The election -- a giant crap game?

Regarding the Federal Reserve, which is neither "federal" nor has any "reserve" (it's NOT a government agency -- it's a privately held corporation and its ownership is a well-guarded secret):

"People talk about the issue of Republican vs Democrat... It's organized crime. You call the Republicans 'Genoveses' and the Democrats 'the Gambinos.'

The people at the top treat it like it's their crap game. They're making a lot of money. Occasionally somebody at the table shoots each other but the moment anything threatens their crap game, they all unite to protect it.

They're both controlled by the same financial, economic and corporate interests."

-- Michael Ruppert, FromtheWilderness.com in this film (at 59:32).

All this campaign ugliness has been a red herring, a non-choice masquerading as choice, some expert sleight-of-hand to get citizens to hand over more and more of our personal and economic freedoms.

No matter how you voted, I encourage you to keep an eye on your liberties in the coming years.

Forget the candidates. Let's talk core beliefs.

The personalities are fleeting but the principles are permanent. Hopefully not semi-permanent.

I'm talking about how we organize as a group of 305 million individuals, the grand experiment in self-government that was launched 232 years ago and will hopefully extend through future generations (feels quite shaky now, though, doesn't it?).

So let's take a break from the campaign crud and think beyond the relative temporariness of all the faces we've grown to love and/or hate.

(I loved when SNL Weekend Update announced the winner of the VP debate: the person you already liked. So true! I watched the Twitter stream during the debate and noted that it was more an exercise in entrenchment than enlightenment.)

Is the polarization on the candidates due to our being easily swayed by smears, minutiae, and manipulation? Or is it because we have fundamental disagreements on what our political and economic systems should look like? I'd like to explore the latter.

I hope many of you will engage in this discussion. It's harder to examine your core beliefs than to "go with your gut" on a candidate, and I hope you'll indulge me. Just four questions.

Leave comments here or do a post on your own blog. I'd like to reach beyond my own readers to see others' ideas of utopia. You can even add a question if you want -- make the question(s) your own. And I don't even need to say that we should stay respectful, right?

Whether you are in or outside of the US, I am interested in hearing from you.

============================

1. Overall,* do you believe people are basically bad (1) or good (100)? Try to put a number on it.

2. Overall, do you think the best economic system would reward people based on what they need (1) or on what they deserve (100)? Again, put a number on it.

3. What do you think are the main functions (say, 5-10 of them) of government? You could even divide your list into (a) Federal and (b) State/Local.

4. In an ideal society, what percentage of the wealth created by citizens should go to fund government**? In other words, what is a fair price to pay for the functions of government you list in #3?

* Yes, in all these rating questions there will be "it depends" and "in some cases" and innumerable qualifiers. I am asking you to think overall.

** As a benchmark, all three levels of government currently consumed 38.8% in 2006 (data from Economic Report of the President, February, 2008.

If dollars were seconds, if dollars were inches

Can you guess what was going on 700 billion seconds ago?

Earth was in the Pleistocene Era.

If you traveled 700 billion inches, do you know where you'd end up?

Nearly halfway to Venus.

I did the math.

Reasoning

I follow many bulletin boards and political blogs, and I'm finding it fascinating watch people justify their positions on the Obiden and McPalin teams.

People tend to use inductive reasoning:

I like Obama. Therefore, the "lipstick" comment was harmless and the GOP is just nitpicking.

Or:

I support McCain. Therefore, the "lipstick" comment was a not-so-veiled way of calling Sarah Palin a porcine creature.

Problem is, people aren't aware they are inducing. They think they are deducing.

Deductive reasoning might look like this:

I heard the comment from Candidate A. I imagine Candidate B saying the same comment or its equivalent. I then judge the comment based on the words and meaning rather than on its originator.

In inducing, one moves from the specific to the general: I feel this way about A, so I feel this way about everything A says.

In deducing one moves from the general to the specific: I keep finding evidence in what A says that makes me feel this way about him/her.

Induction masquerading as deduction means that we have a very hard time creating real dialog, because our arguments are supported by opinion rather than by facts. And we don't realize it. We talk past each other, and we are not open.

I wish I'd taken a logic class so I could explain better what I mean.

Do you see it? Do you do it?

Door #3?

Not sold on either Obiden or McPalin? Can't stomach one pair taking away your economic freedom and the other taking away your personal freedoms?

There may still be hope in this already remarkable political season.

Ron Paul to Hold Major Press Conference Wednesday

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Jesse Benton
September 8, 2008

ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA – Congressman Ron Paul will hold a press conference in the Ball Room at the National Press Club on Wednesday, September 10th at 10:00 am. Dr. Paul will announce his intentions for the fall presidential election and will be accompanied by several special guests.

This event comes on the heels of Dr. Paul’s historic three-day Rally for the Republic in Minneapolis, Minnesota that drew over 12,000 supporters.

-30-

In case you think such a movement is small spuds, the Campaign for Liberty is on a roll. Yesterday it surpassed 100,000 passionate members.

Check it out and help stop the creeping authoritarianism.

Bye-bye.

More of our freedoms evaporated this week (courtesy our servant government, our elected officials who took the oath of office to uphold the Constitution).

Did you kiss them?

Will you miss them?

(Your freedoms, not your congresspeople.)

From Freedom Works:

Hidden deep in Senator Christopher Dodd's 630-page Senate housing legislation is a sweeping provision that affects the privacy and operation of nearly all of America's small businesses. The provision, which was added by the bill's managers without debate this week, would require the nation's payment systems to track, aggregate, and report information on nearly every electronic transaction to the federal government.

This Senate bill requires eBay, Amazon, Google, all credit card companies and other businesses to report transactions to the government.

As part of a HOUSING BILL, for cripes sake.

Not only does it strip us of another civil liberty (maybe we should try to get our liberties on the Endangered Species list), but the bill is expected to transfer $8.0 billion over the 2009-2018 period from the private (wealth-creating) sector of our economy to the public (wealth-consuming) sector.

Whether or not you have a small business, this means YOUR information will be reported to the government every time you transact. And small businesses will collect this $8 billion dollars from their customers -- YOU. And anyone who has transactions involving these companies will be vulnerable to identity theft.

From The Hill's Congress Blog:

The bipartisan housing bill currently being debated in the Senate contains an unrelated amendment that will burden innovative Internet companies and threaten the civil liberties of every American.

...These companies would be required to construct vast databases of personal information from merchants, including names, addresses, social security numbers, and detailed information about every electronic transaction. Not only would these requirements trigger higher fees for merchants and higher prices for consumers, but they will also needlessly subject millions of small businesses to the risk of identity theft.

This bill passed the Senate committee on Thursday morning. If the House and the Senate can work out the differences in their bills, this will go to the President to be signed into law (what are the odds that our President would veto?).

Good news? There is still time for your voice to be heard.

Call to action: Contact your Senators (you have two of them) today. Simply say one sentence in your own words: "I urge you to vote NO on HR 3221 because I value my civil liberties and you took an oath to protect and preserve them." You can see how your Senators voted here, and you can also find their contact information.

Also contact your Representative (you have one) today and say the same thing. Here is information on how each Representative voted, and how to reach him/her. You'll need to know who your Representative is or what congressional district you are in.

More good news: Believe it or not, Senators and Representatives actually do listen. I was once told that each letter or call carries the weight of 10,000 constituents. The People have turned the tide before. So please, send off a quick email or two right now.

The last resort will be to contact President Bush. We don't really want to leave our civil liberties in his hands, do we?

Send your three emails (2 Senators and 1 Representative). Freedom is so much easier to keep than to regain.

And spread the word.

How I came to be a NAR (the R part)

I am part of a very, VERY small group, the New Age Republicans. My husband jokes that I and my two sisters are the only members of this oxymoronic covey. I think that explaining how this came to be so is worth a post or two.

First came the political persuasion.

***

When I teach high school Government & Economics, I start one lesson by writing the following on the board:

"For most people, choosing a favorite sports team is more a matter of geography than a reasoned choice."

The students debate the merits of this statement. Sure, the New England Patriots and Boston Red Sox have had a good run in the last decade, and sure, if you're growing up during this time in Boston or environs, you will be likely to enculturate their colors, their logo, their fans' fervor. But what if you are growing up in Montana? What if Lacrosse is what lights your town on fire? What if you just don't catch the glow of the Patriots or the Sox? Does that mean you are wrong? (Don't bother answering, Jenna).

Students usually come to the conclusion the statement is is true. One team is not inherently better than another (unless we're talking about the Broncos, of course).

I then erase the sports reference and replace with the word religion.

Again, students debate whether or not they believe the statement is true. If you grow up in a Lutheran family in Minnesota, you are predisposed to holding Christian views and lifestyles. If you are born into a Jewish family in Tel Aviv, you are likely to espouse Judaism by osmosis, if not by choice. If your family is of the Vaishya caste, living in in Calcutta, Hinduism is probably your default setting. People rarely choose a religion because it its True; they choose it because it is There.

Usually the class that ends up agreeing that one tends to be born into a religion, either by family or by culture.

Finally, I replace religion with one's political leanings.

And they inevitably decide that that statement is also true.

***

Each democratic society chooses several principals to honor and construct laws around, but only one can be The Guiding Principal.

Justice is good. Freedom is good. Equality is good. Harmony is good. And there are others in the mix...but which is best?

I grew up with a father who thinks Freedom is the epitome of human values.

And freedom, he says, is really three words: Freedom With Responsibility.

Limited government is the best way to keep individual freedoms for people and have society reap the benefits of human achievement. This includes our freedom to wonder, to work, to own the fruits of one's labor and one's risk-taking and one's calculated efforts. And with these freedoms goes the responsibility to behave honorably and respectfully toward others.

To drive home his points with his three daughters, he did his own oxymoronic thang. When I was in high school (and my sisters in junior high and elementary school), a documentary was produced based on economist Milton Friedman's personal statement Free to Choose.

We were made to watch this PBS series for 10 weeks. (Ten weeks! To a teenager!) When we complained about the irony -- that we had no choice in the matter -- Dad replied, "Sure you do. You can watch it either on Friday night or on Saturday morning."

(Haha, Dad. You probably think I forgot. Or that I've forgiven you.)

###

I grew up and married a Democrat. Roger's father, a good man like mine, holds justice as his Guiding Principal (although he, too values freedom just as my dad also values justice.)

So we all have our default settings regarding politics. Mine was Republican, which at one time meant to me (correctly or not) the party of freedom and personal responsibility.

But no longer. Increasingly, the Republican party devalues both personal and economic freedoms. GOP lawmakers tax and spend just like their Democratic counterparts, and in addition they want to meddle with our freedoms in our private lives by telling consenting adults what is and it not OK for them to do behind closed doors.

So I will eventually switch my party affiliation.

But "New Age Libertarian" doesn't quite have the same ring.

BABO

I have the acronym, if not the clout.



Bloggers Against Beijing Olympics

Image: Jim Morin in the Miami Herald

Grassroots, grass stains

I took Tessa to my party's caucus last night, and Rob took Reed to his.

Rob and I were each elected as delegates and will attend our respective assemblies at the county, state and congressional district levels.

My caucus meeting was attended by nearly 30 people (as compared with 2 in 2004). I was one of several to vote for Dr. Ron Paul, a former flight surgeon in the Air Force and OB/GYN who supports, as I do, limited constitutional government, low taxes, putting doctors and patients back in charge of health care decisions, and who is opposed to unnecessary violations of our privacy like the Patriot Act.

Our house is now officially the Colorado version of Matalin/Carville -- but with better hair. Rob and I tussle over various issues on occasion, but we respectfully coexist, keeping each others' views from becoming too myopic.

Fun times are a-coming. This is the first time in my voting life that I feel there is both a wide-open race and fascinating choices.

Handmaid's Tale Book Tour

I first read The Handmaid's Tale in the mid-1990s, the summer I met the man who would become my husband. Roger was getting ready to teach it to his high school students, but he never got the opportunity. The book was challenged by a parent, and though Roger won the case, the chance to teach it passed.

On first reading, I thought my life path would be: court, marry, procreate, live happily ever after. On second reading -- more than a decade and a well-worn map-to-parenthood later -- the book struck very different chords.

In the beginning of the book, the Aunts discuss two facets of freedom: "freedom from" and "freedom to". While the old government's laws provided both types of freedom, the new government limited women's freedom to "freedom from". Do you think that "freedom from" is truly a freedom, or is it just the government's way of subtly taking away rights?

Definitely the latter. This sentiment is commonly credited to Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." For more of my thoughts on the coming dystopia and the prescience of Margaret Atwood, see my post from a few days ago.

One thing that struck me was how easily the Gileadean government robbed women of their economic power and, ultimately, freedom. All it took was a few keystrokes and threats to employers to throw women back into chattel status. Where was the opposition? And what about the men? Even Offred's partner was unbothered by what was happening. How might the citizens in Offred's culture have fought against the Gileadians' plans? Or was the takeover inevitable once it began?

When people value more the "freedom from" than the "freedom to," taking away freedoms will be as easy as the proverbial taking candy from a baby (which, in reality, is a strange simile, if you've ever tried doing so).

Life carries risk. The more we want to shift our risk onto others, the more we are willing to let others control us. We trade freedom for security (or the illusion of security, since risk is still there in some form or another). We're like that doomed frog that is put in a pot of cool water with the heat turned on: because change happens gradually, we don't jump out of the pot or yell "stop!" Gradualism takes patience if you're the perpetrator, and vigilance and courage if you're the frog.

We in the US hail our Constitution as the protector and guarantor of our rights. But without our awareness and willingness to fight to protect our rights, the Constitution is just an old piece of paper.

The Declaration of Independence says, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government."

Thomas Jefferson and the Second Continental Congress were so committed to self-governance that they even declared the right/duty to "throw off" a government that's become despotic! What citizenry in human history has ever been given by its founders permission -- even the imperative -- to overthrow a wayward government? (And whether Eyes are reading or not, I must point out I am not suggesting the overthrow of anything.)

When was the last time you read the Constitution? Do you think your elected officials have? How can you (and they) safeguard your freedoms if you don't know what they are?

**stepping down from soap box**

It was at one time hard for me to put myself in the Wife's shoes, but having dealt with infertility on a more personal sense, I find that I can sympathize with her and her role in this society. If you had to be in this society, how could you cope with your role in it? Would you be a Wife or a Handmaid? Could you sympathize with your counterpart?

Absolutely. I sympathize with both. If I had my choice (which, of course, I wouldn't in Gilead), I think I'd be a Wife (as the lessor of two horrors). But I would also sympathize with the Handmaids. Both groups were stripped of the power of self-determination.

I know logically that one needs only food, shelter, air and water for survival. But to live without freedom seems so pathetically bleak, for both Blue and Red.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hop along to another stop on this blog tour by visiting the main list at http://stirrup-queens.blogspot.com/. You can also sign up for the next book on this online book club: The Jane Austen Book Club by Karen Fowler (with author participation!)

Dystopia -- coming soon to a country near you?

The Barren Bi+ches Book Brigade is gearing up to discuss Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale next week. But this post is only tangentially about the book and mostly about what may already be happening to unsuspecting US citizens.

Published in 1985, The Handmaid's Tale is the story of a new society created when religious zealots overtook Congress and the Presidency, and created new categories of citizens to put all people -- especially women -- in their place. Women were prohibited from having jobs and from acting independently from men. Fertility has been diminished by environmental devastation, and consequently the remaining fertile women (who wear red) are now considered "national treasures" and given as handmaids to Commanders (military aristocrats) and their wives (who wear blue) as they perform their duties as conceivers and incubators. Other people serve as Aunts and Guardians (enforcers of the new regime), Eyes (spies to stamp out dissension) and Angels (soldiers fighting the remnants of the old regime). Offred, possession of and named for her Commander, tells the story.

How could it have come to this? From Chapter 28 (published in 1985):

All those women having jobs: hard to imagine now, but thousands of them had jobs, millions. It was considered the normal thing. Now it's like remembering the paper money, when they still had that...Pieces of paper, greasy to the touch, green-colored, with pictures on each side, some old man in a wig and on the other side a pyramid with an eye above it. It said In God We Trust...

You had to take those pieces of paper with you when you went shopping though by the time I was nine or ten most people used plastic cards. Not for the groceries though, that came later. It seems so primitive, totemistic eve, like cowry shells, I must have used that kind of money myself, a little, before everything went on the Compubank.

I guess that's how they were able to do it, in the way they did, all at once, without anyone knowing beforehand. If there had still been portable money, it would have been more difficult.

Sounds far-fetched, no? The United States is too stable to allow this to happen. The citizens are anything but complacent about our freedoms. Right?

As I finished reading the book earlier this week, that passage struck me as eerily familiar. In The Handmaid's Tale, women are especially oppressed; in reality we may be heading for oppression of all.

Have you heard about RFID (Radio Frequency Identity) chips? Wikipedia says "an RFID tag is an object that can be applied to or incorporated into a product, animal, or person for the purpose of identification."

In other words, put an RFID chip in our currency, and you've lost all portability. The government will then have the ability to turn off your ability to purchase anonymously, indeed to purchase at all. Doing so is already in the works. Imagine going to the grocery store to buy food and medicine and being told that your credit is no good AND your cash is no good. You can be turned into a non-entity, just like Offred was at the time when she had her own name.

Aaron Russo, a filmmaker who succumbed to cancer just 4 months ago, produced movies such as The Rose, Trading Places and Wise Guys. His crowning achievement, however, was the documentary, From Freedom to Fascism, which he completed last year. Because his goal was to get his message out rather than to make a killing, the film is available free on Google (you can watch it below). The film explores the various ways that our freedoms are being taken away from us -- right under our collective nose.

To see the clip that relates to this passage from The Handmaid's Tale, take the timer to 1 hour, 18 minutes. According to the film, The Real ID Act is scheduled to become law in May of 2008.

Other alarming facts you'll see if you take the time to watch in its entirety:

• The 16th Amendment authorizing federal taxation has not yet been legally ratified, bringing into question the legitimacy of the IRS (timer at 1 minute, 55 seconds).
• The Federal Reserve is actually a private corporation and not a government entity. We have given the authority to print money to (well-hidden) people not accountable to The People (timer at about 1hour).

Keep your eyes open for glimpses of Ron Paul. And remember to voice your opinion about RFID chips implanted in our currency -- if you get the chance to.

We've talked religion...so how about politics?

How well do you really know your candidate? Do his/her views actually match your own?

VoteMatch quiz

I was surprised at my results. My political philosophy is "Moderate Libertarian" (not surprising) and my top two candidates were Bill Richardson and Ron Paul (the shocker).

How about you?