What I'm Reading: The Great Gatsby

The Great Gatsby

I read this book in high school, and I thought I'd reread it with a different set of eyes. This is supposed to be one of the great modern American literature books. I wasn't bowled over when I read it the first time, but I suppose I might this time.  I know this book is chock full of symbolism that I'm supposed to dissect and enjoy, but honestly, my last reading has tainted me. I guess that makes me shallow.

I just want to read this book and hope to find some enjoyment. If, while I'm reading, I happen to glean some insight, then great, but I don't intend on spending a couple of weeks examining each chapter in detail and writing expositions on them. No sir. I have new books sitting around waiting for me. While I probably will miss out on this timeless work, I don't think it will change my viewpoint like some of the recent books I've been reading.

Favorite line so far: Preface - "The Great Gatsby is a classic - a novel that is read spontaneously by pleasure-seekers and under duress by students."

Let's hope this time around it's pleasurable.


UPDATE:  I didn't enjoy it. I admit that re-reading brought back memories of the discussions I had in class, but aside from a little nostalgia, I couldn't get into it. The characters are real enough, the problems are real enough. I didn't care for the symbolism. If I didn't read this book ever, I don't think I'd be missing out. This book really does belong in a classroom and nowhere else.

Korean Readers

I think I may have a few Korean readers! It shouldn't be surprising since I do reference living and working here.  Sadly, as I write this, I am not at a keyboard that supports Hangul. It looks like I'll have to create a page on the right side for Koreans that stop by.

Welcome!

Just to let you know, my experience in your country has been mostly positive. Any frustrations I may have experienced here are probably no different than what a Korean living overseas may have experienced; I miss certain foods or have language problems, but it's nothing that couldn't be overcome with a bit of effort or creativity. I face the same problems you do, daily. I get stuck in traffic, or my wife buys something I think is unnecessary. I share the same positives, such as exhilaration of the Korean soccer team or watching 2NE1 shake their goods.

When there is something political going on in your country, such as Mad Cow protests, I don't go out and join, but I may talk about it with my Omma-nim and Appo-nim. I just try mind my business and be a good neighbor.

Oregon Cop Attempts to Intimidate Man Videotaping Traffic Stop

Good for this guy. He knew his rights and stood up for them. Why should police officers ask for ID if it's not required? Perhaps in some states it's a requirement to show ID, perhaps its a way to establish dominance in a situation -- if you comply with this request you'll comply with others. Cops need to get trained on their limitations that they seem so eager to break free from.

The Coquille police officer stormed up to him and demanded to know if he was being recorded.

When Logan-Kelly confirmed that he was being recorded, the officer told him he was "committing a crime" — which we all know is false.

Logan-Kelly calmly told the officer that he did not have an expectation of privacy, so therefore, no crime was being committed.

Read the rest here.

This was a mild encounter, but you can imagine what might have happened if that cop didn't show restraint. A lot of bad things could have happened to this guy before he'd be vindicated. It's good that we should be vigilant.

In Graphics: What Are Dividends?

I enjoy the stock market as much as the next guy, I suppose. I like the idea of purchasing and owning a piece of a company. Every year I get to vote in the annual shareholders' meeting and I get to collect dividends on certain stocks. Dividends are similar to interest on savings, but that's not quite right. Dividends will vary with the performance of the company and value of the stock, so be sure to do your homework, stick with your strategy before jumping into a high-yield dividend stock.

I really like dividend stocks because they can offset losses over time if the stock goes down. Also, I think it's fun to save up the dividends to reinvest and purchase more of the same to create a feedback loop. In some cases this can be done automatically. It's called a DRIP (Dividend ReInvestment Plan). My money making mo' money!

In Graphics: What Are Dividends?

via MintLife Blog | Personal Finance News & Advice by Ross Crooks on 10/22/10

To make studying the fundamentals of investing fun, we recently kicked of a series of infographics explaining basic concepts (See: What Is a Stock?). Now let's move on to something that many investors — beginner and advanced alike — actually consider not only important, but even sexy: dividends.
Dividends aren't that difficult to understand: they're a part of the earnings of a company that is paid out to shareholders. Shareholders love them because, unlike a stock's price, dividends provide a more stable income stream. But as with anything in the investing word, they're neither 100% guaranteed, nor that simple.

AofM and Movember

The Art of Manliness is leading a charge for Movember. This is the month for raising awareness and money for prostate and testicular cancer. I'll grow a mustache much to my wife's disdain for a good cause.

Fight Prostate Cancer by Growing a Mustache: The 2010 Movember Contest

via The Art of Manliness by Brett & Kate McKay on 10/22/10



Every time I turn on a football game, I see players with pink shoelaces and pink gloves and pink towels, all promoting breast cancer awareness. This year the White House was bathed in pink light and even the fire trucks in my town got painted pink for the cause. Now I'm all for saving the world's wonderful tata's, but men have a cancer all of their own, and it unfortunately doesn't get quite as much attention (I guess nobody wants to think about a guy's junk when they're peeling off the top of their yogurt.)

But Movember is an effort to change that. Started in 2003, Movember is an annual, month-long celebration of the mustache, highlighting men's health issues – specifically prostate cancer, testicular cancer, and male depression. During the month of November, men grow a mustache and raise funds for charities like the Prostate Cancer Foundation and the Lance Armstrong Foundation (LIVESTRONG).

We're going to be celebrating Movember here on the Art of Manliness website by inviting readers to grow a mo during the month of November. Last year the AoM Movember team raised over $8,000! I think we can double that this year. Ready to join us in the fight against prostate cancer?

Read the rest here.

Controversial Picture At ROK Drop

Over at ROK Drop, they have a picture of a vehicle on Ft. Hood with anti-Obama/liberal stickers on it.

Expression of free speech or service member gone wild?

Check out the comments section.

Repost: The Philosophy of Liberty

I know I posted this before, but it's worth mentioning again.

Conversation About Bathhouses

I was having a conversation about bathhouses in Korea. All of us seemed to have various levels of experience and comfort. The conversation went pretty smoothly until one coworker, let's call him M.Gazer, went to far and I just had to check him...

M.Gazer: I don't like bathhouses because all the Koreans are staring at my junk.

Me: Why don't you stare back? *fighting to hold back laughter*

M.Gazer: I'm not doing that.

Me: I know why they're staring at you. Yours is the only one standing erect. *laughing*

M.Gazer: NO! When I think about bathhouses I think about naked women or being surrounded by naked women.

Me: ...

Me: I'm sure if you explain it to them they'll understand...*starting to laugh* OR you could try to counter it by staring at their junk. *laughing*

That's right good reader. Sometimes my life is a rerun of Porky's.

Pimping: F5Waeg

Hello readers,

There's a new blogger on my blog roll, F5Waeg.


If you like a down-to-earth,Mr. Wonderful-esque storytelling style, I'm sure you'll enjoy this father of two and long-time expat.

Seriously, he's got cavemen throwing spears at shopping carts!  How can you not enjoy a blog with this on it.

Head on over. He's a link whore, so if you run a blog, consider putting him on your blog roll.

Chinese Professor

Not too hard to imagine that this is a potential future. I don't blame the Chinese for doing what they're doing, I think it is wise and if we were in a similar position, we should do the same.

I'm optimistic that things will get better, but not for the next 15 - 20 years. At least, by that time my children will be ready to move out and things should be looking up...similar to post-WWII America.

A Discussion: Smokers' Rights to Secession

Recently I had a great discussion with my coworkers. I admit that I could be living in / advocating a libertarian utopia... or...maybe America from 1776 - 1913. As with most arguments we meandered from one topic to the next because they tied into the main argument. A discussion about voter initiative became a talk about secession, became the 10th Amendment, became the giving up rights for security. It got a little heated. At one point one guy shouted, "My Rights! My Rights! My faggoty rights!" We backed off to let things cool down.

It was a good argument. Of course it's academic in so far as the changes that I advocated are not going to happen because they are too extreme for most contemporary Americans. It was a lot of what if's. I'm interested because I think most of my coworkers maintain a centrist point of view. That's where most of my countrymen are. I too was like that or even quite liberal in the past, until I reread the Constitution. 

Here's how it went...

I started off with smoking laws and how they infringe on the rights of smokers and business owners to decide where it's ok to smoke. I don't mean that smokers should be able to smoke anywhere, but if a restaurant, a private establishment, is forced to eliminate smoking, then that may affect their business. The business could clearly state that their place is a smoking restaurant or club. Then the non-smoker has the freedom to choose to enter or not. By creating these nanny state laws, the government removes freedom of choice for non-smokers and infringes on smokers' and business owners' rights. I mean, it's not like a smoker can choose to enter a non-smoking restaurant or not. Once all establishments are decreed to be non-smoking, then there isn't any avoidance. This is no different than requiring that all establishments are designated smoking areas. Despite not gaining a pure acceptance of this point, I continued.

I proceeded to marijuana, or more specifically, Proposition 19 in California. Now this was an easy sell. Most agreed that the federal government should legalize marijuana and tax it. It's a harmless substance, it's safer than smoking or drinking, and its a victimless crime. It's interesting to see the differences in attitudes towards smoking tobacco (a legal substance) versus marijuana (currently an illegal substance)! What if people wanted to smoke mj in a special bar? I guess they can't because of smoking bans. So if you agree that smoking law infringe on people's freedom of choice, then you should agree that marijuana laws do so as well. If you agree with one but not the other, then there is a cognitive dissonance that needs to be reconciled, not simply rationalized away.

Next I focused on voter initiative. The people of a state can decide how they want to enact or repeal laws based on popular vote vs state legislative bodies. I think its very American! If Prop 19 should pass then the people of California have spoken and marijuana will be legal despite being in conflict with federal laws. According to the Constitution, specifically the 9th and 10th Amendments, this should overrule any federal law no matter what the Attorney General may say. I think most of my coworkers with with me insofar as voter initiatives are a tool for the people to make changes at the local level. It was a bit much for them to accept a state overruling federal laws. I suppose I'll have to come up with a future discussion or article about the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution.

So far this makes sense right? It's reasonable, right? Personal freedom to smoke in designated areas or leave, personal freedom to smoke marijuana, voter initiative to legalize a substance that the federal government decreed is illegal. Now, here's the great leap...

What if there were a voter initiative to seceded from the union?  o.0  Whoa!

If you agreed with me so far, then it shouldn't be too much to think about the next step. I also argued, that if the several states created the federal government to protect its rights and freedoms, AND if the federal government does not do its job (like with what's happening in Arizona and illegal immigration) or assumes to many powers (Patriot Act, undeclared wars, abuse of eminent domain) then the states should be able to decide for themselves if they'd like to continue with this contract. Apparently, this idea is too extreme for my coworkers and probably most Americans...for now.

The Plain Meaning of the Constitution

After reading this and the supporting documents I wonder why the Supreme Court insists on interpreting the Constitution in ways that run contrary to the founders' intent.

The Plain Meaning of the Constitution

via Tenth Amendment Center by Tenth Amendment on 10/17/10

by Michael Maharrey, Kentucky Tenth Amendment Center
On Sunday, Oct. 3, the Lexington Herald-Leader ran an editorial outlining why requiring health insurance makes sense.
Following is a response written by Kentucky Tenth Amendment Center coordinator, Mike Maharrey. As of today, the Herald has not responded to the request to run this piece. We'll let you know if that changes.
*******

Get the New Book Today!

In its Sunday, Oct. 3, editorial, the Lexington Herald Leader went to great lengths to explain why requiring every U.S. citizen to carry health insurance makes sense. But in answering one question, the Herald Leader failed to consider the first and most basic question: does the federal government have the constitutional authority to require every American to purchase health insurance?

It clearly does not.

The 10th Amendment states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Unless the Herald Leader editorial board can point to the specific powers granted to the general government in the Constitution, any health care solutions should rightly come through the states.
Proponents of nationalized health care mangle two Constitutional provisions to justify federal control of the health care system. Both arguments exhibit a misunderstanding of the framers' intent.

Progressives argue that the power to regulate interstate commerce grants Congress sweeping authority to regulate virtually everything, including health care. This represents a gross misunderstanding of what the framers meant by interstate commerce and the reason that they included such power in the Constitution.

The framers granted Congress authority to regulate interstate commerce simply to prevent states from imposing tariffs on one another, thus inhibiting trade. It was never intended as a positive power allowing Congress to implement regulations on things like health care. James Madison, known as the father of the Constitution, made this clear.

"It is very certain that [the commerce clause] grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government."

In fact, the word commerce, as used by the framers, only referred to trade, not manufacturing or agriculture, much less services such as health care.

Progressives also use the taxing authority granted Congress in Article 1 Sec. 8 to argue that the federal government has the power to regulate health care.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

The Constitution then proceeds to list 18 specific things to which federal taxing authority applies. Proponents of wide ranging federal power point to the words "general welfare", arguing Congress has the power to levy taxes for any purpose that generally benefits the nation. But again, the writings of the framers do not support this view. Alexander Hamilton states in Federalist 83 that listing specific applications of  taxing power would be redundant if the authority implied unlimited powers.

"This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended."

Madison addressed the meaning of the words "general welfare". (Emphasis Mine)

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

But progressives will argue that the courts have expanded these constitutional powers beyond their original meaning, and the federal government does indeed possess the power to mandate health insurance.

Thomas Jefferson made it clear in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 that the federal government itself was not the only party with the right to determine what is or isn't constitutional. The states also possess that right.

"…the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."

And Madison argued that state governments have a duty to "interpose" for the people when the federal government oversteps its constitutional authority.

The founders understood the dangers of expansive centralized power. George Washington said, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

They created a system designed to keep that power in check. They granted limited, enumerated powers to the federal government and left everything else to the states. The dangers of expansive power held in the hands of a few remains no less nefarious with the passage of time.

The Herald Leader argues that because requiring all citizens to carry health insurance is a good idea and would benefit the nation, federal power should make this happen. But good intentions do not justify ignoring the plain meaning of the Constitution. Pragmatism should never trump principles. And the Herald editorial board would be wise to remember that in 1798, the federal government thought it was a good idea, and beneficial to the nation, to arrest dissenting newspaper editors under the Sedition Act.

 

What She Said: I’m Not Biased; I Just Question Authority When They Have Lied To Me Repeatedly.

A great article by Jenn at Cop Block.

Over and over, responses to my articles involve some kind of criticism about my biased indictment of police, and overzealous willingness to imply corruption, dishonesty and conspiracy. In particular, I am reminded again and again that police work hard, were “hand picked” for being upstanding people, and I should really walk a day in their shoes before I open my big mouth.

Here’s why they are wrong.

First, I don’t need to walk a day in anyone’s shoes,  feel empathy, or see things from someone else’s perspective to determine whether something is right or wrong.  I don’t need to do a day on the job with a badge to know that torture, violence and murder are wrong.  The easiest example of all – clearly, one needn’t be a Nazi or work as a Gestapo for a day to know that racism, violence and genocide are wrong.  And more moderate examples – one needn’t ingest cyanide to know it will kill you,  one needn’t be punched to know that it’s painful (for all of you irksome folk who like to inappropriately call Godwin’s law because you know your logic failed, and you don’t have a legitimate response).

Second, police engage in corruption, lies, coverups and dishonesty all the time.  Recently, Lieutenant Jon Burge was found to have been involved in torture and forced confessions of suspects for decades, with the help (or at least, very convenient apathy and selective attention) of prosecutors and fellow police officers.

In May of 2009, Derrick Donchak, 19, and Brandon Piekarsky, 17, were among a group of men who brutally beat and killed an immigrant, Luis Ramirez. The fight ended with Ramirez convulsing in the street and foaming from the mouth.  Three police officers, one of whom was dating Piekarsky’s mother, helped cover up evidence.  The other two officers who helped orchestrate a coverup were higher ranking officers.

...

Certainly, this doesn’t mean every single police officer is engaged in some kind of back room conspiracy. However, when it happens repeatedly and frequently, and the superiors seem not only to tolerate it, but be in on it, I don’t think it’s terribly unfair to point to suspicious circumstances and question whether there is an ongoing cover up, or at the least, question whether the police are handling the matter in an honest fashion.

I’m not biased; I’m in fact very objective.  When I realize I have been lied to repeatedly, and police departments all over the country have engaged in dishonest behavior, I question what police departments are representing, and what they are claiming to be the case. This is what it means to be objective – to examine available evidence, circumstances, and knowledge – not to just jump at every chance to think the best of and give the benefit of the doubt to someone with a badge and a gun.  ”Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me,” has never been so applicable as it is with police departments and their treachery.

Read the rest here.

What I'm Reading: Life of Pi

You may have heard of this book. It's been on the NY Times bestseller's list and has won a few awards.


This is the story of a castaway, Indian boy and a tiger on a lifeboat. Pi is a zookeeper's son, a Hindu, a Christian, and a Muslim. He uses he knowledge of animals to work out a way to survive with a tiger on a lifeboat after the ship they were on sank.

I enjoyed this book. It wasn't dry and it was a relatively quick read. As you can imagine, the role of religion in this story is ever present but never seems to weigh things down. It does inspire some thoughts on the role of zoos and religion. I also thought that the author was influence by Hemmingway's The Old Man and the Sea and Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe. The story was humorous at time and at others, a tragedy. I would recommend this book to anyone.

Publish Post

The Story of Spending

Enjoy.



via Bankruptingpa.com

Firefighters Watch As Home Burns To The Ground

This is a few weeks old, but it's worthy nonetheless. Don't be shocked. Firefighting is not a right, it's a service, but before I mount the soapbox, here's the article.

 

The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late.  They wouldn't do anything to stop his house from burning.

Each year, Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the city of South Fulton. 

But the Cranicks did not pay.

The mayor said if homeowners don't pay, they're out of luck.

This fire went on for hours because garden hoses just wouldn't put it out. It wasn't until that fire spread to a neighbor's property, that anyone would respond.

Turns out, the neighbor had paid the fee.

It's called Personal Responsibility, dumbass. Mr. Cranick knowingly lived in an area without fire service. He knowingly refused to pay the service fee. He's an adult and knows what he was doing. He made his bed, so he should sleep in it. Perhaps next time he'll pay for the service. You should see the comments section of Gizmodo or facebook, sheesh! "It's not humanitarian." "The family is homeless." "They should have..." This all comes down to entitlement. These whiners are the same group that forces others to help the poor. This is the same group that forces others to pay for their medical insurance. This is the same group that lowers standards at school to let the "slow boy" graduate. Morally, how is this even fair to those that paid? Some commenters have said that the firefighters should have put the fire out then charge him out the wazoo. Perhaps, but then others homeowners wouldn't pay until they needed it. That's not how it works.

I suppose we could extend the argument to police or medical services, and guess what. It still would/should apply. You don't have a right to police or medical services. If you didn't pay up from the beginning, then there shouldn't be an expectation of service. It's sad to see so many people throw away personal empowerment. In most cases police and medical paid through taxes or insurance, so even if you don't want it or you don't like it, you still have to pay up, and they are notoriously inefficient and overpriced. You also don't have freedom of choice. Mr. Cranick did and he enjoyed not paying the fee until he needed it. If all of these services were privatized, people would be more sensitive to their performance and have a stronger say in how they conduct their business, not to mention that competition would drive costs down.

Here is the fire chief explaining things, the next day.

There's more, but it's mostly condemnation from other people that think the bills will be paid for by leprechauns.

The Declaration, the Constitution, and Liberty in Our Time

The Declaration, the Constitution, and Liberty in Our Time
via Campaign for Liberty

By Jacob Hornberger

A few choice bites.

Ever since the dawn of recorded history, people's minds have been inculcated with the notion that government is the master and the people are the servants. Hardly anyone, for example, has questioned the notion that government officials have the legitimate authority to manage the economy, or direct the education of people's children, or to control religious activity, or to decide what people can read or watch. It's just been commonly accepted that government officials can do whatever they want, especially in the best interests of society, and that it is the role of the good, little, model citizen to submit and obey in the service of the greater good of society.

Then one day in 1776 along came a Virginian named Thomas Jefferson who issued a declaration that set that age-old notion on its head. Jefferson suggested in the Declaration of Independence that people had had it all wrong. It's the people who are masters and it is government that is the servant.

Every person, Jefferson said, has been endowed with certain fundamental, inherent rights. These rights don't come from government and, therefore, people don't need to be beholden to government for them. People's rights are endowed in them by nature and God.

What is the role of government? Jefferson observed that people call government into existence for the sole purpose of protecting the exercise of these natural, God-given rights.

And when government becomes destructive of this end -- when it infringes upon or destroys people's rights, the people have the right to ditch the government -- alter or even abolish it and replace it with a government that is limited to its rightful role of servant whose job is to protect the exercise of people's rights.

...


The American people insisted on passage of the Bill of Rights, which really should have been called a Bill of Prohibitions because it doesn't really grant anyone any rights, as many federal officials today suggest. People's rights don't come from the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. They come from nature and God. That is, even if there wasn't a Bill of Rights or a Constitution, people would still have such inherent rights as freedom of speech and the keeping and bearing of arms.

The Bill of Rights prohibits government officials from interfering with people's preexisting rights. The First and the Second Amendments guarantee that federal officials will not infringe upon such fundamental rights as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, and the right to keep and bear arms.

The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments protect people from the most tyrannical power of all -- the power of the government to arbitrarily seized a person, cart him off to the Tower of London or other facility, torture him, even execute him without any due process of law, trial by jury, or other judicial review. The civil liberties in these Amendments were carved out in centuries of resistance by the British people against the tyranny of their own government.

Some people warned that the power lusters in Washington would claim that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights were all the rights that people had. That was the purpose of the Ninth Amendment. It says that simply because the Bill of Rights names certain rights, that doesn't mean that the people don't have other rights. The list is not all-inclusive.

To make certain that all future power lusters in the government got the point, the people enacted the Tenth Amendment. It says that all the powers that exist in addition to the enumerated powers being delegated to the federal government in the Constitution are reserved to the people and to the states.

So, the federal government was designed to be a weak government with few, enumerated powers. To make it even weaker, it was divided into three branches, each with its own delegated powers.

Moreover, the federal system established by the Constitution ensured that state governments would have jurisdiction over their respective geographical areas. And even that wasn't good enough for the American people. They enacted bills of rights at the state level to ensure themselves against the prospect of tyranny by their own state governments.

Now, we all know that there were severe violations of the principles of freedom in this new society. Slavery was the most horrific. There were also tariffs and many minor violations, especially at the state level, including subsidies to the railroads and other businesses.

But the practical significance of the Declaration and the Constitution is that a very large percentage of the populace experienced the most unusual -- and the freest -- society in history.

Imagine: A society with no income taxation or IRS -- people were free to keep everything they earned and there wasn't anything the government could do about it. No Social Security, no Medicare, no Medicaid, no welfare, no systems of public (i.e., government) schooling, no drug laws, no immigration controls, no Federal Reserve, no legal-tender laws, few economic regulations, no gun control, no torture, no huge standing army or military-industrial complex, no going abroad in search of monsters to destroy or to spread democracy with bombs, missiles, and bullets.

What was the result of this unusual society? Only the most prosperous nation that mankind had ever seen! When people were free to accumulate wealth, massive amounts of savings and capital came into existence, making workers increasingly productive. The reason that thousands of penniless immigrants were flooding American shores every day was because they not only had a chance to survive, for the first time in history they had the chance to become wealthy. People were going from rags to riches in one, two, or three generations.

It was also the most charitable nation in history. When people were free to accumulate wealth, they voluntarily gave large portions of it away. That was how the opera houses, museums, hospitals, universities, and lots of other things got built.

...

Inspiring.  MAYBE, I'll use this speech as a translation project in order to practice Korean.  Yeah, I could use Google Translate, but I want to challenge myself.

Site I Like

PaperbackSwap.com

It's almost self explanatory.

You have a bunch of books sitting around since middle school and they're taking up space. What's a boy to do? I suppose you could donate them to the library, but where's the entrepreneurial spirit in that? I have sold several on Amazon, but if sales aren't moving, you're still left with useless inventory. The next best thing, in my opinion, is trading.

At PaperbackSwap, I list all of my idle books and trade them for books I want. The books must be in good condition and if they're not, the recipient can say so and the sender won't get credit.

Before I get too far ahead of myself, let me explain the swap. Someone requests a book I've listed. I receive an email notifying me, so I log on and confirm if I can mail within a period of time or not. I print out the recipient's address to be used as wrapping for the book. I wrap the book with the printed pages and go to the post office. Generally, the books can be mailed via "Media Mail" so the cost is usually about $2 - $3. Once the recipient receives the book and is satisfied they log on and acknowledge receipt. I get a credit and the recipient is deducted a credit.

Credits are what's used to trade books. You start off with two. If you want a book but you don't have any credits, you can buy some. If you've sent a book then you get credits and can keep them for later books that you want sent to you.

I like this site because I get to clear out old books and find books that I like without paying retail. My only cost is postage paid on outbound books.

What if the government did nothing?

via Campaign For Liberty Blog

by Tim Shoemaker

The left asks us to imagine how bad things would be if the government had not engaged in massive economic "stimulus" programs. The right asks us to imagine how bad things would be if the government had not intervened in the Middle East.

The answer from statists on both the left and right would be that things would be much worse off without government interventions.

In his latest segment, the Southern Avenger (Jack Hunter) takes on the hypothetical from both the left and right and logically concludes we would be better off if the government had never intervened on either account.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22cC3i3mDOc

This is one of those things that makes me a libertarian. Why must the federal government do anything? Their "solutions" can not work for every situation. It's much better at a local level. It's too easy for the federal government to assume power and not return it, and it's too difficult to remove that power once its been taken away from the people.

Let's look at No Child Left Behind. How about Obamacare? Prohibition, the War on Drugs. Any number of federal programs with good intentions, incidentally take away the rights of individuals. If this were done at a local level, at least you'd have the option to move or a stronger voice in the policy. I have no problem if Massachusetts instituted health care, the people spoke and the people of that state can enjoy and suffer under their choices. Under the federal government there isn't any escape (moving to another country is not an option).

Listen, how about this...when something happens, how about the local and state governments help out. How about churches, charities, communities, and families helping out? Or how about this shocking thought: Just leave me alone.

An Argument Against Drunk Driving Laws

I really enjoy these kind of articles. Most people would react with shock when confronted with an argument that may seem to run contrary to popular belief. I particularly enjoy the look on people's faces when I say that they don't have a right to education. It's been around so long and the benefits are so far reaching that people can't imagine life without it. But if they simply stopped to think about it they might realize the inconsistencies within laws and privileges.

In this article, Radly Balko, AKA The Agitator, makes the case against drunk driving laws.

Last week Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo  advocated  creating a new criminal offense: "driving while ability impaired." The problem with the current Texas law prohibiting "driving while intoxicated" (DWI), Acevedo explained, is that it doesn't allow him to arrest a driver whose blood-alcohol content (BAC) is below 0.08 percent without additional evidence of impairment.

    ...

    The right solution, however, is not to push the artificial line back farther. Instead we should get rid of it entirely by repealing drunk driving laws.

    ...

If our ultimate goals are to reduce driver impairment and maximize highway safety, we should be punishing reckless driving. It shouldn't matter if it's caused by alcohol, sleep deprivation, prescription medication, text messaging, or road rage. If lawmakers want to stick it to dangerous drivers who threaten everyone else on the road, they can dial up the civil and criminal liability for reckless driving, especially in cases that result in injury or property damage.

Ah, consistency, something that lawmakers lack. Mr. Balko makes a good case for consistency. If eating is just as dangerous as someone with a BAC of .05, then that person should also be fined or arrested. It's not the alcohol, but the impairment that should be the focus. When argued from this standpoint, I find it hard to support inconsistent drunk driving laws.

Boxes of Liberty

I recently read a certain quote for the first time; I thought that it was very elegant. When you can distill an idea or course of action in so very few and memorable words, then I think you have accomplished a literary feat, few have attained.  Winston Churchill, I believe was a master of such things, as well as Mark Twain.

This is the quote that made me drop my jaw.

There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: Soap, Ballot, Jury, and Ammo. Please use in that order. --Ed Howdershelt, UT Arlingon, 1971.

Upon further research it appears that he was a fan of Fredrick Douglas:

A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box. --1867

Later, it seems, that Libertarians found or realized a fifth box in 2008.

Among an individual’s innumerable rights, a critical few directly defend the others. You should recognize, appreciate and exercise these defensive rights, without which you will eventually lose the rest. The United States Constitution mentions at least five defensive rights, easily remembered under the mnemonic "The Five Boxes of Liberty." They are:

1. The Moving Box—right of association, in particular territorially via migration
2. The Soap Box—right of free speech
3. The Ballot Box—right to a voice in your government
4. The Jury Box—right to a trial by jury of your peers
5. The Ammunition Box—right to threaten or use appropriate violence in self-defense

Obviously this last one is not quite as elegant as the former two, but the moving box is a form of defense against tyranny. In other words, if you don't like it somewhere, then you can move. This is another reason why federal laws should be limited. State laws can vary and offer alternatives for individuals. If federal law is passed then there is no escape.

Currently the first three are being used extensively, the fourth is known and used by only a very small and informed groups. It's called jury nullification. The last box is known, but discouraged. However, if things get bad enough, I wouldn't be against it. History has shown, that those in power are not moved unless forced to move.

Balance The Budget Without Higher Taxes

Sound good right?            It is.

Sounds easy right?            It is.

You have to do it in your house, and so should the government.               Hypocrisy can suck it!

The politicians in Washington don't like to make cuts because they want to give out cash to their friends. So what are they to do besides raise taxes? Well, take a gander at a proposal from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity.




It takes will to make these changes, to do the right thing, to see reason and logic and apply it forthrightly. The batch that are in now can piss up a rope for all I care. It can be done, just look at New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

How Ink Is Made

This is pretty cool! I enjoy watching the Discovery Channel to watch how things are made, don't you? The only drawback is the Canadian accent, but I can forgive him since he's good at his job.



Via Gizmodo

Too Controversial NOT To Talk About

My head just exploded!

Just look at this title and then consider it.

Parents Push Surrogate To Abort Fetus Because of Birth Defect

Ok.

You got it?

Now a few choice bites.

Here's a case that pushes all kinds of ethical boundaries: a Canadian couple who discovered that their fetus was likely to have Down's Syndrome decided that they wanted to have an abortion.  The practice of aborting fetuses because of birth defects is controversial enough, but to make matters even knottier, the fetus was being carried by a surrogate, who wanted to carry the pregnancy to term.

...

The problem is that although parents have the right to decide whether they want to raise a child with birth defects (and I would argue, have the right to abort the fetus when they are carrying their own child), the surrogate's presence adds the complication of another adult who should be given input over what happens to her body.  If the parents feel that they can't raise the child, they should not be compelled to do so simply because they were having the child with the help of a surrogate - that would, ultimately, be cruel to both the parents and the child. 

But if the surrogate is opposed to abortion for any reason, she should not be compelled to have one.  The question is whether the surrogate is then compelled to raise the child herself, and what rights the parents have.  What if the surrogate wants to give the baby up for adoption?  Are the parents obligated to help her do so - and if not, are they obligated to give her monetary support?

Read the rest here.

Whoa.

What can anyone do in this situation? Do you really want the government involved in something like this? I know contracts are already involved, but jeez! I supposed, just like in the article, a couple extras questions should be added to the questionnaire to determine compatibility.

Deduction - Mr. Wonderful Has It

It's refreshing, like a backhanded slap right after a cold Tobasco shower.

Mr. Wonderful, author of An Idiot's tale had these very honest things to say:

We're in a terrible debt crisis. In fact, we've had a REAL unemployment rate of nearly 17 percent for the last two years.

Check the U6 figures.

And we shall continue to have high unemployment for at least a decade.


Just do the math.


There is no recovery. Only a cover-up.

...
If we continue to follow Bernanke's lead, we're doomed to slip into a Japanese-style endless recession.

If we follow the Republicans and opt for austerity, we'll slide into a depression.

The American economy is fucked either way. It's a case of pick your poison.

It's nice to see like-minded people in Korea. Too often I see or run into the likes of socialists that want to enable the poor or tell me how I should help this group or that fad. You know what, that unholy trinity of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid has cemented what Bush started. Oh, I'm not letting Dubya off the hook, and if you want to call me a racist, I'm ok with that. Mr. Wonderful is right, "the American economy is fucked." Now, do we draw the pain out for years with inflation and stimulus or do we go for a sharp, very painful year or two and get things back on track. The former gives the government more control, like we see with health care; the latter gets the government out of the way to let the free market work. I hope we can elect a leader that will go for the latter. It means that bailouts would end, corrupt companies would crumble, overextended homeowners would be responsible for their decisions, and interest rates would rise. This is the cure to our low-interest-rate hangover. When the dust settles, new companies will sprout up, stronger than before. New homeowners with 20% will come into the market and purchase the cheap houses. And the dollar will deflate and stabilize.