opportunistically defined) ancient sovereign lands.

Oh, right. That's only when it's the Jews who are kicking Arab ass.

Posted by: Jim at 06:31 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

Sign the petition to revoke this terrorist group's tax exempt status.

(Hat tip to DCeit)

Posted by: Jim at 09:36 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

...or does anybody else find it odd that Senator Byrd is stressing that Dr.Rice's qualifications for Secretary of State should be judged primarily by her actions as National Security Advisor? I just think it is a bit hypocritical that the only KKK alumni in the Senate is calling for somebody to be judged strictly by their history instead of their current qualifications.

I'm not calling Byrd a klansman. He was a prominent one over fifty years ago, sure. He's worked against equal opportunity, women's rights and desegregation, sure. But, he said he was sorry that he'd said and done all of those hurtful and evil things while he was running his branch of the KKK and if that's good enough for his apologists then it's good enough for me.

Lovely Wife got one of those anti-Bush spam emails the other day. Part of it explained how Bush is a Nazi because his grandfather had business dealings with a bank that raised money for the Nazi party. I'd be a hypocrite myself if I said that accusing somebody of being a Nazi because of the actions of his grandfather was a load of shit but I still thought of Byrd as a bigoted racist simply because he was instrumental in the reappearance of the Klan in his more mobile years.

Incidentally, Byrd has said he was sorry for his Klan activities but I've been unable to find any mention of him ever actually saying that those actions were wrong. Does anybody have knowledge of him ever saying so?

Anybody?

Bueller?

Posted by: Jim at 12:08 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 1 kb.

In a hostage situation the victims will tend to become appreciative of their captor. He is God-like in his ability to take life away and the hostage is grateful that their life is being spared. The hostage comes to see it, emotionally, as the captor granting them life and is appreciative of this gift. I see this very same mentality in our society today. America has Stockholm Syndrome with our government playing the part of the captor.

It boils down to one statement. This is the truth: The Government Does Not Grant You Rights

How often do you hear or read phrases about rights granted by the Constitution or Bill of Rights? How many times have you heard somebody say that this or that country should grant their citizens certain rights like our government grants us? These sentiments are exactly wrong and directly contrary to the documents and ideals that founded our country. Just as the hostage taker is not granting life by not taking it, neither is our government granting us the rights that it does not remove.

Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

In simple language this is saying that you are born with the right to do anything and that the purpose of government is to protect your rights. This is a powerful and often forgotten sentiment. Government is not here to grant you rights. You already have them. Government is here to stop other people from taking away your rights.

The core concepts to remember are that you begin with every right, the Constitution protects certain of your rights, and laws restrict or remove your rights. This is a heady concept, and frightening as well for many people. Taken literally this means that a critical component of the job of every Congressman and Senator is to pare away your rights.

This mistaken groupthink is pervasive. In the Presidential debates one of Bush's criticisms of Kerry was the relatively low number of laws he has authored during his tenure as Senator. Kerry disputed this, claiming to have been instrumental in a very large number of bills. I was horrified by this exchange. Both men were making it clear that they considered the removal of my rights to be not only a just goal but the lack of such efforts to be a considerable failing. They were both saying that a good Senator is one who makes a lot of laws.

Wrong. Very, very wrong. A good Senator or Congressman should be a terrible legislator. A good Senator should be primarily concerned with protecting the Constitution, not increasing the bulk of the Code of Law. Anything else is a direct contradiction of their oath of office.

Oath of Office, Congress:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Note that there is absolutely nothing in the oath regarding the crafting of laws. The entire focus of the oath that every Senator and Congressman takes is that they will protect the Constitution.

The same thing goes for the President.

Oath of Office, President:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The documents are so clear. The sentiments are impossible to misunderstand. Even so, later today George Bush will repeat that oath of office. A short time later in a speech he will completely ignore it as he talks about forming a cooperative coalition of legislators to craft new laws and further snip away at the Constitution he has just sworn to protect.

It is frightening that this Stockholm Syndrome is so widespread that even the President of the United States is a victim of it. It is absolutely terrifying that it is so pervasive that this perfidy is not only accepted but actually lauded by the populace at large.

Posted by: Jim at 11:01 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 776 words, total size 5 kb.

Why did the Founding Fathers (tm) use the phrase "several states" in the Constitution? Why "several"?

The term is used all over the document. It appears in the sections on formation and powers of the Congress, powers of the President, and the powers and responsibilities of the states themselves. It also appears in the 5th (amending the Constitution), 6th (supremacy of the Constitution), 14th (Citizenship rights), 16th (income tax), 18th (prohibition), 20th (Presidential, Congressional terms), 21st (prohibition repealed), and 22nd (Presidential term limit) amendments.

What does "several states" mean? It isn't hard to find out. The first definition of "several" at Miriam-Webster is this:

separate or distinct from one another : individually owned or controlled

Separate. Distinct. A union of individual entities.

The balance between Federal and State powers has shifted grotesquely since the Constitution was written. It is both sad and dangerous that the states have traded their riding crops for a federal yoke.

Posted by: Jim at 11:55 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 159 words, total size 1 kb.

Update: Trey has a related post about the general welfare clause in the preamble.

This started out as a comment at Random Pensees but got too big. As a rule of thumb, if your comment goes past 3 paragraphs you should consider making a post out of it.

RP gives a brief recap of how we ended up with our Constitution, pointing out that our country was not set up with a strong central government. Even when the Constitution was adopted the federal government was severely limited in scope and power. The Constitution specifically grants the states all rights not specifically designated to the federal government or not specifically prohibited to them.

RP uses the example of unfunded mandates to point out the failure of this protection of states' rights. I couldn't agree more. Actually, I could and do agree more. Y'all probably expected that, knowing me for the radical reactionary that I am.

The Federal government has been systematically reducing the rights of the several states since the adoption of the Constitution. Well, maybe not right after the adoption but definitely within a generation. There was one very notable pushback (the Civil War) but since then the Fed's stripping of State powers has been a legislative steamroller.

Like RP, I have a serious problem with unfunded mandates. I'll go further than that though. I have a serious problem with all mandates. The founding fathers were familiar with the idea - it's essentially the same as taxation without representation. We make the rules, you follow them and shut up about it.

The vast majority of federal laws could not pass a true constitutional litmus test. Oh, I know that they all have a line or two saying that they are crafted to address a concern of interstate commerce but that's just political hogwash for the most part. Federal laws are not crafted with the intent to regulate interstate commerce, they are crafted for agendas and then adjusted to give lip service to the interstate commerce requirement.

The most visible proof of the loss of state power is the election just past. Think about the television coverage you endured. How much of that was devoted to your state legislature, local mayor or even your governor? Not a drop in the bucket compared to the attention given to federal congressional and senate races. There is no attention given to state races because the balance of power is so far to the federal side that even the most powerful state position is just an also-ran.

Posted by: Jim at 05:19 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 426 words, total size 3 kb.

UPDATE: The wacky date on this post is intentional. It's going to stay at the top of the first page for a while.

It's starting right now. Current membership: Me, Pylorns, Peekah

I touched on it last week and the idea just won't leave me alone. You see, I want a political identity. I want to be a part of a group of like-minded folk. I know they're out there but they're in the same boat as I am - unable to fully identify with either of the majors or stubbornly claiming independence.

Here are the issues that need to be addressed, the forces that are making this party not only welcome but needed: more...

Posted by: Jim at 05:45 AM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 937 words, total size 6 kb.

1 You have some issues that will alienate people. Plank #2 for example: Legislatures should be more concerned about removing bad laws than creating new ones. This needs more explanation. Often the creation of new laws is very important. If a legislature misses the boat on something important, your party will be blamed. Also in plank #5, you need to seriously remove the word 'fuck'. Use of that word in any kind of official capacity is inappropriate. If you want inclusiveness, using that word works against you.

Posted by: Garret at November 18, 2004 07:09 AM (IOwam)

2 I have some small issues with number 4, but only because we've privatized some things here in FL and I just shake my head sometimes. The private corporations appear to try to hide their problems more than the government did. Other than that... I am an independent. If a 3rd party were to form, I'd be all for it. The problem would be getting people like me to register for it over Rep or Dem. You can't vote in FL in the primaries unless you're registered to a party, which is why even though I'm an independent, I picked a party. (I picked the party that appeared to have the fewest number of local dirtbags, in the case of my county, it appeared to be the Republicans.) I've voted for a 3rd party candidate before. I get a lot of comments on my blog and I see them on others, that there are grunches of people who have come to abhor both parties... the whole left is lefter, right is righter thing...

Posted by: Boudicca at November 18, 2004 07:16 AM (XH1zZ)

3 Garret - Good points. There's no place for flippancy here if I want people to take this seriously. I've removed the profanity. I've also expanded #2 and clarified it a bit. I agree that some new legislation is valuable and even necessary. Boudicca - Registration isn't going to be a big issue in the beginning. The votes and support are independent of it and we won't be in the position of needing primary run-offs for a while yet. I've modified #4 for clarity and to get rid of the petulant tone.

Posted by: Jim at November 18, 2004 09:08 AM (tyQ8y)

4 One more note: The language 'messed with' might be better written as 'altered' or 'changed'. Your current terminology is still somewhat colloquial.

Posted by: Garret at November 18, 2004 10:15 AM (IOwam)

5 Got it.

Posted by: Jim at November 18, 2004 10:34 AM (tyQ8y)

6 I'm in.

Posted by: pylorns at November 18, 2004 09:10 PM (jy/AJ)

7 One of the principles of USURP is that once enough people again prove that they can properly bear all the responsibility related to their own lives, as well as the lives of the family and those in their local community, much of which they currently eschew, choosing instead to shift the responsibility for such upon the government, then the need for governance will disappear.

Posted by: Tig at November 19, 2004 12:13 PM (G5PGV)

8 Additionally, another tenet of my own personal belief is that our government should never give anything to anyone for absolutely nothing. While I believe it may be necessary and proper for the government to supply the necessities of life to certain segments of its society, I do not believe it is fair or beneficial of those segments of society to get such necessities supplied gratis. I propose a modified socialit-style system, where the government operates certain facilities, utilities, hospitals, and other necessary services on a non-profit basis, where the underprivileged segments of the society solely have to pay their share of the actual cost of such benefit. Where a family falls to a point at which they are completely unable to sustain itself at even non-profit levels, then I propose that we establish self-supporting camps at which these families can voluntarily enlist to become members, gaining necessary family support, training in life and labor market skills, and allowed to save a small weekly stipend to build a nest egg. Once it is thought that they have accumulated what is needed to return to life in the real world, they are free to leave.

Posted by: Tig at November 19, 2004 12:32 PM (G5PGV)

9 Ok, this is a relatively minor quibble, but---maybe it's just me, but "nationalist" party reminds me too much of National Socia1ist Party. How about reviving an oldie-but-goodie? The Federalist Party....?

Posted by: Susie at November 20, 2004 12:32 PM (VR4G3)

10 I like your ideas. I am a bit concerned with the privatization part; I'd like to know more about what you would privatize and how to ensure that those who do need help get the help they need.

Posted by: Rachel Ann at November 20, 2004 03:56 PM (iT4Tl)

11 I'm not married to Nationalist but I couldn't go along with Federalist. Too many connotations of a big centralized government. If we want thing to be more efficient that's definitely not the way to go.

Posted by: Jim at November 22, 2004 09:55 AM (tyQ8y)

12 Rachel Ann - Privatization should immediately happen in service segments that the government cannot provide adequate service, provides grossly overcost services or competes with private businesses in order to provide service. An excellent example I recently ran into is unemployment benefits. I have been paying mandatory unemployment "insurance" fees for 20 years. In that time the amount I've put into the system even with the most meager accumulated gains would amount to well over $28,000. When I lost my job I was entitled to a pittance of $300 a week. This amount of money was just shy of absolutely useless. Like many Americans I have a car payment and a house payment. Utilities, food, dependents, etc. Because benefits do not start when you become unemployed I actually collected benefits for only three weeks out of the 2+ months that I was without a job. I absolutely guarantee that this money could have been handled better by any entity other than the government. Why is it mandatory? If I don't want to buy life insurance nobody questions my right not to do so but I am forced to pay every week for this utterly broken system. Why not let me decide? Even if I had been able to put that money in a regular savings account with the restriction that it could only be dispensed upon the condition of unemployment we would be in worlds better financial shape than we are now. In fact, we'd be in healthy financial shape instead of the straights we're in at the moment. A quicker example - in Georgia all liquor is sold only by the state. Why? Beer and wine are available in the supermarkets. Why do I have to buy whiskey at a state run package store? There is no reason for the government to be interfering with this private industry sector.

Posted by: Jim at November 22, 2004 10:32 AM (tyQ8y)

13 Re: point 6. What about Pork rinds?

Posted by: Kin at November 23, 2004 10:39 AM (ZQldT)

14 Pork rinds would be tolerated as a necessary evil. I am living in Georgia after all.

Posted by: Jim at November 23, 2004 01:57 PM (tyQ8y)

15 My g/f posted on her site about universal healthcare. While I am 60/40 on it, I think it would work as long as the government does not actually handle the cost of it. Here are my two cents on it: 1. Regulate Medicaid and Medicare better - allow for updates in technology and stop paper pushing. 2. Stop the pharmacutical company hold. Drugs don't cost that much to manufacture. 3. Form laws about frivolous law suits that bring down the cost of mal-practice insurance. 4. Stricter standards for doctors that goes with those laws. 5. The cost of health insurance is through the roof. By lowering the drug costs and the malpractice, we may be able to bring down the cost of insurance. The other thing is, we are pushing to privitize things away from the government - because everytime the government takes over certain aspects of business the costs are always underestimated and then grossly over-costed. Do we want to deal with Universal Health Care in the hands of the government? How about mandatory health care for every person that has a job. Thats a start. Make the employers responsible, not the government - give tax breaks to the employers for helping out with health care - and force contract companies to also have health care - full or part time. This will stop them from outsourceing to contractors that they dont have to pay for benifits. The next step is to keep the jobs in the US, so they don't try to get people in india to do the job for less. So we have to pass regulations that make it harder to have employees in another country do what Americans should be doing.

Posted by: pylorns at November 23, 2004 02:45 PM (FTYER)

16 Jeez, am I eff'g invisible? Or has ever'one finally concluded that I am jes' a madman and it is better to jes' ignore me? USURP. 1) Takin' care of your responsibilities yourself so you don't need a government to do it for you. 2) Government supplied basic services on a low-cost non-profit basis, nothing is free. 3) Reeducation camps to assist the desperately destitute in gainin' the necessary skills to become productive responsible citizens, not long-term wards of the state.

Posted by: Tig at November 24, 2004 10:40 AM (G5PGV)

17 You're not invisible, Tig, but I'm pretty sure you've confirmed as a madman. ;-) #1 I fully agree with. #2 would depend on the services. Ideally I'd rather see government out of the service industries. #3 is a particular favorite of Dopple-G's. It'll be one of the first things he implements if he ever become dictator for life. Personally I look at that as a service, one that could probably be done better and cheaper by a private entity.

Posted by: Jim at November 24, 2004 11:08 AM (tyQ8y)

18 Not to be a downer, but what you have described here is basically small "l" libertarianism. Although the capital "l" Libertarians have usurped the basic concepts and added to them their own wacky agenda, basically, what you've got is it. Although I applaud it, you will not make much of a national splash because your own altruism would alienate most Americans at the most basic point, personal greed. Your #1 point is the most dangerous and open to interpretation as to be almost worthless. Let's see, Democrats say that the government is here to protect the rights to "the pursuit of happiness," thus unlimited welfare should be available (Johnson's Great Society). Republicans believe that government exists to protect that same right by the DOMA. Again, I applaud your sentiments, but I feel within the capitalistic framework of American economy, no one will be willing to play. We have our NIMBYism and our greed which will prevent us from allowing the monolith which is the American Bureaucracy from diminishing, regardless of who is at it's titular head.

Posted by: Someonewhoreads at November 24, 2004 09:39 PM (Msg+m)

19 Count me in... this has been a long time in coming and the time is now. Can this be something viable? All there is, is the chance... why not take it?

Posted by: Peakah at November 25, 2004 01:46 AM (RuiVw)

20 They're comin' to take me away, ha ha!

Posted by: Tig at November 25, 2004 12:36 PM (G5PGV)

21 I'm having trouble getting my brain around "the legislation of morality" I realize this most obviously applies to the devide created by the gay marriage issue and abortion, but what other fairly important issues can be labled a moral issue in order for it just to not be dealt with? Maybe I'm too far right to participate, but I am still reading...

Posted by: FastFreddy at November 28, 2004 07:20 AM (dZoIR)

22 FastFreddy, the Libertarian classics like marijuana, prostitution and gambling would be excellent examples. We have two types of illegal things in the USA - things that are illegal because they must be illegal from a humane perspective (murder, theft) and things that are illegal only because we have made them so. This latter class is chock full of morality laws.

Posted by: Jim at November 28, 2004 07:32 AM (GCA5m)

23 More power to you, but I suspect you would be smarter to, instead of forming a third party, form an action committee that sponsors groups within the Democratic and Republican parties. The American system can't support three parties. I know, I know, lots of people say I'm wrong--they've been saying it for 200 years. The most effective political groups by far are those with connections deep in both parties. The Libertariansn look like they're starting to get it. There's a Republican Liberty Coalition and a Democratic Liberty Coalition. By the way, spontaneously, in both the House and Senate, there is something called the "centrist caucus," which have a number of members in both parties. I mostly like your agenda. FWIW.

Posted by: Dean Esmay at November 30, 2004 06:31 AM (LOj+R)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

It's hard not being a member of a political party. Hard and inefficient. When people talk politics they first establish their stances. This is very easy for a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green or Communist. When you know what party they support you immediately have a general idea of their political beliefs. You have an established starting point.

Now it's true that next to nobody embraces all of the party line but when you have that known starting point it is very easy to clarify your positions. "I'm a Republican but I support freedom of choice" or "I'm a Democrat but I think socialized medical care is the wrong way to go" or even "I'm a Libertarian but I have a sneaking suspicion that the complete elimination of government would be a bad move".

For those of us who can't identify enough with a party to claim membership it is very difficult to even get to a conversational starting point. Before our debate can begin we need to essentially outline our complete political viewpoint. How do you feel about abortion? How do you feel about welfare? How do you feel about progressive taxation? How do you feel about government subsidies, social security, proactive national defense, deficit spending, etceteras, etceteras, etceteras. It can take fifteen minutes of this before you're even at a point where you can start discussing issues. more...

Posted by: Jim at 12:15 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 802 words, total size 5 kb.

Dopple-G here, everyone. I'm the source of much of Jim's inanity, but today I bring you a political rant all my own.

For the many who claimed that they were leaving the country if the challenger didnÂ’t win the presidential election, IÂ’d like to extend this opportunity to encourage them to follow through with that promise. more...

Posted by: Garret at 12:25 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 596 words, total size 4 kb.

Ilyka is exploring the age old question of what makes a person decide to be a Republican. For me it was pretty simple. When I was a young idealist (making no money) I was very much a Democrat, and proud of it. I thought that it was absolutely wonderful that the Democrats wanted to take care of all of my problems and fix all of the ills of the world. That was a concept I could really get behind!

But as I started to make more money I realized something. First, the Democrats didn't take care of my problems. Not a one. Zilch. Zero. Nada. I did it by myself. I realized something else. They didn't fix all of the ills of the world either. They really weren't fixing any of the world's ills.

But the government was taking my money. In larger and larger amounts. And the Democrats wanted to take even more to fund all of these wonderful problems that never helped me or mine and these other huge programs that never fixed the world's ills.

The more I made, the more they took. But no matter how much of my money they took they still weren't taking care of me and they still weren't fixing the world's ills.

I got pissed. I got Republican. They had loads of bogus promises too but the big one was that they didn't want to keep taking more and more of my money. They wanted a smaller government without so many useless programs that required less money out of my pocket to throw into the great bureaucratic black hole of incompetence. That rocked!

I've toned back quite a bit since then. By this time in my life I'm more of a lower case "l" libertarian than anything else. Perhaps a good description would be "moderate disestablishmentarianist". If the government was completely scaled back to the point where they didn't screw with my life at all unless I was in the process of screwing with somebody else, and vice versa, I'd be perfectly happy.

So long as they stopped taking my money of course.

Posted by: Jim at 06:29 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 364 words, total size 2 kb.

Everybody has seen the map of America with the red states and the blue states and it makes it look like the coasts versus everybody else. Get a bit more granular and a whole different picture emerges. We're all just shades of purple.

(Hat tip to Dopple-G)

Posted by: Jim at 06:18 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.