The Nobel Truths of Climate Change

I have long admired the Buddhist diagnosis of the human condition and its prescriptive cure.  These are articulated in the Four Nobel Truths which may be summarized as follows:

1.       Life is suffering

2.       Suffering is caused by craving / attachments to worldly things

3.       To eliminate suffering one must eliminate craving / attachment to worldly things

4.       To eliminate said cravings, one must follow the enlightened path

All too often, climate change debates generate very little light and far too much heat.  Therefore I propose that we look eastward to find a more enlightened approach.  Borrowing from the Buddha, let me suggest an enlightened framework to the climate controversy:

1.       Climate change will cause planetary suffering

2.       Climate change is caused by peoples seeking to improve their lives via energy expending devices*

3.       To eliminate climate change one must eliminate people

4.       To eliminate people one must a have plan

Every plan needs a priority list.  Here is my list of people who should lead our way off the planet.

1.       Albert Gore.  As we all know, Al is a compassionate guy who has no personal stake or profit motive behind his climate change crusade.  I am sure that being the altruistic person that he is he would gladly lead the much needed parade off of the planet

2.       The United Nations Climate Change Conference – the Apostles of Al.  I am sure that they would follow the Prophet wherever he leads for the good Mother Earth.

3.       President Obama – a truly Christ-like gesture by the Anointed One to take one for the team.  A big exit would cement the legacy.

4.       The OPEC nations.  If oil producers are the villains, they gotta go.   

5.       The Bushes – kissy face friends and protectors of OPEC oil sheikhs.

6.       Jerry Jones – another Texan.  Billionaire oil wildcatter.  Owner of the Dallas Cowboys.  Dick.

7.       With apologies to Loretta Lynn – the coal producing states.  They tell me that coal is worse that oil, but I cut them some slack and put them after OPEC because they are Americans.  Nonetheless, they gotta go.

8.       Michael Moore – the guy has got to be a one man methane factory.  Taking him will spare thousands of others who, combined, do not produce nearly the volume gas that he expels.  Sadly, I confess that I have soft spot in my heart for Michael for his great work in the Star Wars movies.

9.       Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus.  Why not?

Like 500 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean, this is a good start.  Nonetheless, a lot more people need to go before the earth will be safe again for humanity.

*For you contrarians out there, here is a link to purported benefits of carbon.  It will make some nice reading for a cold winter’s day.

Subscribe to the 2 Percenter blog by going to http://feedage.com  and entering 2percentpov into the Search box on top -choose your favorite reader.

Go back to:  2 Percenter Home      Article Archive

 Connect through:

Facebook     Twitter     E-mail     

OnFire Radio Show

Streaming  on Hamiltonradio.net

    Podcast at Blogspot, iTunes, Stitcher, Podomatic & YouTube

"Half the people are stoned and the other half are waiting for the next election.
Half the people are drowned and the other half are swimming in the wrong direction."
- Paul Simon

Are We Kiev?

The news from the Ukraine is grim.  The people are assembled to redress grievances with their government and the government is gunning them down.  What’s going on here?

Discontent began bubbling up towards the end of last year over trade alliances.  The government is cozying up to Putin’s Russia while the dissenters preferred alignment with the European Union.  As the controversy wore on additional issues, domestic concerns came to the fore.  Issues that have been mentioned in the press include(state run)  “healthcare and education systems that do not operate on bribes” as well as the chief executive’s “ ‘dictatorial’ powers, particularly his control of the economy and the security forces” not to mention “perceived sleaze and corruption within” the government.

Really?  How different is this then America in 2014? 

Our government is in bed with all sorts of creeps internationally while many of our young men and women sacrifice life and limb to protect thugs, crooks and dictators.

America’s state run schools exist to enrich bureaucrats and unions while failing our kids and filling their heads with nonsense.  Years of counterproductive regulation has slowly killed the world’s best healthcare system.  The ACA promises to eviscerate it completely for the sole benefit big insurance companies, big pharma, the IRS and other governmental toadies.

The economy is run by the shadow government at the Fed and security state has been turned upon the citizens that it was supposed to protect.

What is the one big difference between the U.S. and the Ukraine?  Why is it that our leaders do not gun us down when we assemble to protest?  The answer is one word.

Firearms.

According to the Daily Beast, “Ukraine’s government is in possession of more than seven million guns, a larger stockpile than every other post-Soviet state combined.”   This compares to about 3 million in private hands.  This gives the government a 2.5: 1 advantage in fire power over the governed.

In the U.S. the odds are much better.  According to the same Beast article, American citizens possess some 310 million firearms versus a mere 3.9 million by military and police forces.  Of course the citizens do not possess tanks, armored vehicles, artillery, ordinance, land mines, fighter planes, bombers, gun boats, chemical weapons, ballistic missiles or nukes.  So the comparison is a bit misleading.

Nonetheless, our elected keepers understand that when they shoot at libertarians, conservatives and Tea Partiers we are likely return fire.  Therefore it is understandable that they want to disarm us.

This also explains why civilian agencies are arming up.  Everyone from the Social Security Administration to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to the National Marine Fisheries Service to the Post Office and to the Department of Education is stockpiling ammunition and assault vehicles.  Snopes verifies the quantity of munitions that these seemingly harmless government agencies are stockpiling but paints a happy face on it but I‘m not buying it.  They would like us to swallow the government line – hook, line and sinker.

Just as the post Civil War Union government turned its war making machine on the Native Americans out West, our government is poised to turn its empire sustaining weaponry on us.

According to the ACLU, “Through federal grant programs, state and local police departments have virtually unlimited access to military equipment and training at no cost.” This is surplus or obsolete weaponry from America’s foreign adventures.   Thus, policing is becoming ever more aggressive, gratuitously violent and intimidating.

One must wonder why.  In a country that boasts the world’s most powerful armed forces as well as heavily armed state and local police, our mailmen, educators and Social Security employees need to wield lethal force?

Which brings us back to the title question, “Are we Kiev?”   Not quite yet, but our Lords of State can dream, can’t they?  Be afraid.  Be very afraid.

Subscribe to the 2 Percenter blog by going to http://feedage.com  and entering 2percentpov into the Search box on top -choose your favorite reader.

Go back to:  2 Percenter Home      Article Archive

 Connect through:

Facebook     Twitter     E-mail     

OnFire Radio Show

Streaming  on Hamiltonradio.net

  Podcast at Blogspot, iTunes, Stitcher, Podomatic & YouTube

"Half the people are stoned and the other half are waiting for the next election.
Half the people are drowned and the other half are swimming in the wrong direction."
- Paul Simon

Climate Change – The Model

Planet Earth has not warmed for 16 years yet it should have.  Who says?  The Model.

Despite the data, the President calls for a cool Billion in Climate Change funding.  Why?  The Model.

Also in the face of said data, international diplomats in dark suits who ride in limos and fly in private jets insist that climate change will bring about a catastrophe ob Biblical proportions.  Governments must take charge! Why?  The Model strikes again.

A skeptical public who is suffering through the worst winter in memory rightly asks WTF is up with all this Global Warming talk?  Can’t they see that we are snowed in, missing work, slipping on ice and freezing our butts off?  The statists respond by calling upon scientists to explain to us dummies how the (unobserved & undocumented) polar warming is actually making our world colder.  All this is explained in The Model.

This begs the question:  can the poles get so hot that the entire earth freezes over?  This recalls the famous conundrum that George Carlin proposed, “Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?”

It is fitting that we should segue to The Almighy.  Despite years of empirical contradiction, the Warmers cling to their Model with a tenacity as ferocious as any Creationist clings to Genesis.  This is clearly an instance of faith exceeding reason.

Listen, when I was a kid, I liked models too.

I built model railroads….

 and airplanes….

and naval vessels…..

and hot rods.

Even as child, however, I never confused my model planes, trains and automobiles with the real thing.  I never believed that I possessed an actual fighter jet, battleship or GTO.  Yet climate alarmists doggedly believe that they are holding on to the truth.

As the Good Book says, “when I became a man, I put away my childish things”.   I  became enamored with models of another sort.

Sadly, these models are no more rooted in reality than climate change models.

Subscribe to the 2 Percenter blog by going to http://feedage.com  and entering 2percentpov into the Search box on top -choose your favorite reader.

Go back to:  2 Percenter Home      Article Archive

 Connect through:

Facebook     Twitter     E-mail     

OnFire Radio Show

Streaming  on Hamiltonradio.net

  Podcast at Blogspot, iTunes, Stitcher, Podomatic & YouTube

"Half the people are stoned and the other half are waiting for the next election.
Half the people are drowned and the other half are swimming in the wrong direction."
- Paul Simon

Campaign Finance Limits Hurt The Little Guy

Recently, the issue of campaign spending limits arose at the New Jersey Libertarian Party, an organization of which I am an officer.  An advocacy group approached us regarding a point-of-view on this issue.  This essay is adapted from a response that I gave to a group called Voters First during my 2010 Congressional campaign in NJ District 4.

I oppose putting restrictions on campaign spending.

In recent elections my opponent, Congressman Chris Smith, spent over $1 million defending his seat while the Democrats invest about $400,000 in opposition.  I, on the other hand, did not even raise enough money to meet the minimum FEC reporting threshold of $5,000.

According to Cato Institute analysis, spending limitations and regulation “threatens to close off electoral politics to outsiders, hinder grassroots political involvement”

Although it may appear to be in the best interest of third parties and challenger candidates to support spending limits, I do not.  Here’s why:

First, any legislation that limits campaign or any advertising investment is a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech.  Free people have the right to say not only what they please, they also have the right to speak to as many people as possible and to repeat their message as often as they wish.

 The First Amendment also protects the right of citizens peacefully gather for the purpose of political expression.  This includes PACs and corporations which are nothing more than peaceful and voluntary gatherings of individuals.

Secondly, putting limits on paid speed is disingenuous and deceptive.  Marketing and campaign professionals understand that there are three broad classes of marketing media:

1. Paid media – paid for TV & radio commercials, print ads, billboards, web banners, etc.
• This is the kind of marketing communication that is generated by advertising agencies
• Paid advertising is limited in its effectiveness because of audience skepticism about ads combined with commercial avoidance via remote controls, etc.
2. Unpaid / “Earned” media – favorable coverage of candidates or issues in news stories, feature articles, interviews, etc.
• This type of exposure is typically generated through PR agencies, press agents and publicists
• This type of communication is typically more effective as it holds the aura of “objectivity” and implied endorsement, especially when a story is delivered by a trusted media outlet or a favorite personality.
3. Owned media – as it sounds, owned media is public facing media which the candidate or his agents control such as websites, books, newsletters, etc.   These platforms may serve considerable audiences though they involve no trackable exchange of payments as would paid advertising that is placed on a broadcast station or in a newspaper.

 It is obvious why it is the Progressives that are continually pressing for restrictions on campaign spending.  For years the Left has enjoyed a virtual monopoly of slanted exposure from the mainstream media.  By restricting paid media, the Left hopes to hold its edge on the stage of public discourse.  This is also why the Left threatens to regulate Talk Radio and the Internet which have become formidable outlets for dissenting voices.

One additional area that often favors left-leaning candidates is celebrity endorsements.  If a commercial brand marketer were to hire a Matt Damon or an Oprah Winfrey, etc as a pitchman, it would cost millions.  However, these endorsements, including personal appearances come at no charge to the campaigns and are not accounted for in any campaign finance reporting.  In addition, these endorsements generate millions of dollars in unpaid and unreported free media coverage (earned media).

In politics, owned media heavily favors incumbents.  Tax dollars provide office holders with high profile website.  What candidate would not like to own a highly trafficked website such as WhiteHouse.gov that shouts your praises?  Likewise each and every U.S. Senator and Congressman has his or her own taxpayer funded website to tout their virtues and achievements.  So do many governors and big city mayors.

All U.S. Congressman also have franking privileges.  This means that our elected representatives can mail their propaganda directly to your home at no expense to their political war chests.

Also, have you noticed how governors and big-city mayors often wind up starring in their state’s or city’s tourism and commerce campaigns?  They get millions of dollars of taxpayer funded TV exposure that portrays them as strong, visionary yet approachable leaders.  Can you say “stronger than the storm”?

One final owned media scam is the “campaign book”.  Perhaps you noticed that many presidential candidates often write a book, such as The Audacity of Hope, prior to launching their run.  What is to stop a well heed supported from giving a copy to his family, his friend, to 10,000 of his best buds?  Nothing.

Finally, and most important of all, limiting campaign expenditures addresses a symptom and not the disease.  Our problem is not that we have too much money in politics.  Our problem is that there is far too much money in government.

With all the trillions of dollars that government doles out, with its ability to lavishly reward favored constituents and hamstring those on the blacklist, is it no wonder that smart and ambitious people will invest millions to buy influence?

Therefore my solution is not to call for a cap on campaign spending but to call for a return to a limited federal government that operates within its Constitutional boundaries

p.s. My apologies for the franks and beans link.  I couldn't resist.

GSubscribe to the 2 Percenter blog by going to http://feedage.com  and entering 2percentpov into the Search box on top -choose your favorite reader.

Go back to:  2 Percenter Home      Article Archive

 Connect through:

Facebook     Twitter     E-mail     

OnFire Radio Show

Streaming  on Hamiltonradio.net

  Podcast at Blogspot, iTunes, Stitcher, Podomatic & YouTube

"Half the people are stoned and the other half are waiting for the next election.
Half the people are drowned and the other half are swimming in the wrong direction."
- Paul Simon

Who Owns The Kids?

Here is some musical accompaniment to entertain you while reading this blog.

Recently, Paul Reville, the former secretary of education for Massachusetts and a Common Core supporter publicly asserted that “the children belong to all of us”.  I’m sure this came as news to many American parents as well as kids who did not know that they were “owned” let alone community property.

If it be true that everyone owns the kids, then no one owns the kids.  American kids are fast becoming the next victim of the Tragedy of the Commons.   This is the social principle that when private ownership is absent, the populace will pillage a common resource without maintaining or replenishing it, hence, destroying it.  This tragedy has replayed itself over and over again in publicly held forests, fisheries, grazing lands and housing projects.  Precious resources are squandered and destroyed.

Privately held goods are most likely to be well maintained because it is in the owner’s interest to protect his assets and investments.  He suffers the loss when they are degraded.

The truth is that children are sovereign individuals who belong only to themselves or, if you are religious, to the God that created them.  They “belong” to no other human being.  Self ownership traces its roots at least as far back as John Locke in the Seventeenth Century.  This principle underlies our Founder’s commitment to “unalienable” rights to individual “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.

However; because children are not yet physically, emotionally or intellectually able to cope in the adult world, they are traditionally remanded to the “custody” of their parents or other elders of their families.  As defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, custody is “the act of protecting or taking care of something”.  This is the polar opposite community ownership which exploits and destroys that which it possesses.

As we said however, children are not owned by their families.  If families do not actually own their kids, what then might be their motivation in caring for the children in their custody?

That would be called “love”.  Love, as was once defined on the radio by James MacDonald, is the willful act of putting the well being of another ahead of yours.  Love is what sends the fireman into the building to rescue the trapped kids.  Love is what makes a soldier take a bullet for his buddies.  Love is what Jesus did on the cross when He died for the sins of others.

Love is something that the state does not do.  Love is something that does not compute for the bureaucratic, legalistic and one-size-fits-all controlling statist psyche.  That’s because the collectivist sees only statistics, aggregates, composites and models.  He does not see people.  People are individuals and only living, thinking and feeling individuals can love and be loved by another individual.

Because loving parents want the best for their offspring, more and more are rejecting zip code monopoly schools and top-down mandates like Common Core.  Instead they are embracing school choice in ever greater numbers.  The desire to do what is best their kids is driving parents of all political persuasions, economic  strata and ethnic identities to demand educational options for their precious children.

So, we return the opening question, “who owns the children?”  The answer is, they own themselves and they are best cared for by parents who know them, love them and know what is best for them.   Collectivists throughout history have fought to take child raising out of their parents’ hands.  When she was First Lady, Hilary Clinton tried to convince America of the wisdom of this approach in her book, It Takes a Village. The title is drawn from an African proverb on child rearing.

Hmmm.  How’d that work out for Africa? 

Subscribe to the 2 Percenter blog by going to http://feedage.com  and entering 2percentpov into the Search box on top -choose your favorite reader.

Go back to:  2 Percenter Home      Article Archive

 Connect through:

Facebook     Twitter     E-mail     

OnFire Radio Show

Streaming  on Hamiltonradio.net

   Podcast at Blogspot, iTunes, Stitcher, Podomatic & YouTube

"Half the people are stoned and the other half are waiting for the next election.
Half the people are drowned and the other half are swimming in the wrong direction."
- Paul Simon

Deny, Deny, Deny

Deny, deny deny. 

The CBO reports that the ACA will cost millions of U.S. jobs.  Deny.

The Administration just inaugurated a nationwide system of unbudgeted and congressionally unauthorized “climate hubs” to badger and intimidate farmers.  This despite the fact that global temperatures have not increased for sixteen straight years.  Deny.

The NSA does not spy on law abiding Americans, only terrorists.  Right.  Deny.

U.S. drones only kill high profile terror suspects, not innocent bystanders and children.  Deny.

Deny, deny, deny.  Here’s how the pros do it.

Subscribe to the 2 Percenter blog by going to http://feedage.com  and entering 2percentpov into the Search box on top -choose your favorite reader.

Go back to:  2 Percenter Home      Article Archive

 Connect through:

Facebook     Twitter     E-mail     

OnFire Radio Show

Streaming  on Hamiltonradio.net

   Podcast at Blogspot, iTunes, Stitcher, Podomatic & YouTube

"Half the people are stoned and the other half are waiting for the next election.
Half the people are drowned and the other half are swimming in the wrong direction."
- Paul Simon