Recently, government-sponsored agencies like NIH have moved toward open access of scientific findings. That is, the results are published where anyone can see them, and in fact (for the NIH) after 12 months the papers must be publicly accessible. This is, in my opinion (and that of a lot of others, including a pile of Nobel laureates) a good thing. Astronomers, for example, almost always post their papers on Astro-ph, a place where journal-accepted papers can be accessed before they are published.
John Conyers (D-MI) apparently has a problem with this. He is pushing a bill through Congress that will literally ban the open access of these papers, forcing scientists to only publish in journals. This may not sound like a big deal, but journals are very expensive. They can cost a fortune: The Astrophysical Journal costs over $2000/year, and they charge scientists to publish in them! So this bill would force scientists to spend money to publish, and force you to spend money to read them.
Why would Conyers do this? Interestingly, if you look at the bill sponsors, you find that they received twice as much money on average in donations from journal publishers than Congresscritters who don’t sponsor the bill — though to be fair, the total amount is not large. Still, Conyers got 4 times as much.
Interesting.
This amounts to a huge "science tax." It also forces everyone through editorial choke points. I'm all for peer-reviewed science - but not at all for a journal getting to decide whether or not an idea deserves peer review. Considering how often science, business and government become entangled, it is to be assumed that editors will have inherent conflicts of interest - aside from purely disciplinary biasas - that put the question to objectivity.
Therefore, a rich variety of alternate means of discussion is vital to a vibrant and productive scientific community, particularly in areas where political interference is not just possible, but probable.
Frankly, I see no particular way in which traditional journal publication is inherently superior to simply dumping an article onto the web for open examination - and the reaction there will certainly refine anything worth refining.
Let us also remember that science is not the exclusive province of the purely academic community. Anyone willing to do the work to accepted standards and present results so that they may be reviewed and replicated should be able to do so. After all, the costs of internet publication are negligible - as opposed to traditional journals - which are anything but. Indeed, the costs of the literature is one of the most significant barriers to participation in any given field, limiting it to the wealthy or those with access to a good academic library.
There is a great deal of science that is not being done because there is no money to do it- and some evident reluctance to allow anything done outside of accepted circles to be granted any attention.
I concur with the author that this is a damn stupid idea - and one that will impose obvious disincentives to people wishing to do serious science in the United States.
There's an aphorism about politics that I haven't seen cited often the last few decades in regard to Politics, Umurikin Style; that "politics is the art of compromise." That's a trend that I've seen mirrored in Canadian politics. Well, whether it was in regard to the "fierce urgency of now" as communicated by Obama's televised ass-kicking, or whether it was due to the overwhelming lack of support for Republican threats to have a temper tantrum and hold their breath until they turned blue - nonetheless, apparently sanity prevailed, and the Senate passed the Stimulus bill.
That is to say, they did their job in a timely manner, after properly debating the issues. Well, they debated the issues as they saw them; what snippets I've seen showed me that our leadership doesn't have much of a grasp of economics. Much of the Republican rhetoric reminded me of the late and unlamented William Proxmyer - I honestly don't know which party he belonged to - who made his career on ridiculing programs he did not understand, and pretending to not understand programs he didn't like.
Of course, there's stupid things to be found in any budget - but the bleating often was about things that actually made some sense, if you believe that government has a proper role in society, in regards to investigation and regulation. For instance, some idiot was wittering on about the horror of giving the Social Security Administration money for new computers. Well, you know, it's getting hard to find Cobol programmers these days, and they just don't make parts for those keypunch machines any more.
Yep, I just ridiculed the critic with about the same information level as the senator in question. It's pretty easy. OTOH, he has a staff and gets paid a couple hundred thousand a year to have a duly deliberated viewpoint. I'm a blogger sitting in my living room. I don't feel that he should be living up to the standards generally expected of "Pajamas Media" bloggers.
Anyway, sanity prevailed, without a complete split along partisan lines. Perhaps it was due to the loud hint that if they got with the program, the economy might rebound in time for the 2010 elections. Perhaps it was due to howls of outrage communicated by phone, email, fax and paper to republicans threatening to obstruct the bill. If so, it only penetrated three skulls - but that was enough, and what are elections for.
But I was struck by the "breaking news" that Congress had done it's job.
Meanwhile, like the first tender shoots of spring, like the rays of a new dawn, I'm starting to notice Liberals and Progressives actually speaking Liberally and Progressively. In other words, they are now able to start advocating the batshit things that they want to see, as opposed to pointing out the bullshit we have all been wading through. William Kunstler has been reliable and adept at pointing out the wrongs of neoconservatism and the evils of predatory supply side, trickle down, unregulated kleptocracy. But his visions of positive change do not comfort me, or strike me as being (thank god) particularly likely.
If this nation wants to survive without an intense political convulsion, there's a lot we can do, but none of it is being voiced in any corner of Washington at this time. We have to get off of petro-agriculture and grow our food locally, at a smaller scale, with more people working on it and fewer machines. This is an enormous project, which implies change in everything from property allocation to farming methods to new social relations. But if we don't focus on it right away, a lot of Americans will end up starving, and rather soon. We have to rebuild the railroad system in the US, and electrify it, and make it every bit as good as the system we once had that was the envy of the world. If we don't get started on this right away, we're screwed. We will have tremendous trouble moving people and goods around this continent-sized nation. We have to reactivate our small towns and cities because the metroplexes are going to fail at their current scale of operation. We have to prepare for manufacturing at a much smaller (and local) scale than the scale represented by General Motors.
Actually - I should temper this with a loud caveat; I'm making the assumption here that he sees this return to Mayberry as being an inherent good, and sees no potential issues with people being forced of necessity to live in contained, localized political units, where they must go along to get along.
I've noticed that the main difference between conservatives and liberals in terms of public and social policy is what parts of my life they wish to interfere with, what particular liberties they wish to restrict; nobody speaks for the idea that perhaps, just perhaps, we could trust people to mind their own business for the most part, on the stunningly obvious basis of fact - mostly they do, and mostly they manage well enough.
They tend to manage better when mechanisms and resources exist with the aim of helping people make better choices, they tend to manage a lot less well when politics interferes with natural rights and common sense - the War on Drugs and the proliferation of private prisons speaks volumes about that. In other words, we have enslaved a vast number of human beings for reasons that strike me, and many others, as extremely dubious, and at horrendous price to the taxpayer in terms of economic impact and in terms of coarsening our culture.
We DO need to encourage all of the things Kunstler advocates. But we cannot afford to simply accept that the necessity for a new system of economics mandates a socialist form of authoritarianism to replace the current crop of self-anointed authorities.
We need to embrace and encourage the ideal of individual responsiblity. And by that, I mean, equipping people while they are very young to be able to think for themselves. Without that, the idea of "individual responsibility" is simply code for "you are responsible for doing what I tell you to do," the sense in which we have become accustomed to hearing it.
But in fact and in practice, while all the above Kunstler refers to will come about, they will come about as much from preference as of necessity. Just as no-body likes being forced to stay in one place, neither do they particularly long to be forced to commute. Further, there are technical solutions coming down the pike which will add MORE choices to our lives - not fewer choices.
You see, I prefer sourcing Leftist thinkers for their ability to see and articulate what is wrong with a status quo, and to an extent, trust them to point out a sheaf of choices. But it's wise to remember that the Lefts and Rights have an overriding common faith in their own suitability to tell people what to do, they tend to be Authoritarians to one degree or another; President Obama being no exception to that.
I'm an anti-authoritarian, politically. I call myself a "libertarian," but my primary issues are ethics and authority abuse. I hope for and see a future in which the necessity for authoritarian structures is reduced - simply one of many viable ways of organizing like-minded people in tasks of common value.
What I see is the obvious necessity and inevitability of political and social structure decentralizing itself - as Koestler seems to be implying - but also becoming even more connective. In other words, a world in which small groups of people are connected robustly into a vast, world wide web.
“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed'' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents "interests,'' I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.” -Barry Goldwater
In my mind, there is a natural balance between political parties and the wings thereof, and it's very important to illustrate how that balance should with good examples. I yield the floor to Rep. Ted Poe who brings all that is good and fine about being a Conservative thinker to bear on a "solution" to our energy crisis that may well be worse than the problem it will supposedly solve.
The natural role of the Republican is to take the negative, to ask the hard questions, to demand that all the numerical ducks are in a row and both the obvious and hidden costs are documented.
It's not simply to oppose all ideas that are (variously) Democratic, Liberal or just Overenthusiastic. It could be stated that, traditionally the first question should be first (as Rep. Poe points out) - "Is it Constitutional?"
Any truly worthwhile idea can be achieved in a Constitutional way, if the focus is on ends, rather than a means by which that end will be achieved. Indeed, since those means are usually tied to various special interests that are either economically or idiologically biased it's fairly usual for the means to achieve the exact opposite of the sincerely intended end.
The War On Poverty. The War on Crime, The War On Drugs. And of course, the latest and greatest: The War on Terror. In each case, the means preclude the end.
The ultimate Republican question in the face of such outcomes is "And how is that workin' out for ya?"
In a positive sense, the various progressive, liberal, populist and activist movements are the ones that bring things before us and say, often with great moral force, that Something Must Be Done.
But the devil is in the details, therefore, any real solution has as few details as possible and is as an elegant solution as can be found, or it will tend to produce unintended consequences that cost us more stress, wealth and liberty than which provoked us into Doing Something. This is where Conservatism really shines, with the ruthless application of Occam's Razor. Indeed, for an excellent illustration of the principle at hand, I refer everyone to the Robert A. Heinlein tale in Time Enough for Love, The Man who was Too Lazy to Fail.
Heinlein, I am morally certain, will one day be considered one of the greatest conservative philosophers of this age. But that personal belief aside, Sir, I am sure that Barry Goldwater would have approved greatly of this speech.
I have a couple little nits to pick with Rep Poe's conclusions regarding his ideas of what resources we should be developing but let us gloss over that in the spirit of celebration and to the end of not missing the more important point.
Then, of course, there's the related question that Congress must seriously address for the sake of it's own credibility: Was he actually elected? Or is that just the apparent result produced by the Sierra Systems voting machines we are blessed with? You see, it is not enough for the wife of Caesar to be chaste; she must be seen to be chaste! Otherwise, all that tedious honor and propriety is for naught, and - as the current crop of republican functionaries and fools doth prove - the ruling principles are "Make hay while the sun shines" and "One may as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb."
Rep Poe; I do you the courtesy of pointing out that one does not direct such observations toward the obvious rule - but to presumable exceptions. In the light of this, I do not think anyone could reasonably criticize you for being unelectable save for an electronic Deus Ex Machina.
However, noting that you have a fine sense of the absurd, and in recognition of all the corn now rotting on the banks of the Ohio River, corn that was most inappropriately destined to be a poor source of ethanol instead of an excellent source of food - may I suggest that there is an opportunity to speak to that here and now?
Rotting corn, husks, stalks and agricultural waste can be fermented. A floating crop is easy to corral - ask any cranberry farmer. All you need are two boats and a rope.
Then you need a fermenter. That is to say, a large tank, filled with enough water to start, and either the natural yeasts, or some more aggressive yeasts developed by the brewing industry. For that matter, sir, I'm sure Texas A&M has a few good mycologists who could whomp up a practical publication with pointers to online sources pretty much in their sleep.
It makes enormous sense from the perspectives of both agricultural and energy policy to make farms as self-sufficient in energy as is possible. A diffuse energy supply is a secure energy supply. Further, the more diffuse it is, the less energy it takes to get the energy you have to where it is needed. That's actually better than conservation.
It also serves as a buffer against commodity fluctuations. And it is a solution that depends upon an obvious profit center and simple procedures, rather than burdensome regulations.
You see, Sir, when you pointed out the regulations regarding Chinese compact fluorescent bulbs, you did not point out the most obvious criticism. Rather than seeing that it was an inherently bad idea to mandate or even encourage this technology, Congress in complicity offloaded the the responsibility consequences onto the American people by means of a set of regulations that will never be complied with in any widespread way. As it did with DDT, 2,4,D and of course that Superfund Favorite; PCB. I mention things that we really should have been more suspicious about, but I suppose I should also point to Asbestos as having given us a century or two of unintended consequences due to unappreciated risks. Indeed, I wonder to what extent the fall in lung cancer may be attributed to a sharp drop in environmental asbestos, rather than the liberal presumption that anti-smoking campaigns are due the credit.
(Not that we object to the outcome, of course.)
But I think I speak for many when I say that Americans are really really tired of having the responsibility for the consequences of government and indeed a far greater than reasonable compliance duty offloaded upon us without any compensatory medical or retirement benefits comparable to your own.
And speaking to you and your colleagues, Sir, the very point of a representative democracy is to put the people who do not suck at governance at work so that we can go about doing the things we do not suck at.
It's not so much that the taxation levels we cope with are burdensome, it's rather that instead of using that money and mandate to make us more secure, comfortable and productive, it seems to always bring us an extra boil on the ass, like this one you so ably point toward.
I think we have a right to expect good governance, intelligent governance; a governance that does as little as possible, as lightly as possilbe, in order to do that little as professionally as possible and with all regard and courtesy towards those it interacts with.
In this, you beautifully illuminate an example of the complete opposite, Congress has signed off on environmental mercury poisoning as an acceptable price for having appeared to achieve something. It's also the price of allowing "industry experts" to blow sunshine up your butts instead of asking for the expertise of constituents. There is certainly no state caucus that does not have at least one well-staffed state university with all sorts of expertise there for you to presume upon, at little or no cost to the taxpayer, direct or indirect.
Such an institution will tell you there are many ways to produce light - and there is one technology that is USA made, or can easily be, is more efficient, produces better light and has even lower costs in terms of energy and supply chain issues.
Light Emitting Diodes. Congress could create a demand simply by becoming an early adopter of LED lighting and participating in getting it down to a price that is acceptable to those of us doomed to live in trailers by years of the sorts of policies you so pointedly ridicule.
But a regulatory mandate for LED's would be just as foolish, other than as a research and development project. Good regulations set targets for overall system efficiency without restricting how those efficiencies should be achieved. And then, they set positive rewards for beating those standards.
I do not believe that I've said one thing here that is not an inherently conservative thing. Indeed, the entire thing may be summed up with Franklin's observation that "a penny saved is a penny earned."
It's very foolish to mandate a technology that will inevitably turn every single landfill into a Superfund site, EPA regulations be damned.
Regulations that are not read and are easily evaded are worse than useless, if policy assumes general compliance. How much non-compliance can we afford? Would it not make far more sense, if a risk exists worthy of such regulations, to demand that lighting devices be both non-toxic and easily recyclable, either at the curb or the landfill?
Mercury vapor is not the only gas that fluoresces - assuming RF pollution and the madding subliminal flicker are issues you find acceptable on my behalf. I do not, by the way.
Here the EPA - and I'm criticizing the same thing from a different angle - has committed the greatest sin any government can. It has issued a law in full knowledge that it cannot and will not be fully complied with. And who is to blame? Well, clearly from the perspective of the EPA and Congress - those unaware of regulations they did not read, probably due to the fact that they did not realize there was anything to read.
It is certainly not reasonable to assume that congress would mandate a more hazardous technology with greater long-term costs and risks. I cannot imagine that any genuine conservative would think that a still largely conservative government would.
Actually, it's such a violation of plain common sense and obvious due diligence that I cannot imagine any reasonably competent government of any political philosophy doing such a silly thing.
You may reasonably ask, Sir, what do you expect of one state representative?
I respond, Sir; read every bill, and if you cannot, forward every bill to a selection of constituents with expertise you trust. PRESUME, Sir. Demand a little of us. Expect more of us, in a mindful way, rather than inflicting upon us the consequences of not reality-checking the Washington Wisdom.
But first of all - continue to do exactly what you just did. This is the first step, the most important step, to notice such things and call attention to them. And I point out to you sir, as you may have noticed based on this little viral video, that the voice of Representative speaking on the floor of the House is no longer just a fart in a high wind.
One routine speech, one small, pro-forma speech had a significant impact, because your voice got out, was heard and thought upon.
That, Sir, is real power, and it transcends the threat of armed force (c.f. Patriot Act) by several orders of magnitude. There is a reason the Second Amendment does not come first.
In conclusion, Sir, do not take this as being in any way anything other than the best sort of critique. Having seen what you set out to do, and having seen that it is done well I, - and I hope I speak for a broad selection of persons of all political stripes and all walks of life - wish to encourage you to do it more and suggest that you seek out help with any heavy lifting involved.
Oh, and one final note:
ATTENTION, DEAN HELLER:
This, Sir, is what a REPUBLICAN does. This is HOW a Republican should act. Observe, study and learn, for there will be a quiz.
WASHINGTON (yahoo/AP) - President Bush compared Congress' Democratic leaders Thursday to people who ignored the rise of Lenin and Hitler early in the last century, saying "the world paid a terrible price" then and risks similar consequences for inaction today.
Bush accused Congress of stalling important pieces of the fight to prevent new terrorist attacks by: dragging out and possibly jeopardizing confirmation of Michael Mukasey as attorney general, a key part of his national security team; failing to act on a bill governing eavesdropping on terrorist suspects; and moving too slowly to approve spending measures for the Iraq war, Pentagon and veterans programs.
"Unfortunately, on too many issues, some in Congress are behaving as if America is not at war," Bush said during a speech at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. "This is no time for Congress to weaken the Department of Justice by denying it a strong and effective leader. ... It's no time for Congress to weaken our ability to intercept information from terrorists about potential attacks on the United States of America. And this is no time for Congress to hold back vital funding for our troops as they fight al-Qaida terrorists and radicals in Afghanistan and Iraq."
Ironic that he should make that comparison to "ignoring Hitler and Stalin." Ordinarily, I try to avoid such comparisons, but Geez, George - YOU are the only one in the equasion with verifiable stocks of nuclear weapons and the will to use them. So if people are going to be comparing world leaders and fugitive ter'rust leaders with Hitler and Stalin - guess who's name is gonna come up first?
And yes, I agree with you about the Congress. They ARE gutless wonders and shoulda done something to put a stop to you as a New Year's Gift to the American People. ALL American People. You got a whole hemisphere chewing their nails, wondering what they are gonna have to do about you if Congress doesn't do it's duty.
Oh, how we would have liked to have been a fly on the wall when Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) rose to speak during a Tuesday policy lunch.
Only seven days earlier, he had delivered a heartfelt apology at the same weekly meeting. Fellow Republicans responded with thunderous applause, and most refused to tell reporters how Vitter had addressed his forced public admission that he had committed a “serious sin” and was linked to an alleged prostitution ring.
So just imagine their confusion when Vitter scrambled to his feet a week later. Would he apologize again? Had he committed some new sin?
But no. Instead, he launched into a speech about his thoughts on “rebranding” the party by reclaiming the fiscal conservative mantle.
Yes, that’s right: Vitter, on improving the Republican image.
This time, his colleagues held the applause."
Of course they will all try to fly Vitter's lead kite themselves. Gee, the only topic where they have LESS credibility that on "traditional family values;" fiscal responsibility.
It's not just "Godless Liberals" and "Surrender Monkeys" who oppose the war and demand the return of our Civil Liberties. Real Conservatives want an end to this long national nightmare.
Congressman Ron Paul is right. The terrorist threat is primarily blowback from decades of bad foreign policy in the Middle East, much of it hidden from the American people. As Congressman Paul has noted, this is the conclusion of studies by both the CIA and the Defense Department.
Sadly, U.S. foreign policy has only gotten worse since 9-11. Nearly everything our politicians have done has only served to further radicalize the Islamic world.
Yes, we know, the reasons for Islamic extremism have now moved beyond U.S. foreign policy, to include cultural issues. This is a cancerous development. But this tumor was first created by our foreign policy, and that is also where the cure must begin.
We can start by restoring our own values.
The use of torture, the repeal of habeas corpus, and the creation of Kangaroo Court military tribunals, has made us look like hypocrites, creating anger and distrust around the world. But it isn't too late to turn the tide back in our favor.
The effort in the Senate to pull-back in Iraq is going to fail. That's okay. It was a weak proposal anyway. But the possibility of victory in restoring habeas corpus and ending the military tribunals remains strong. A vote on these issues could happen today, as soon as the debate over the Iraq proposal ends.
Passing these measures would send a strong message to the world -- the United States may sometimes go astray, but eventually we return to our principles.
We cannot predict when the Senate will vote on these measures. Not even the Senate leaders know: We called and asked the Senate Majority Leader's office. But it will happen soon, and probably without warning. One of these measures isn't even available for review on the Internet. But thanks to our coalition involvement with other organizations who have staff working the halls of Congress, we know it exists, we know what it does, and we know it is about to come to a vote.
We must maintain our pressure on the Senate to pass . . .
* S. 576 to dismantle the military tribunals
* S. 185 to restore habeas corpus
Please keep sending messages and making phone calls on these two bills. Tell your representatives what these amendments would do. Believe it or not, they may not know. I mean, it's not like they actually read this stuff before they vote on it!
It is especially important for you to take action if you have a Republican Senator, or Senator on this list: Alexander, Coburn, Coleman, Collins, Crapo, Domenici, Hagel, Lugar, Martinez, Murkowski, Snowe, Sununu, Shelby
You can send your message here. http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=58
Also, please keep sending messages asking Congress to take action to stop an attack on Iran. We will have more to say on this issue once the votes on S. 576 and S. 185 have passed. But it should be obvious, without further analysis from us, what a disaster it would for the United States to attack Iran.
Congress is asleep at the switch on this issue. We must wake them up. Tell them you have heard disturbing reports that President Bush may be planning to attack Iran. Tell them to wake up and take steps to prevent this.
A culmination of twin thrusts of practical necessity and economic ambition by those who wish to continue to profit and remain the elite of each nation, this attempt to duplicate the EU in North America is probably doomed to success. However, in neglecting to inform their Citizens, much less involve them in the process, there may be a few unanticipated developments along the way.
As an Anti-Authoritarian with no great love for Nationalism of any stripe, I don't feel as viscerally threatened by this development as many of my fellow Libs, nor do I see individual liberty as being a uniquely US phenomenon.
As far as I'm concerned, the fewer arbitrary lines and restrictions, the better. However, we should consider precedent as well, and what interests are behind these fine sounding ideas. For instance, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has little to do with free trade - save in the breech, and it's promised benefits to individual citizens of signatory nations have been - um - curtailed, shall we say, in favor of very large corporations that owe no loyalty to any nation. So before we sign on the dotted line, folks, perhaps we should re-consider the idea that another central authority would be a good idea.
It might well be better to take a far simpler approach - starting with the idea that the ideal administrative region is probably no larger than Texas. Any continental authority would have to be even more limited by charter than our federal government, with severe checks on it's ability to interfere in individual lives and in State matters. In other words, we need to reconsider the basis of the War Between the States before we agree to another layer of federalism, in light of how that worked out for us.
But if it's a proper Confederacy with due deference to the rights of the people and the rights of the various States and Provinces, I see it as possibly a positive evolution that might forestall what otherwise might become an impulse toward Balkanization.
Here's some back-catalog wisdom from Ron Paul, via his article archive on Lou Rockwell which serves to explain something I'd wondered - what his idea of government (and governing) might look like.
[P]oliticians are not supposed to have power over us – we're supposed to be free. We seem to have forgotten that freedom means the absence of government coercion. So when politicians and the media celebrate political power, they really are celebrating the power of certain individuals to use coercive state force.
Remember that one's relationship with the state is never voluntary. Every government edict, policy, regulation, court decision, and law ultimately is backed up by force, in the form of police, guns, and jails. That is why political power must be fiercely constrained by the American people.
The desire for power over other human beings is not something to celebrate, but something to condemn! The 20th century's worst tyrants were political figures, men who fanatically sought power over others through the apparatus of the state. They wielded that power absolutely, without regard for the rule of law.
...
Aside from the lack of ethical self-interest shown by voting for a candidate based on their "strength" and perceived "toughness," we should all realize that in choosing that path we are abandoning our own duty to participate in, comment upon and know about the issues of the day. It also displays an appalling ignorance regarding the Constitution and our rather unique political system.
I very much understand the seductive vision of a Government that Does Good things, but the trouble with that is that in order to do Good Things, we empower them to do Bad Things as well, at least, unless we are very vigilant and careful in crafting limits on that power. The power we delegate is attractive to the very people who will be tempted to do Bad and Stupid things to us, often For Our Own Good.
Those who hold political power, however, would lose their status in a society with truly limited government. It simply would not matter much who occupied various political posts, since their ability to tax, spend, and regulate would be severely curtailed. This is why champions of political power promote an activist government that involves itself in every area of our lives from cradle to grave. They gain popular support by promising voters that government will take care of everyone, while the media shower them with praise for their bold vision.
My personal view of the role of government as a useful tool is probably somewhat broader than Dr. Paul's, but we have had so few spokespersons coming from a position of Constitutional fundamentalism that I'm loathe to ignore his observations and insistence upon the fundamentals.
And therefore, let me state that I see the government as a tool, belonging to every citizen, legal resident, tourist and even every illegal alien that exists solely to protect individual rights and liberties that our Constitution recognizes to be inherent in each person, regardless of status, position, citizenship, sexual orientation, race or creed. To that end, and to that end alone, it is empowered to guard our liberties.
But I'm also a realist. If government exists only to say no and does not somehow facilitate the correction things that trouble, inconvenience or anger a majority of the American people, it's not unreasonable for it to be discarded as rusty and useless.
And I observe that while government has become a dire threat to the freedom and legitimate private choices of all Americans, it's due largely because Government has ceased to consider the rights of individuals, instead heeding only the voices of corporate bodies, such as military contractors, trade organizations, big pharma and religious pressure groups.
These various corporate interests hold power in their own right that rivals that of state and even many national governments. Many of them (Haliburton leaps to mind) are quite literally above the law - and others seek to write law regardless of it's impact upon the liberty of citizens. Indeed, many of them have effectively limited my liberty in some of the most basic ways, through economic coercion. This is particularly noticeable in our food supplies and consumer goods; a handful of corporations determine what we will be able to buy and where we will buy it. Bluntly, they have stolen the commons - save, of course, in the areas where other giant corporations (such as eBay) find a profit in enlarging it.
But as much as I value such free-enterprise solutions to such problems, it's my guess that had others seen it coming, they would have stomped all over Ebay. Nor can we ask corporations, structured as they are under the laws that apply, to put the interests of the consumers and their workforce even on a par with that of the shareholders. This is simply a fact - and those facts must change if we are to change that reality.
You may be tempted to view that as "anti-capitalism" and "anti-free market," but on the contrary - I wish to see a regulatory climate that actually favors individual enterprise and rewards the risk of capital. I wish to see a lowering of regulatory barriers to the markets that are rigged to favor big corporate interests. And ultimately, I see this as a vital component in a truly viable and affordable national security policy.
The real key to national security in this day and age is an infrastructure that cannot be easily disrupted by a few sticks of dynamite, so we need to look at, for instance, encouraging widely redundant, small scale energy production using local resources. This is quite aside from "green" fuel initiatives, but that's where the technology is.
We need to have our essential defense forces, our first-responders here, instead of "over there," with a broader base in our social fabric. Most importantly, we need to cultivate a culture of participation and tolerance.
So, we don't need a Department of Education. We DO need a national standard minimum curriculum which is the basis of our citizenship. That minimum common basis of understanding is vital - but beyond the requirement that it be successfully taught, we really do not care how, where or by whom, do we?
Universal access to health care is vital, both politically and personally, when unexpected health care costs have become the leading cause of personal bankruptcy. HOW we go about that - what choice of mechanism, what happens between need and delivery need not have a single answer - but it must become straightforward, simple and accessible to every citizen. It is a common interest regardless of wealth or poverty, class or station. When you are sick or injured, that is not the time to be hassled with paperwork or worrying about the ability to pay.
We also need to look at the ethics involved - it's frankly improper to require doctors or hospitals to consider the necessity of rationing health care in order to make a profit. Doctors, nurses and hospital staff need to make a living - a good one, commensurate to their responsibilities and demand for their skills. But hospitals should be local, with oversight from those who depend upon them.
It may well be that the least intrusive, best performing system would be "socialist" in appearance, at the bottom tier, at least. If everyone needs a thing, and everyone is able to pay their share of that thing, than that is what it will look like. The difference, of course, is whether it's mandatory or optional. A good system of universal health care needn't be mandatory - simply competitive as all hell.
But this end could also be accomplished in part by regulatory means; for instance, requiring that insurance companies divest themselves of hospitals and requiring hospitals return to a "not for profit" standard. And certainly, it would be simple and elegant for people to be able to choose to participate in an insurance pool funded by an opt-in withholding program.
Why? Because that system exists and the expertise exists. If we decide to revise the tax code - as we really should - it would be silly to toss away all that expertise infrastructure and equipment only to have to re-invent the wheel.
At it's base, it should be not-for-profit with an emphasis on prevention and health, but it should be possible for people to buy additional coverage for things such as private rooms, etc. Perhaps we need to return to the idea of "not for profit" insurance, such as Blue Cross and Blue Shield used to be, but with the possibility of private, for profit institutions that accept "plus" coverage, cosmetic services or "a superior recovery experience."
And of course, the simplest thing of all would be to require all government and private insurance to use the same database format and the same minimum criteria so that overhead costs for health care providers would be lowered and consumers could compare apples to apples. Of course, this should be encrypted to the same standard as critical defense secrets, but what's an NSA for, humn?
And finally, we need to take a serious look at creating a universal social safety net, one accomplished as much or more by regulatory change as by spending. Changes in zoning laws and landlord-tenant laws would do a great deal to alleviate homelessness, joblessness and many other ills that simply throwing money at people will not solve.
Changes in legislation that would help natural and voluntary families care for one another without interference would go a good ways to creating such a safety net too. But what we must stop relying on is military service, government service and prisons. From the viewpoint of our culture and civilization, sending everyone a check would be far cheaper.
But we cannot tolerate Constitutional compromise. Further, it's a sign of sloppy thinking and lazy legislation. If a desired goal cannot be constitutionally attained, then it probably should not be. If it really must be attained, then there is an amendment process that ensures that all objections are heard.
Finally, I think that Government must be reminded that it should be worth the price people are asked to pay, and that a good government is like any other enterprise - competent, effective and considerate of it's clients. Right now, that standard has not been met on the federal level in living memory and I rather expect the same could be said of most state and local governments.
Edit: I came back to fix a few misspellings and a grammatical error or two and realized there was a glaring point I'd failed to meet head-on. Coercion is coercion is coercion. It matters little to me or thee if force is applied by government to force me this way instead of that, or if it's economic force applied to me by a corporation. If the government does not protect me and the markets my liberty depends on, it matters very little who benefits from my compliance.
And likewise - a "tax" is anything you must pay or any standard you must comply with (at your own expense, risk or inconvenience) in order to do what you have to do. My doctor pays a "tax" amounting to the full salaries of two people and the partial salary of a third simply to comply with paperwork related to insurance forms. He passes this cost on to the insurers of course - who stick me with a "deductible" which is, in fact, a tax on MY access to health care, and since I have no choice about that - due to where the insurance comes from - it's a tax, and a damned steep one at that.
It's ironic that it takes this sort of provocation to issue a "Contempt of Congress" citation. That contempt has been made manifest with every stonewall, every executive order, every dismissive remark by our Misleader.
Perhaps it's come to the point that Congress realizes that so many of them HAVE been blackmailed and pressured (I speculate, of course) via illegal means that people will tend to overlook the smaller sins due to outrage at the greater.
It will be interesting to see what happens if the Supremes stonewall this. Perhaps impeachment for the last two appointments? Or perhaps Alitio will convert to Constitutionalism, after re-reading the Federalist papers and checking the wind.
The gravity of this issue is impossible to overestimate. Deliberately provoking a Constitutional crisis in the name of upholding the principle of the "Unitary Executive" with an undercurrent of "I have the guns and you don't" is a good way to provoke Civil War.
It will be interesting to see if Bush tries to have Congress intimidated with tanks and artillery. Interesting in the Chinese sense. And it will be interesting to see if Rumsfield and his successor have managed to "restrutcture" the military to the degree that it will willingly fire on American Citizens.
No one was all that surprised when the Bush administration announced Thursday that it would not cooperate with congressional demands for documents and testimony
The best way to enforce the rule of law is by issuing a Contempt of Congress citation
The issuance of a Contempt of Congress citation would provoke the sort of Constitutional showdown that it now appears will be required if this administration is to be held to account for its abuses of power. In such a showdown between the legislative and executive branches, the third branch of the federal government, the judiciary, would be asked to decide whether the White House has a right to assert, as White House counsel Fred Fielding did in a letter telling the committee chairs that their demands would not be met.
"Increasingly," says Leahy, "the president and vice president feel they are above the law -- in America no one is above law."
I am a libertarian and a constitutionalist - in that order. Ron Paul seems to reverse that order, but I may be wrong. In order to clarify that matter, I wonder what Ron might have to say about this Constitutional Amendment, which I cleverly title The No Stupid Rules Amendment. It's intended to forestall legislative and executive abuses of power and common infringements of individual liberties.
There's more...
The No Stupid Rules Amendment
Congress shall pass no law, nor shall courts uphold any existing law which has the overriding effect or intent of financially benefiting one group of citizens or corporate entity over another.
Congress shall pass no law, nor shall courts uphold any existing law which has the overriding effect or intent of advantaging or penalizing ethnic custom, matters of individual faith and belief, or private behavior.
This specifically includes taxation and tax exemptions.
Nor shall any law or regulation that requires the invasion of privacy or compromise of privilege to be detected be countenanced.
Evidence derived from such violations of privacy or privileged communication shall be inadmissible in any court or proceeding under color of law.
The definition of "family" is recognized as being that of those deemed involved by mutually agreeable compacts which shall be recognized as being governed by ordinary contract law in the state they were entered into.
States shall not impose unreasonable or unequal costs or requirements upon such compacts.
This shall not be taken to imply that the state has any interest whatsoever in religious unions or the intent of voiding limitations or requirements placed upon those unions. States shall not require, enforce, regulate or forbid any such union.
States may, at their discretion and as a matter of convenience provide standard format contracts which address common circumstances and requirements, but it is to be understood that there is to be no established preference upon the part of the state, nor may any particular form that limits the free choices of the contracted be a requirement.
This amendment is not intended to override legitimate concerns about environmental, social or financial impacts, but all such concerns must be addressed by the least restrictive means possible and in no way may such concerns override the rights recognized in this Amendment.
The right to freely self-medicate and to freely refuse to be mediated for any reason is recognized.
Notwithstanding, the responsibility for impairment and other consequences is that of the individual.
Congress shall not pass, nor shall courts uphold existing taxation or tariff laws that are designed or have the effect of restricting access to any thing to those able to afford the tax, nor in any case or for any reason may such taxes or tariffs exceed 100% of the retail cost.
Congress will pass no law, nor shall any regulation be made creating product or service standards, regulatory requirements or compliance costs that have that same effect, save to the extent that such regulations are addressed towards the safety of the user, by the least restrictive means. No such extant law may be enforced or upheld.
After you read my proposed Constitutional Amendment, (click the "read full article link below" you comments would be very much appreciated. Furthermore, you are invited to participate in refining what is very much a rough draft. And please, forward, digg, stumble and otherwise widely distribute this idea to everyone you know who might be in favor OR passionately opposed.
I dugg this and I think you will too. The Rude Pundit Bows down :
Each and every time Bush has tried to pathetically swing a right hook at his face, the Nevada Senator's bent back so that Bush hit only air. Reid's danced and then returned a left uppercut to Bush's chin. The Senate passes an Iraq funding bill with a timeline for troop withdrawal and benchmarks. Bush goes all batshit and says he'll veto it, doesn't wanna talk about, dadadadadamyfingersareinmyearsIcanthearyou. What does Reid do? Does he talk about compromise and "working with the White House"? Fuck no. He grabs his pendulous balls and says, "Eat shit and die," and then says he'll back Russ Feingold's bill that cuts off funds for the war except for a narrowly defined mission.
Reid's been to Iraq, been to Walter Reed - here's what he said about that visit: "To say, Mr. President, that I left Walter Reed depressed is an understatement. We've all heard the stories about Walter Reed...Go to Walter Reed. Listen to the parents. Listen to the people that are hurt." Reid describes how private contracting is destroying the hospital and the military, as well as how the lack of resources is affecting the patients there.
Yesterday, in his pissy little press conference, Bush tried to attack back, saying that Democrats are playing games and are delaying his funding request for the troops. Not missing a fuckin' beat, Reid slammed back, "Democrats will send President Bush a bill that gives our troops the resources they need and a strategy in Iraq worthy of their sacrifices. If the President vetoes this bill he will have delayed funding for troops and kept in place his strategy for failure."
Give 'em hell, Harry!
As usual, The Rude Pundit is a source of hilariously Graphic Truth.
(Rogue Report) We reported news about this on our 7 a.m. KSKQ radio show the Brain Labor Report today along with (new at the time) the update that the six women were arrested last night. We further commented on how this was a continuation of what had happened here at Walden's Medford office four years ago to the day, back on the day the Iraq war started. Some may recall that back then Greg Walden's staff slammed the door on constituent's faces saconstituent'sported the war and that protesters should, too, As they slammed the door on democracy Walden staffers added, "We are closed." We made a video about it called "The Walden Lockout." Some might remember that several local peace protesters were arrested that day, too...
We further commented on this morning's KSKQ radio show about Greg Walden's ongoing attitude toward's his constituetoward'sw he ignors them. When Waldignorss come to the Rogue Valley he often sneaks into town to meet with his corporate buddies at the Rogue Valley Country Club.
As much as I would hate to have to deal with the sort of people who disagree with me on a personal and professional level, I am NOT a politican, and I don't represent a district composed of all sorts and kinds. But if I were, I'd at least take fifteen minutes to hear from folks like this. Because, well, I'd be aware that, like it or not, I'm their representative to Washington, not the other way around. I mean, if that were the case, the proper title would be "Kommasar."
This is your standard Republican "whatcha gonna do about it, luser" response to dissent.
Blog about it, sonny boy. And put the vids up on You-Tube.
Meet the lawyer who conceived the lawsuit that gutted the District's tough gun-control statute this month. Meet the lawyer who recruited a group of strangers to sue the city and bankrolled their successful litigation out of his own pocket. Meet Robert A. Levy, staunch defender of the Second Amendment, ... said he has never owned a firearm ... read more | digg story
The Constitution must be protected both from the predations of the well meaning and the machinations of power-mongers. Power and influence, indeed, all duty, responsibility and government derives from the people, and our founders in their wisdom dictated that it would be much more difficult for anyone to take that away and put it in the hands of the powerful if the people were armed.
It should be a symbolic issue. It's the fault of a great many over many decades that in Washington DC, it is a matter of great practical and personal importance to many people.
We must stop believing in the opposite fairies of delusion - that "gun control" and "being tough on crime" will solve a massive social problem. And we must also stop pretending - each and every one of us - that such social problems are the responsibility of "people in authority," the government, that may be solved by restricting the liberties of "other people."
Constitutionally, you and I ARE the government, as is your neighbor and the fellow down the street with a pot plant in his basement. The people who do the day to day paperwork, policy and enforcement are our delegates and if they fail in their duties, it's our responsibility to discuss, examine and correct the matter.
Yes, this decision is going to make things more difficult in Washington, DC. Perhaps there should be some examination of why there are so many people who are so desperate that crime has become a multi generational way of life.
Government should ensure that at the very least, everyone has access to the things they need at a price they can afford, and a path to fulfill their legitimate ambitions, for ALL the people are the power that the Government rests upon, and furthermore - our very system of government recognizes from it's inception that people have the inalienable right to provide for their own needs, even if an oppressive authority objects.
It is "inalienable" in the sense that any law made to restrict that right is both unethical and futile. It is a basic fact of human nature that illegitimate laws will only be recognized in the breech.
But a "gun" is not the only way to wield the power of citizenship. Ideally, it's a tool that's never required - but upon that most practical and deadly of all symbols rests the means to maintain all others.
In this case, it's an individual with money. Money that represents power, that many governments would very much prefer to either co-opt or confiscate. "Plomo e Plata" is a phrase used by many thugs, some of whom carry badges. Their behavior toward the citizens that their authority rests upon should determine the response of a citizen to them.
In my case, it's an individual with a computer. In other cases, it has been a citizen with a cell phone or video camera. In all cases, it''s a case of a citizen who is willing to BE a citizen - a duty with some inherent risks - that keeps our society on track and maintains it in the face of many who would prefer we all bleat praises of the day's Leader in happy unison.
Government serves at the will of the people. This is a fact, true of any government, anywhere, whether or not that government legally recognizes the will of those who have ejected it's agents from their lands, it is nonetheless true that those who are ill-served badly enough and long enough by national governments tend to favor resistance movements and shoot tax collectors.
It is an embarrassment that those people who live in the Capital city of the United States of America are not as safe, as happy and as well secured as those in any gated community; the fact that it is not is an act of criminal neglegence, for it gives cover and connections to people that are our collective enemies.
Bluntly, it is an issue of National Security that the people of Washington DC do not feel themselves a valued asset of the Nation, nor in any wise secure.
Seems there's a body of elected representatives who have the duty to deal with this situation. I think they should spend some time thinking on the matter.
We further commented on this morning's KSKQ radio show about Greg Walden's ongoing attitude toward's his constituetoward'sw he ignors them. When Waldignorss come to the Rogue Valley he often sneaks into town to meet with his corporate buddies at the Rogue Valley Country Club.