A Family Fable and the Colorado Governor's Race

(Source: Backgrounds Ipod App)

I think it's time for me to share a fable, or a little story if you will, from my childhood.

My father, God rest his soul, was a good and decent man.  He drove quite a bit as his job as a traveling salesman for a number of companies over the years required it.  So he knew many of the "back roads" that were scenic and just downright beautiful whenever we would go anywhere.  It was always a pleasant experience to travel in this way.  However, if any part of the trip required use of what we called "the bypass" (or highway as it is more often defined) he became another man.  He had an intense sense of right and wrong when it came to highway etiquette.

This lead to many hair-raising encounters with very large trucks and tourists from out-of-state.  He would rarely "give in," insisting that "he was in the right and by goodness he was going to make sure everyone knew that.  Now, my mom was a woman of few words, but very talented at stern looks and heavy sighs.  I watched over the years as she tried to get my dad to be a little safer.  She told him, it is not that important, just let it go.  He did not take the hints.

One day after an especially scary encounter my mom looked at my dad.  I think she was on the verge of tears, but the anger in her voice came through.  She said to him, "Yes, Russ, you had the right of way.  There is no question about that.  So I suppose what we should do is arrange to have written on our tombstones is, 'He was right.  He and his family are all still dead, but by goodness he was RIGHT!"

I am reminded of this story after listening to all the various points and arguments about who to vote for in the Governor's race.  The only thing I am ABSOLUTELY positive about is that Hickenlooper, clearly a progressive that will take us further down that track, is not what we need.  That world view is disastrous for many many reasons.  The above link will take you to an article in which Hickenlooper  basically echoes Cass Sunstein calling us all "Homer Simpson" and Barrack Obama claiming people of principle are just "clinging to their guns and religion."  I do not want this man representing me or anyone else.

That said we have a choice: Maes, who won the primary "fair and square" or Tancredo who decided a third party run was the right thing to do.

We've debated the pros and cons of each of these candidates using 9-12 principles.  At this point it appears that Tancredo would have a chance of being our next governor if, as I said in an earlier post, he and Maes would put their egos aside in order to turn the train around I believe Hickenlooper would not win.  It still doesn't seem they are willing to do that.

There is much to dislike about either choice, but, to state it simply, "it is what it is."  I believe we need to turn the progressive train around and we need to do it soon.  If we don't do what is necessary to keep a progressive out of this office the train goes further down the track.  And if, by arguing about Maes is right or Tancredo is right, we insist on our being in the right at the expense of coming together more and more of our liberties will die.

Finally, we have a system that we can use to make our desires known to whoever gets elected.  We are awake now and will continue to use it to restore the integrity of our Constitutional Republic.  We don't have to agree on everything to join together.  You might be interested in reading my earlier post on "Divide and Control" to think about how keeping us divided gives the progressives more power.

I think I'll go fill out my ballot now. 

Related articles

• CO-Gov: Colorado GOP ready to cut off nose to spite face (dailykos.com)
• Tancredo Picks Up Pace in Colorado (blogs.wsj.com)
• Dan Maes: Political Suicide Bomber (redstate.com)

Christine O'Donnell is not a witch. She just plays one on MSNBC

Image via Wikipedia

I know, I know.  Many of you who will read this do not live in Maryland, but I had to say something about this.

Have you seen Christine O'Donnell's recent TV ad?  According to some comments shared on Rush Limbaugh's FB page some liked it.  Some called it lame.  Some said it was defensive.  What did she say?  The first thing she said was, "I'm not a witch."  My thoughts:

It may have seemed a little defensive, however, I feel she communicated that the claim was ridiculous and moved on. MSNBC had a segment on one morning last week discussing O'Donnell and her opponent. Title at the sidebar? "Witchcraft and Politics...." Ideas are planted in peoples heads and they want a straight answer about their concerns. Her answer was straightforward, respectful of her audience's intelligence, and definitely not "lame" as some have characterized it. It only seems lame because we're used to the obfuscation generally used when talking to the American people.

Then came the debate with her opponent, the "bearded Marxist."  I've never seen a debate quite like this.  The moderators were anything but neutral.  Wolf Blitzer seemed to be debating Christine, while the other moderator did everything but put words in Chris' mouth....but I digress.

I'm betting that you know more about O'Donnell's witchcraft experiences and her expressed religious thoughts on masturbation than you do about her opponents Marxist views.  You also haven't heard much about Chris Coons' stumbling when trying to quote the First Amendment to the Constitution.  The same Constitution he may have to swear to uphold should the Delaware voters send him to Washington.  Now, to be fair, Media Matters presents an article that tells you that Coons never called himself a "bearded Marxist."  It was all a joke, right?  Anyway, while we are arguing about what he did or did not call himself we are ignoring what his behavior, beliefs, and actions say about how he will represent the people who might elect him.  Are there Marxist beliefs there?  I believe if you read his position statements on the issues you will find them.  I had no problem.  Read Christine O'Donnell's too and decide who you would want representing you in the Senate if you lived in Delaware.


Finally, I believe that what the people who got their knickers in a twist about her religious views on masturbation fail to understand is this:  She believes in upholding the Constitution.  She is not, therefore, going to go to Washington to make laws about those and other behaviors which the government has no business dictating.  That's what her core beliefs would guide her to do and that, my friends, is something the progressives and the "bearded Marxists" cannot understand because that is what they believe they need to do. 
Got it Homer?  
Got it Marge?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Christine O'Donnell is not a witch...she's you (newstatesman.com)
• Reviews Are In: O'Donnell's 'I'm Not a Witch' Ad (blogs.wsj.com)
• Chris Coons' 1st Amendment Views Betray His Marxist Beliefs (riehlworldview.com)

What's Oil Got to Do With It?

Image via Wikipedia

The headline:  "Drilling ban lifted; new rules in place."  It begins with: " The Obama administration, under heavy pressure from the oil industry and Gulf states and with elections nearing, lifted the moratorium on deep water oil drilling that it imposed last April in the wake of the disastrous BP oil spill."  And it ends with: "White House spokesman Robert Gibbs denied that pressure from the oil industry or anyone else played a role in the decision to lift the moratorium ahead of schedule.  It was, he said 'part of a very deliberative policy process...that got done more quickly than the original time line."

As Bernays mentions in his intention to "regiment the public mind" by using propaganda, that originates with the "intelligent few," that the use of the making every problem or crisis the "moral equivalent of war" is very effective.  It has been used frequently to manipulate the public mind:  the war on drugs, the war on poverty, and now the "war on the oil spill."   One war metaphor that is no longer acceptable is the "war on terror."  That's now an "overseas contingency operation."  But let's explore the war on the oil spill.  Is it really about oil and the risks of deep water drilling?

Let's look closely at this "war."  If it had really been about the spill you would expect that all available resources would be IMMEDIATELY directed at the problem, oil was gushing out of the hole every minute of every day.  That would seem to have been a good place to start.  When your house is on fire, the fire department doesn't question you about how the fire started, who might have been at fault (i.e. determining whose "ass" he should kick,) and make everyone in your neighborhood evacuate their houses (unless, of course, they are in imminent danger.)  No, they put the fire out as quickly and as safely as possible.

How did this war proceed?

On May 22, 2010 President Obama established a National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling.  This commission was tasked with worthy goals.  But there was still oil being pumped into the ocean and the leak had still not been plugged.  If you look into the members of this commission I think you will agree that most of them have expertise, but their "agenda" is a much more powerful and significant aspect.  (Look for a post on "eco-terrorism" from me soon.)


In June the Wall Street Journal pointed out that the White House seemed to be taking their cues on what to do from the Center for American Progress.  (I know that name sounds great, but it's really a wolf in sheep's clothing.)  Our friend, George Soros, is one of the largest donors, if not the largest.  Why does this matter?  It matters because George Soros is also a very large investor in Petrobras, a Brazilian oil company.  But wait, it gets even more interesting.  Billions of our tax dollars are being loaned to Petrobras to finance a huge offshore drilling projects...in even deeper water!  As a summary:  George Soros, who is heavily invested in Petrobras, is telling the White House what to do.  The United States is sending billions of dollars to Petrobras.  You think George will make any money in the process?  Do you think this constitutes a "conflict of interest?"  I believe the CAP seeks to support progressive goals that would emphasize the "common good" over "narrow self interest."  Hmmmmmm....I think George has some narrow self interest in this situation, don't you?

We've also loaned Mexico a couple of billion dollars for drilling projects in the Gulf of Mexico.  We cannot drill because it is too dangerous to our environment...but Mexico and Brazil can still do this, with funding from the American taxpayers?  What is wrong with this picture? (Progressive world view translation:  these actions="global redistribution of wealth.")

So, what happens to the oil rigs that were not used during a ban on drilling?  They are leased to the oil companies and if the oil companies are not using them, they move to other countries.  Now this isn't like packing up and going on a vacation and then coming home.  If they move they are likely to not come back.  It costs millions of dollars to move them.  You think Brazil and Mexico will benefit from this?

Also worthy of your attention is the fact that this moratorium was recommended by experts, correct?  That does not seem to be the case, so why the ban?

Why did we not promptly accept help from other countries?  My previous post on the Jones act gives you some information.  There is also a Business Insider site that presents a more detailed analysis. Why were local efforts thwarted?  "Why" is the question you can ask to many issues in this "war on the oil spill."

So, the elections are coming and the original November 30th expiration of the ban has been moved up.  Part of a "deliberative process?"  I think so, but not the process Robert Gibbs would have me believe.  And George Soros?  He is getting out of the way of the avalanche that is coming in November.  He's brilliant at making money and making his investments work for him.  He's not going to put more money into the failing progressive candidates at this time.  He's going to scuttle back into the woodwork and wait for another day.  And on his way, he's going to move some of his investments to precious metals as he watches the managed decline of the dollar.

I sure am glad George is funding organizations that promote "American Progress" aren't you?  The question is where is this progress taking our country.  We need to find out.

Related articles

• Obama administration lifts deep water oil drilling moratorium imposed after BP oil spill (nj.com)
• Back in business: US lifts deep water drilling ban (sfgate.com)
• Offshore Drilling Ban Decision Is 'Imminent,' Says Regulator (huffingtonpost.com)

A Different Perspective of the Movie Avatar

Image via Wikipedia

I finally watched James Cameron's movie "Avatar."  I resisted for a while.  I like to have my leisure time activities actually be enjoyable and I was afraid I'd just get ticked off at what I might see.  Then I heard myself asking someone about a show I watch.  They had some derogatory things to say about it and I responded, "But have you actually WATCHED it?"  So, I watched the movie.  I was quite surprised at my take on the whole thing.  It all started with the word "unobtainium."  This is defined at the link's site as:  an extremely rare, costly, or physically impossible material, or device.  That much you can figure out from the root of the word: unobtainable.  This means not able to be obtained, required, or reached.  I immediately named the fictional planet where this movie takes place, "Unobtania."  Another word for this is "utopia." James calls it Pandora.  I could do an entire post on that, so let it suffice to say that is a very interesting choice.

The movie presents a world and culture where everyone is happy and free, there is apparently no conflicts between the different tribes on this planet, although, the main female character, Neytiri, does mention "the time of great sadness."  We are left to assume that the tribes have reached utopia through some unknown process.  There are "leaders" of the tribes and a life source that contains, well, the source of life as well as connections to all of their ancestors.  In my world we call him God, but I am pretty sure that is not what Mr. Cameron meant.  I think he is referring to "Mother Earth" or "Mother Nature."  There is perfect harmony with nature, although things can still kill you there.  There is no killing of the "animals" without "purpose" and when that occurs there is a "prayer" said thanking the animal for giving up  their life for the purpose of enabling survival of the inhabitants of the planet.  I actually like this concept.  I thank God for providing me with things that will enable me to survive, but, then again, that's just my world view.  I would also add, though, that I like the "respect" it shows to the source of your sustenance and the striving to be good stewards of our resources. That is probably the only aspect we agree upon.

There is also (music conveying evil and hateful purposes plays) some of Earth's worst who have invaded this world and wish to destroy it to get what they want.  These would be our military personnel cleverly disguised as "mercenaries" and, of course, the greedy capitalist who will do ANYTHING to make a buck.  Into this mix we add the kind and benevolent scientist who is presented as the strong moral conscience of mankind.  (Well....maybe at some points I did get a little ticked off :-)

So, what we are to conclude from all of this is in line with the message presented to thousands of our school children in the short movie, "The Story of Stuff."  Funded by our good friend, George Soros via the Tides Foundation.  (In case you miss it, that is my use of sarcasm.) In this propaganda piece the narrator states: "Third World is another term for 'our stuff' that somehow got on someone else' s land...and we go and get it and trash the place."  Yep, I think there was some consultation on the message.  Either that or Mr. Cameron watched the Story of Stuff and plagiarized.

So my interpretation of this story?  Here goes....I think of the fictional planet of Pandora and the Na'vi population as people who have a strong connection to God who provides them with a transcendent source of right and wrong.  Then, along come the "Collectivists" who tell them that they are going to plow their God right under the ground in order to take control of the "unobtainium" which represents their freedom and liberty.  They are doing this because the Na'vi people are basically stupid (although none of them are named Homer...maybe that will be in the sequel) and obviously don't know how to handle their freedom and liberty in an intelligent and prosperous fashion.  In the movie, Neytiri states that "God" doesn't take sides, but, in the time of crisis, (s)He comes through.  I see this as "truth" winning out over lies; good winning out over evil.  In the end we are all held accountable for our actions here on this planet and this plays out beautifully in the movie.  My world view gives me this perspective.  It is clearly not James Cameron's world view.

So, why does any of this matter to you?

In the articles below you might want to read further.  In the Avatar Sequel article is a link, "Vatican Slams Avatar Movie." At the George Soros link above that takes you to his website you might want to read his op-ed; America Needs Stimulus, Not Virtue."  This from a man who was probably heavily involved in and benefited from the collapse of the British Pound and a couple of other currencies.  Benefited means he made LOTS of money....I wonder why he hates Capitalism so much?  Oh yeah, I know.  He hates it because he kinda thinks of himself as God and in a free market he doesn't get to call all the shots.  Got it Homer?

At the Tides Foundation link above you might want to read about their "progressive" goals and projects.  Of particular interest will be their Center for Genetics and Society.  It positions itself as "politically progressive."  If you have not already I would implore you to look into the history of Eugenics and the Fabian Socialist movement.....please. The kind and benevolent scientist that uses genetic engineering in the movie Avatar might just give you a great deal to think about.  Not that James Cameron wants you to think about it in that way.

Related articles

• James Cameron on his 'Hiroshima' movie - due 'sometime before the next nuclear war' (popwatch.ew.com)
• James Cameron Confirms Avatar Sequel (bettyconfidential.com)
• Successful Test of NASA's New Composite Material "Unobtainium" (bigthink.com)

Applied 9-12 Principles

Image via Wikipedia

I am going to address an issue in Colorado, but even if you do not live in Colorado you may find it useful.  In a previous post I addressed the nine principles that are part of the 9-12 concept.  I've decided to apply them specifically to the race for Governor of my state.

I've read a lot of things and some of them have contained a good analysis of some of the issues.  However, on our very own 9-12 Project--Colorado we appear to be destroying our chance to bring the government of our state closer to the Constitutional Republic we desire and pushing the Progressive train farther down the track.  We are busy arguing with each other about Dan Maes vs Tom Tancredo.  My bottom line?  We have to do what it takes to turn this Progressive train around and we need to start in Colorado.

The three people in this contest are Dan Maes, John Hickenlooper, and Tom Tancredo.  Let's discuss them one at a time.

Dan Maes recorded a video posted on youtube addressing some of the allegations made against him.  One of the issues is his time spent as a police officer when he was a young man. After records had been released Dan Maes stated that he hoped this would clear things up.  What he said exactly is, "...hope that this puts to rest any lingering doubt about the validity of his word."  The link to the NPR piece shows an article titled: "Dan Maes releases personnel records: Hopes past job confusion goes away."  (NOTE: I see a striking difference between wanting to dispel doubt about one's "word" and "hoping confusion goes away," don't you?  Did you see the movie "Inception/"  I think ideas can be planted in your mind even without the fancy techniques used in the film....but that's just me.)  There is also a blog entry at 360 Reports that gives you quite a few links to issues under discussion. (NOTE:  I have not vetted this site, but it provides quite a few links in one place.)  Should Dan Maes drop out of the race?  Is Dan trying to be a more honest person than he was yesterday?  You decide.  He clearly states his agreement with most of the other principles, but when honesty is an issue it can affect everything. 

Tom Tancredo has been characterized as "racist" by a number of people.  One of his most recent journeys into not choosing his words with care was during the Tea Party Convention in February.  I don't want to include too much of my "opinion" on individuals in this post, however, I think Tom should have chosen his words more wisely.  I think I agree with the premise that many people who are voting these days do not fully understand what they are voting for.  Hence my incessant urging for you all to educate yourselves so that you are making responsible and fully informed choices when you vote.  Tancredo has a history of speaking in a manner that has been characterized as "outrageous." Does he have any chance to win?  I encourage you to go to his website and read his statement about why he is in the race.

There is also a post on Facebook by Lisa Mills that does an excellent job using 9-12 principles and values to assess Dan Maes and Tom Tancredo.  It provides additional points to ponder.

Finally, there is Hickenlooper.  In an article from "Pragmatic Progressives" a prediction that is made that the Democrats (although it really means "Progressives") will hold on to the governorship of Colorado thanks to the conservative vote being spit between Maes and Tancredo.  They might be right, but I'm hoping not, because it is clear that he is a Progressive and, as I said at the beginning of this post we have to turn that train around.  His website contains his statements on the issues, as do the other two candidates.  The difference, though, is that his position statements are quite long.  While reading them (yes, I read every one) I was reminded of a saying I discussed with a friend recently:  "Verbosity is the last refuge for those who have little to say....or are trying to deceive."  The term "obfuscate" will also communicate what I think progressives often try to do.  Dissemble is another appropriate term.  Hickenlooper's solutions and plans for Colorado clearly have government in the starring role.  He gives some attention to the importance of the private sector, but clearly does not see the free market as a good thing.  He uses the word "global" a lot.  He never mentions the "free market."  Yes, he throws out a couple of tidbits about the private sector being used in creative ways by the government, but that is not the same thing.  I think he probably sees us as Marge and Homer Simpson.  You know, those people "too stupid" to have the freedom to make their own decisions and accept responsibility for those decisions. His statement on the issue of "Immigration" is, unlike the other issues, quite short.  I wonder why?  I am sharing my opinion in this case, because I believe that a progressive world view is not what we need.  I've come to know what that means and it is not compatible with restoring the integrity of our Constitution.  A progressive is, for the most part, totally incompatible with the 9 principles outlined in the 9-12 Project.

So, where does that leave those of us who believe we need to come closer to the nine principles and 12 values?

A survey of GOP county  chairs summarizes sentiment as "Maes won the nomination fair and square."  He did indeed.   Does Dan Maes measure up to the nine principles.  I would say in many ways he does not.  Does Tom Tancredo?  There is evidence that he does not measure up either.  However, as I said in an earlier post we are not charged with looking for perfection, we are charged with looking for someone who comes as close as possible to the principles and values we believe need to be restored. 

My personal opinion?  I believe egos should be put aside and people should come together to prevent another progressive governorship.  People will argue vehemently on the side of Maes or Tancredo.  Each side has valid points.  So, while we are calling each other names, speaking rudely, or just giving up because it is too hard to process, the progressive train gets closer to the station.  Honor?  Integrity?  I'd say someone has to be a big enough person to call a halt to this and put their support and ask their supporters to rally behind their opponent.  Should it be Dan Maes or Tom Tancredo?  Unfortunately that's only a decision the two of them can make.  If this does not transpire, I've made my decision and I'm guessing many of you have too.  I will pray that we can come together to fight the progressive agenda in this state and in this country.
***********************
In a somewhat related article you might be interested in some discussion on how  the political game is played.  An article in Town Hall Magazine, "The Anatomy of a Smear" and "The 100 People the Left Hates Most" can give you more food for thought.  Some would characterize the statements against Dan Maes to be a "smear;" same with Tom Tancredo.  The statement in the article "Anatomy of a Smear" that jumped out at me was:  "Saul Alinsky's 5th rule for radicals says, 'Ridicule is one of man's most potent weapons.'  Against irrational ridicule, there is no defense and an enemy is forced into concessions."

What do you say we come together and make conscious, not forced concessions in order to unite to restore our Constitutional republic. 

Related articles by Zemanta

• It is Time for Dan Maes to Go (redstate.com)
• Hickenlooper Leads Three-Way Colorado Race (politicalwire.com)
• Has Dan Maes been well and truly kneecapped? (redstate.com)
• CO-Gov: Maes calls Tancredo an "illegal immigrant" (dailykos.com)
• John Hickenlooper Trouncing Dan Maes, With Or Without Tancredo In The Race (huffingtonpost.com)
• Polling and Political Wrap-Up, 10/4/10 (dailykos.com)

The Voice of America

Image via Wikipedia

I was listening to a caller to a radio program the other day who was asking, "Why can't the American people see what is happening to our country?  What is happening is very scary to me."  It turned out that he was an immigrant (legal) who came to this country in 1995 from Armenia.   When he was growing up his family listened to Voice of America in order to find out accurate information about what was happening in their country.  His father told him it was a source of truth that the people of the Soviet countries were not hearing from their own government.

The above link takes you to the website for Voice of America.  Their charter states the wish to protect the integrity of the information presented by establishing certain principles that would guide its operation.  I cannot speak to how successful they have been, but I would be surprised if this source has not been compromised by the Edward Bernays of our time.  In fact, since it is funded by our State Department, I am pretty certain it is not what it used to be.  In the article below we hear that thanks to VOA programming: "millions of viewers in the Middle East, Asia and Africa will witness adventures of Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and Kim Kardashian."  VOA broadcasts 1500 hours of news, information, educational and cultural programming every week to hundreds of millions of listeners and viewers.  I wonder where Paris, Britney, and Kim fit in? 

While listening to the caller I thought of a source I've been using for information about what is going on in this country.  It is a called New Zeal and comes to us from New Zealand.  It has so far proven to be a reliable source of information that we do NOT get from any source within our country.  I then understood why the caller to the program was scared.

Who controls the flow of information? -OR- Who is controlling the message?

If you have not become familiar with Cass Sunstein now would be a good time.  More importantly it would be beneficial for you to read about his controversial paper (regarding the definition and suggested actions to take in regard to "conspiracy theories") and download a copy of the full paper at salon dot com's website.  Cass is head of our country's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.  (Read the name of that agency again and think about the power that the head of this agency has.)  In this capacity he oversees policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs among other duties.  In other words, he basically oversees the development of policies and regulations that arise from legislation that has been signed into law.  He is also basically answers to no one and oversight of his actions is non-existent.  He gets to decide where and how we will get our "quality information" and just exactly what privacy we are entitled to. This is the same man who said recently:

"Some conservative legal thinkers like Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas think the Constitution means what it originally meant." 

For the record, I think that the Constitution DOES mean what it originally meant.  D'OH!  Guess that makes me like Homer Simpson...or, I guess Marge.  I don't know, is she as stupid as Homer?  Yeah, he thinks we need him as a "choice architect" so that we don't keep doing stupid things.  He and the other elites will decide what's best for us all by manipulating us.  His book Nudge should prove to be interesting reading. 

And speaking of control of information.....
"Net Neutrality" and the "Fairness Doctrine" sound great until you fully understand the intent of such policies and regulations.  Of course, MediaMatters has a different take on net neutrality.  They say that fears about what the FCC would do with "net neutrality" are just, well, I guess you'd call them conspiracy theories.  D'OH!  Call Cass and the IRS! (FYI:  One of his suggestions is to "tax" people who spread information about what HE deems a conspiracy theory.) 


Why do I care about this?  Why might you need to care about this?

Because you need information to make good decisions.  I don't think you are too stupid to find out what the facts are and then form an opinion that helps you make sound decisions.  Let's discuss a few issues you need information on:

Let's start with your assumed "right to privacy."  Warrantless wiretaps were considered abhorrent during the debate on the Patriot Act.  On the campaign trail, Senator Obama promised to reverse the many abuses of power of George W. Bush.  It seems that now that he is president, Obama has no intention of reversing these abuses of power.  On the contrary he seems to be extending the scope of the government's invasion of its citizens privacy.

Our emails may in the future be read and tracked without warrants.

We have no expectation of privacy when it comes to our location.  The government can place a GPS tracking device on your car without a warrant.  Monitoring, say, drug traffickers might be considered a good thing.  But, if there is evidence that they are drug traffickers, why not get a warrant?  Where is the accountability that would keep this power from being abused?

Mobile X-ray Units hit the streets in.....America!

Drone aircraft may be coming to the skies of....America!

All of these powers exercised by our government on our behalf can be presented as "good" for us.  Being protected from terrorist attacks, drug dealers, and helping stem the flow of people entering this country illegally ARE good things.  However, I leave you with two thoughts from The Road to Serfdom:

"We shall never prevent the abuse of power if we are not prepared to limit power in a way which occasionally may also prevent its use for desirable purposes" (page 235)

In order to make sound decisions regarding just how much we want to limit the power given to our leaders we need the free flow of information and HONEST debate.

In conclusion, Hayak also states:

"It is tempting to believe that social evils arise from the activities of evil men and that if only good men (like ourselves, naturally) wielded power, all would be well.  That view requires only emotion and self-praise--easy to come by and satisfying as well.  To understand why it is that 'good' men in positions of power will produce evil, while the ordinary man without power but able to engage in voluntary cooperation with his neighbors will produce good, requires analysis and thought, subordinating the emotions to the rational faculty." (page 260)

Rational thought?!  Guess that means there is no hope for us to ever effectively use our rational faculties.  Homer and Marge probably don't even know what "subordinating" means. 

Related articles by Zemanta

• Obama's Reg Czar feigns transparency, worker safety rules in crosshairs [The Pump Handle] (scienceblogs.com)
• Voice of America signs TV deal with Splash (newstatesman.com)
• US government recruits Paris Hilton (go.theregister.com)
• Net Neutrality Update (chicagonow.com)