Jan
29
Thoughts on the Stimulus
Filed Under Economics | 4 Comments
Yesterday the House passed an $819 billion ’stimulus’ bill, with 11 Democrats and all Republicans (way to go folks!) voting against it. I detailed some of my thoughts on an economic stimulus in an earlier post, and two inimitable conservative thinkers had their say on a possible stimulus. From Thomas Sowell:
Out of $355 billion newly appropriated, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that only $26 billion will be spent this fiscal year and only $110 billion by the end of 2010.
Using long, drawn-out processes to put money into circulation to meet an emergency is like mailing a letter to the fire department to tell them that your house is on fire.
If you cut taxes tomorrow, people would have more money in their next paycheck, and it would probably be spent by the time they got that paycheck, through increased credit card purchases beforehand.If all this sound and fury in Washington was about getting an economic crisis behind us, tax cuts could do that a lot faster.
As Mr. Sowell illustrates, if this crisis is so ‘dire,’ why not do that which puts money into the economy faster? It would be a lot more justifiable to rush a tax cut bill through congress. Not that I support any legislation being rushed through without its consequences studied. But if it has to be done this way, a tax cut bill is preferential. But, Sowell goes on to illustrate the Democrat Party’s real motives at the fast action. In the vein of Rahm Emmanuel’s quote, “”A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.” Adds Sowell:
This administration and Congress are now in a position to do what Franklin D. Roosevelt did during the Great Depression of the 1930s— use a crisis of the times to create new institutions that will last for generations.
To this day, we are still subsidizing millionaires in agriculture because farmers were having a tough time in the 1930s. We have the Federal National Mortgage Association (”Fannie Mae”) taking reckless chances in the housing market that have blown up in our faces today, because FDR decided to create a new federal housing agency in 1938.
Who knows what bright ideas this administration will turn into permanent institutions for our children and grandchildren to try to cope with?
Another way to slow the recession would be the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009:
Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let’s say the vote was 54% to 46%. As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion — $486 billion — will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% — $414 billion — will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me [Limbaugh].
El Rushbo added:
I say, cut the U.S. corporate tax rate — at 35%, among the highest of all industrialized nations — in half. Suspend the capital gains tax for a year to incentivize new investment, after which it would be reimposed at 10%. Then get out of the way! Once Wall Street starts ticking up 500 points a day, the rest of the private sector will follow. There’s no reason to tell the American people their future is bleak. There’s no reason, as the administration is doing, to depress their hopes. There’s no reason to insist that recovery can’t happen quickly, because it can.
In this new era of responsibility, let’s use both Keynesians and supply-siders to responsibly determine which theory best stimulates our economy — and if elements of both work, so much the better. The American people are made up of Republicans, Democrats, independents and moderates, but our economy doesn’t know the difference. This is about jobs now.
The economic crisis is an opportunity to unify people, if we set aside the politics. The leader of the Democrats and the leader of the Republicans (me, according to Mr. Obama) can get it done. This will have the overwhelming support of the American people. Let’s stop the acrimony. Let’s start solving our problems, together. Why wait one more day?
Sounds bi-partisan and non-divisive to me!
Jan
28
The Washington Times saught to interview actor Benicio Del Toro about his newest film Che. When questioned about the facts of the rich kid who didn’t know a damn thing about the poor turned idiot murderer Che Guevara, he walked out.
“I’m getting uncomfortable,” Benicio del Toro says after fielding a question on his new movie’s portrayal of the Bolivian and Cuban revolutions. “I’m done. I’m done, I hope you write whatever you want. I don’t give a damn.”
With that the Oscar-winning actor walks away, abruptly terminating his interview with this paper to discuss “Che,” the controversial new biopic about the life and times of Cuban revolutionary Ernesto “Che” Guevara directed by Steven Soderbergh.
Later, Del Toro tried to defend the movie:
For his part, Mr. del Toro doesn’t deny that there were some darker aspects to Guevara’s persona. “We have to omit a lot of stuff about his life,” he says, “but we’re not omitting the fact that he’s for capital punishment, which is the essence of that.”
In the movie, Guevara is shown executing a man, but for raping a child, not for being disloyal to the cause of revolution. Troops are offered a chance to desert, and get nothing more than a scolding for their cowardice.
I wonder if they included a scene of Guevara shooting a pregnant woman in the stomach.
To gain some truthful perspective, the article quoted Armando Valladares, who was imprisoned by Castro’s regime during the communist revolution. A strong critic of not only Guevara but the brutal Castro regime, he quotes Che in his own writings:
“Hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine.”
That quote was also included in a Slate article from 2004 about another Che movie, The Motorcycle Diaries. The writer, Paul Berman, also brought in the perspective of a Cuban who dared defy the idolized Che Geuvara and what the man stood for. Raúl Rivero was a poet who was sentenced to 20 years in prison for writing about Castro. In response to the adoration from the liberal film community in regards to The Motorcycle Diaries, Berman writes:
I wonder if people who stand up to cheer a hagiography of Che Guevara, as the Sundance audience did, will ever give a damn about the oppressed people of Cuba—will ever lift a finger on behalf of the Cuban liberals and dissidents. It’s easy in the world of film to make a movie about Che, but who among that cheering audience is going to make a movie about Raúl Rivero?
But wait - I thought liberals were supposed to love artists who are oppressed by the evil capitalists. Well, as Berman offers, Che picked on a couple other groups that leftists claim to be fond of:
Che was a mainstay of the hardline pro-Soviet faction, and his faction won. Che presided over the Cuban Revolution’s first firing squads. He founded Cuba’s “labor camp” system—the system that was eventually employed to incarcerate gays, dissidents, and AIDS victims. To get himself killed, and to get a lot of other people killed, was central to Che’s imagination.
But cultish idolotry and the absolution of individual liberties are hardly unexpected from those who adhere to an ideology that detests private control and ownership and believes that there are only a select few who really know how to run our lives.
Times article found on the Drudge Report.
Jan
26
Even the Crapperty File Can See How Stupid the ‘Stimulus’ Is Becoming
Filed Under Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
It appears that even a liberal moron like CNN’s Jack Cafferty can see that the Democrat stimulus bill will do nothing to stimulate the economy, and is in fact an enormous socialist free for all. Said Cafferty:
On ABC, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended hundreds of millions of dollars in the stimulus package earmarked for family planning.
She said family planning reduces costs and explained that the stimulus plan includes assistance to states and part of that includes children’s health and education. That includes contraception, which she said will, “reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.”
For those of you unfamiliar with this blowhard, he basically explains some current event, complains about it, and asks a pointless question to elicit a knee jerk reaction out of knee jerk liberals. However, he wasn’t too kind to Speaker Pelosi on this round. He even compares her to “Chairman Mao.”
The first odd thing is that I never thought I’d have The Crapperty File and Moonbattery echoing the same sentiment.
The second odd thing is that if this mess of a bill is so transparent that Cafferty can pick up on it, how bad could this possibly get before it is inevitably forced down our throats?
Jan
26
A Stimulus Bill, Wal-Mart Style
Filed Under Economics | 4 Comments
Currently our politicians in Washington are debating how to pass a “stimulus” to help the economy. The main debate seems to be whether government spending (proposed by Democrats) or tax cuts (proposed by Republicans) will do the job better. The secondary concern is how such action will affect the budget deficit of the federal government, which is slated to be over $1 trillion in 2009.
Tax cuts are the only way to improve both situations.
Let’s start with the budget deficit. In case you don’t know, the U.S. federal deficit is the difference between what the federal government takes in and what it spends. If spending is higher, it is a deficit. If revenues are higher, then we have a surplus. It really is not very complicated, folks. The government acts pretty much like a regular person when it comes to money (with the exception of the ability to create money, but that would be a whole other post). If you don’t make enough money to cover your expenses, you either dip into savings (like the Social Security Trust Fund) or you use a credit card (like borrowing from investors and foreign governments though treasury securities, basically a government I.O.U.). So, just like anybody looking at their finances and seeing that they have a deficit, the culprit either has to be spending or revenue. Well, take a look at this chart detailing government revenue (income taxes only):
Let’s assume you were at your kitchen table going over your finances and you had a ton of credit card debt, just like the federal government. If the above chart were your personal income, what would you conclude your problem was? Spending! That kitchen table of yours would probably be mahogany wood, and your house would be full of all sorts of expensive stuff. In addition, you probably had kept making financial commitments you couldn’t afford, such as expensive car and house payments, whose payment obligations stretched far into the future.
Well this is pretty much the story of the federal government. We’ve spent money on everything including the military, infrastructure, health care, government employees to enforce regulations, clean-energy subsidies, NASA, law enforcement, scientific research and lots of other things. We’ve also made commitments on Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs stretching infinitely into the future absent significant reform (Social Security is not included in the chart above so I’m not including it here, as it operates slightly differently, but with much the same success).
Only a Democrat could look at the above chart and attribute the deficit to decreased revenue. I can’t help but laugh when big-government Democrats harp about “fiscal responsibility” and “tax-cuts we can’t afford,” thinking that nesecarrily cuts revenue.
That mentality is wrong because tax cuts help the economy by encouraging producers to create more wealth, therefore increasing the tax base. The government will get more revenue by taxing a large economy at a small rate than a small economy at a large rate.
This principle is illustrated by the Laffer Curve:
Basically it illustrates the taxation rate’s effect on government revenue. Two universal truths can be gained from the Laffer Curve: first, that a taxation rate of 0% will obviously result in no revenue, and second, that a rate of 100% will also result in no revenue because producers will have no incentive to work. The key contention about the Laffer Curve is where the peak is, or at what rate of taxation begins to harm the economy. Note: the above chart would make 50% appear to be the peak, but this is not known. The chart is for illustration purposes only. Lest anyone think I support the government confiscating half of your paycheck!
To illustrate why tax cuts can both help the economy and lower budget deficits (as long as spending is decreased), I’d like to make a little retail-sector analogy.
Let’s say that there is a big store, Wal-Mart perhaps. Except instead of selling goods like shirts and food and cheaply-glued furniture, they sell income. The store is a metaphor for the market at large. So the customers (us) go into the store (the market), find the goods (income) using our shopping carts (our labor, capital, innovation), and go to the checkout (the government), where we pay for the goods at the price (rate of taxation) determined by the store.
So what are the goals of Wal-Mart if they are in the business of selling income? Well, because they want the consumers to be happy, they want them to have as much goods (income) as possible. That’s what we’re trying to do with a “stimulus” bill, right? Improve the economy and raise incomes. Now Wal-Mart also has to remain profitable and not have deficits like the government currently has.
Now, if the liberals get in charge of the store, they would make the asinine proposition of just raising the prices of the goods (raising taxes on income). If we’re running a deficit when the shirts are priced for $15, we should raise it to $20. Hell, if this logic works, why not raise it to $100?! $1000!
That is ridiculous because of supply and demand. Higher prices result in lower demand, whether Wal-Mart is selling shirts or income. So what should Wal-Mart do in this case to achieve its goals of increasing the amount of goods for the consumers and remaining solvent? Have a sale!
The income store can have a sale by lowering the prices (taxes) on the goods (income). Therefore more consumers will pick up their idle shopping carts (labor, capital, innovation) to go get the goods. The income store benefits because even though their prices and profit margins are slightly lower, there are more gross sales and therefore more revenue.
If things are really dire, as it appears right now, maybe the income store should have a clearance sale, where the prices are really low.
This is exactly how the real Wal-Mart is so successful. It is more profitable to sell 20 shirts at $10 than 5 shirts at $20. Budgets will remain balanced -unless the store spends a whole bunch of money on plush new offices, company cars, and exorbitant benefits.
Unfortunately, the stimulus bill currently being debated doesn’t include a clearance sale. In fact, I wouldn’t even really consider this pork monster Keynesian. It is just one big Liberal wish list.
Keynesian economics basically says that the consumers are hoarding their shopping carts because they’re too scared, which makes sense. But, as a solution, Keynesians say we should borrow their carts (at interest) and do their shopping for them. Then, presto! The store has more revenue. But obviously then the store just has to recoup the money they spent borrowing the shopping carts, and the only way to do that is to raise prices, meaning the consumers won’t buy as many goods. Everyone loses.
So how do we get all of those scared consumers to use their carts? It is obvious in the private sector - by going on sale. Everyone wins.
But, as I said earlier, the stimulus bill is just a bunch of boondoggles. It is not even Keynesian. In our store metaphor, the board of directors is basically saying we’re going to raise the goods to the consumers (individual incomes) and the store’s revenues by painting the offices, hiring more employees, and making sure the shopping carts are fuel efficient.
This won’t work because not only will it cost too much, but it will do nothing to get the consumers to buy more income.
However, this is exactly why government does such a poor job compared to the private sector. They are not subject to the same rules. Where a business like Wal-Mart is bound by budgets and the laws of supply and demand and makes decisions based on cost, government can demand more funds at will (until the economy collapses) and makes decisions based on what sounds good.
Example: Only at the government-run income store do those who buy in bulk (high earners) pay a higher price (because of progressive taxation). You wanna buy three shirts? $30. Six shirts? $100. If you support charging those who buy in bulk the same price as everyone else, you support “tax cuts for the rich.” That’s liberal logic for you.
A spending stimulus bill will not work because we cannot afford to exacerbate the federal budget deficit, it will take too long to reach people, and it will do nothing to incentivize producers to create more wealth.
Cutting both taxes and spending will work because it will improve the fiscal health of the federal government, reach people’s pockets immediately, and encourage growth of the economy at large.
Donald Luskin had a piece refuting the current stimulus here.
Maybe later I’ll use my Wal-Mart metaphor to tackle regulation, where the cashiers leave their registers and dictate to the customers how they should shop……
But this is enough for now. Enjoy!
Jan
25
Change We Can Believe In!
Filed Under Economics | Leave a Comment
You’re never going to believe this, but I got the scoop on President Obama’s new legislation! Here’s a few new acts he’ll be pushing through congress:
- The heart of today’s economic crisis is the way the Bush administration handled the mortgage crisis. America needs decisive leadership from our next president. That’s why, as president, Senator Obama will create the Mortgage Amortization Reset Exchange (MARX). Through this, no American will be forced to live in a house they bought because they were preyed upon by unscrupulous lenders. If, at any point, a citizen cannot make their mortgage payment, they will be allowed to take over any house that is in their county of residence. That homeowner will be required to house, feed and clothe them and their progeny for as long as needed. That way, no American will be forced to face the consequences of their actions.
- While speaking with folks all over America, Senator Obama has heard countless stories of ordinary Americans being pushed aside in the workplace over the past eight years. That’s why in the senate Barack Obama sponsored the Work Ethic Equality Act. For too long our friends and neighbors have been discriminated against by employers just because they don’t work hard. President Obama will make it a capital offense punishable by 30 years in prison to deny a worker a job on the basis of work ethic, attendance, punctuality, or ability. Its time we put the working (or non-working) class first again after eight disastrous years of George Bush.
- An Obama administration will make sure all Americans have the ability to voice their concerns with their government through the American Yearly Executive Request Service (AYERS). Through this program, Americans of all walks of life will be trained on how to make an explosive impression on local government and government buildings and how to realize how awful and terrible our country has been.
Yes we can!
Jan
23
The Culture of Success Apology
Filed Under Sports | 4 Comments
I found this lovely story over at Yahoo. Apparently The Covenant School’s girls basketball team beat Dallas Academy 100-0 in a game last week. Both are private Christian schools in Dallas, Texas. But now Covenant wants to forefeit the game and apologize for its stunning success.
DALLAS — A Texas high school girls basketball team on the winning end of a 100-0 game has a case of blowout remorse.
Now officials from The Covenant School say they are trying to do the right thing by seeking a forfeit and apologizing for the margin of victory.
“It is shameful and an embarrassment that this happened,” Kyle Queal, the head of the school, said in a statement, adding the forfeit was requested because “a victory without honor is a great loss.”
The private Christian school defeated Dallas Academy last week. Covenant was up 59-0 at halftime.
A parent who attended the game told The Associated Press that Covenant continued to make 3-pointers — even in the fourth quarter. She praised the Covenant players but said spectators and an assistant coach were cheering wildly as their team edged closer to 100 points.
The question I ask is: Whats the real problem here? I’ll grant that 100-0 is a little much. Dallas Academy got their asses whooped, and the point was made. Maybe they should have stopped scoring at around 70-0 or something. But this is sports, folks. Both teams practiced hard, and the girls at Covenant have every right to not only ensure a solid margin of victory against their opponent but show off a little. Covenant’s success is not the problem.
The problem is the destructive culture of success apology that is leeching its way into our national psyche. Everywhere, it seems, success is seen as a sin and failure as a virtue. And the best way to legitimize failure is to remove responsibility for the unsuccessful’s deficiencies. Could this be what is happening with Dallas Academy?
Dallas Academy has eight girls on its varsity team and about 20 girls in its high school. It is winless over the last four seasons. The academy boasts of its small class sizes and specializes in teaching students struggling with “learning differences,” such as short attention spans or dyslexia.
Do you see a connection here? Apparently the culture of apologizing for success and celebrating failure is alive and well. “Short attention spans” or ADD or ADHD are not “learning differences” or disorders. They are kids who should have been spanked as children. Dyslexia is very real, but it can be overcome (see Jay Leno). Plus, you don’t need to be able to read the names on the jersey to put the ball in the basket.
When will we see that babying people only exacerbates their weaknesses and harms them in the long run? But the culture of success apology is not confined to high school girls basketball in Texas. With the election of Barack Obama, it is now the national economic paradigm.
Update: January 28th - The head coach of the Covenant School, Micah Grimes, was fired on January 25th after disagreeing with school officials over apologizing for the win. Said Grimes:
“In response to the statement posted on The Covenant School Web site, I do not agree with the apology or the notion that the Covenant School girls basketball team should feel embarrassed or ashamed,” Grimes wrote in the e-mail, according to the newspaper. “We played the game as it was meant to be played. My values and my beliefs would not allow me to run up the score on any opponent, and it will not allow me to apologize for a wide-margin victory when my girls played with honor and integrity.”
Update on a tip from Moonbattery.
Jan
22
Liberal Mind Puzzle
Filed Under Liberalism | 2 Comments
Modern American liberalism is probably the most inconsistent set of beliefs in the history of political philosophy. More than an ideological dogma, most mainstream liberals seem to substitute what sounds nice as opposed to a principle based on consideration and thought.
What I mean by this is that modern liberalism holds for somewhat free markets, but at times for large-scale government intervention, and protection of civil liberties but strong state control over economic activities. In a way, I respect full out communists more than liberals, because at least they’re consistent. They don’t try to have it both ways. Communists let you know right up front they are for total control of individual behavior by the state and society. Liberals try to cover this up.
That’s not to say that modern conservatives don’t have their contradictions when standing for freedom. There are many on the religious right who hold very statist views in regards to personal behavior and the basis of law on biblical doctrine. However this is more often a knee-jerk reaction to progressives who seek to demonize social conservatives. Left alone, these types will usually come down on the side of freedom.
That leads me to the point I alluded to in the title. For any self-described liberals reading this, I’d like to try a little thought experiment on you.
Liberals like to fancy themselves as staunch defenders of civil liberties and the separation of church and state. Yet they will then support strong government action in economic affairs, motivated by some sense of compassion. Don’t they realize these are two wholly inconsistent positions?
Let’s go with the separation of church and state. Americans United for Seperation of Church and State is an organization making several very good arguments to protect this sacred barrier between public and private institutions. On the Our Issues page (specifically the government-sponsored religion section), AU states:
When the government or government officials get behind one religious message, it sends the message to adherents that they are more valuable, and all others are less valuable, members of the political community. Leaving religious expression to private citizens ensures that the government will treat everyone equally.
Bravo. No libertarian or freedom loving conservative could disagree. I certainly don’t. Essentially what the above quote is saying is that when government picks a certain organization to serve the people, not only are the competing organizations prevented from succeeding, but the very people the government planners are trying to help are left with less choices. Here’s an excerpt from the Faith-Based Initiatives section, a policy most notably supported by George W. Bush but also by Barack Obama:
Americans in need of social services, such as welfare support, job training, emergency shelter and food/clothing supplies, should be able to get the help they need without being pressured to take part in religious activities. “Faith-based” initiatives, which propose turning the provision of social services over to religious groups, threaten individual rights and could lead to taxpayer support of religious ministries.
Bingo. Citizens on the taxpayers dime should not be in an indoctrination camp where they are forced to subscribe to a certain set of beliefs in exchange for aid.
So up to this point, I hope liberals and I have found a good deal of common ground on the ills of government intervention in matters of the soul. This is because even when government is trying to act in the best interest of its citizens, Calvin Coolidge’s warning rings true: “Government control cannot be divorced from political control.” That is, that which is under the sphere of government influence will also fall prey to the political whims of the time.
But can’t the arguments made in favor of the separation of church and state also be made for the separation of economy and state? Take my first argument above, about government picking one organization over the interests of another. Both potential competitors and regular people are harmed. So when liberals wish to protect the auto companies with bailouts, seek regulation over banks, give unionized workers an advantage over efficient businesses and those who are unemployed, and raise the minimum wage and therefore price the lowest paid workers out of the market, aren’t they always going to favor their political allies and campaign contributors? One need only to look at the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debacle or this article to see the answer is yes.
My second argument could very well apply to President Obama’s plans for “national service,” which has yet to really be defined. The moral hazzard also exists for whatever kind of “green jobs” Obama wishes to create. Will we really be helping youths and those out of work? No. Their economic livelihood will become linked with that of the state and the re-election of certain officials. That is not empowerment. That’s slavery. As I said earlier, “Citizens on the taxpayers dime should not be in an indoctrination camp where they are forced to subscribe to a certain set of beliefs in exchange for aid.”
Government intervention harms the entity they are trying to assist by making them dependant on the government. Government aid may, at times, help a person or company get back on its feet, but it never ends there. They are indebted to the state and when faced with a decision between their own interest and those of the state, cannot bite the hand that feeds it. The same argument could be made for churches. For instance, the AU site warns about church electioneering:
Every weekend, millions of Americans attend houses of worship to hear sermons, study scripture and participate in other religious activities. If some politicians and Religious Right activists have their way, however, people in the pews might soon be doing other things during services — listening to partisan political speeches, being solicited for campaign contributions and getting instructions about whom to vote for on Election Day.
This can happen not only because a particular candidate agrees with the church’s views, but because the church will become dependant on more government support. I must take issue with AU’s singling out of “Religious Right activists” however. I seem to remember a little liberal church electioneering going on during the 2008 election.
In the end, whether its government intervention in religion or the economy, the key question to be asked is who should be left to make decisions. Whether liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, you have to support decision-making by individuals or the state. Because, like it or not, statists always believe they know how to run people’s live better than the person them self. A statist will support a national religion because people cannot manage their own soul, and a statist will also support social security because people cannot manage their own retirement. A statist supports regulations on what kind of content in movies we can see because we shouldn’t be exposed to sinful messages, and a statist will also support regulations on what kind of mortgages we can buy because we shouldn’t be exposed to ‘predatory lending.’ In any case, the statist always believes we are too stupid to make decisions for ourselves.
You cannot have it both ways, liberals. You are either on the side of the individual, or government. I hope you will join me on the side of the individual and that of freedom.
Jan
21
Why is it that….
Filed Under Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
… we know intimate details about President Obama’s limo, broadcast to anyone with cable on CNN, but not any details as to the use or whereabouts of $350 billion in TARP funds???
Jan
21
Letter to the President
Filed Under Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Dear President Barack Obama,
Congratulations on taking the oath of office yesterday as our 44th president. Even a somewhat cynical conservative such as myself can take pride as our nation finally has its first black president. There is no denying the historical significance of the moment, nor the hope and optimism that you inspire.
Watching your inaugural address, I couldn’t help but be uplifted. Just reading the text, it seems as if Ronald Reagan could have given it, save a few exceptions. It may be just me, but you seem to have been making some stark revelations about the nature of the responsibilities you inherit, and for the first time in your life, the wisdom of conservative principles are making their impression.
It was easy to criticize George W. Bush and the Republican party from your senate seat or the stump, but after having seen the choices given to you, you’re beginning to see that things are not as simple as you originally thought.
Since winning the election in November, your rhetoric has made some key departures from standard liberalism, and that is both surprising and encouraging to me. But there are some issues I want to address regarding the ambitions charter you laid out for your administration yesterday.
To hear you speaking of a “far-reaching network of violence and hatred” was one of the first times I’ve heard you reference the enemy for what it is. Your tone was markedly sharper in reference to the Islamic extremists and dictators in the Muslim world who wish us harm. It is your responsibility as Commander In Chief to protect our country and bring these murderers to justice. Yet, many of your allies will oppose your efforts now that you have begun to see the true nature of the beast. The clamor has already begun from your side to let these monsters off easy, and loyalty will be hard to find. I assure you that, ironically, the conservatives will back you in your efforts to defeat the enemy at hand, hopefully as effectively as your predecessor has.
You went on yesterday to speak of subjective experiences with a rough economy, tempered with such views as being, “subject to data and statistics.” Here and here are a few. As that information shows, we are hardly close to the great depression, or even economic turmoils of the last 30 years. I would suggest you tailor government response, if any, to the scale of the situation and not use it as a giant excuse for a pork-laden stimulus bill. It is probably too much to ask for you to see the role of government intervention as the cause of many of these problems and refrain from using it as the solution. What I do ask is that you watch any government spending like a hawk, as members of congress from both parties see Keynesian stimulus as nothing more than vote getters.
Also, Mr. President, you mentioned themes of “responsibility” and “hard choices.” Indeed there are many hard choices that we, as individuals, will have to make. You wished that “the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things” will have freedom. I was also thrilled to hear you acknowledge the power of the free market as a creator of wealth and the agent of social mobility. On this we agree, yet you are still willing to inject the hand of government in the form of taxation, subsidies, and regulation into our economy. How can you reconcile these two points? The economy will not get back on its feet until the chains of government are lifted and the power of the free market unleashed.
Finally, you warned against “protecting narrow interests” and uplifting the poor of the world. There is no greater injustice in this world than the fact that there are children literally starving to death abroad while the leading killer in this country is too much food. Yet, you have railed against the advance of free trade and prosperity (and for protecting narrow interests) by opposing or supporting the limitation of NAFTA and CAFTA, as well as trying to give unions an unfair advantage. You also said yesterday that American cannot “consume the world’s resources without regard to effect.” Surely a consumer cannot consume beyond their means, but this is exactly the kind of “hard decision” you referenced earlier, and is to be made by free individuals, not government planners through trade restrictions and taxes. For it is exactly the consumption of raw materials by the developed world that will fuel the rise of living standards in the undeveloped world.
In summation, President Obama, I look forward to your inspiring leadership while the nation navigates choppy waters. I can also see that once out of your isolated Chicago-liberal bubble, you will see that conservative solutions are successful solutions. Please don’t forget the rightful place of the individual, limited government, and freedom of enterprise in our recovery. For it is through those elements that we will collectively reclaim our zenith.
Sincerely,
Matt at Zoominac.com
Jan
19
Over the weekend I saw Gran Torino starring libertarian Clint Eastwood. I went in with high expectations and must say they were met. It had everything a good movie should - drama, comedy, good characters, and creative profanity. But what was best was how the movie soundly repudiated the liberal themes that permeate a lot of mainstream cinema today. Gran Torino is chock full of pro-American, pro-military, pro-gun messages, all centering around a politically-incorrect protagonist who regularly throws out racial epithets.
The short version of the film is the story of Walt, an older, white Korean War veteran whose neighborhood is becoming increasingly populated by younger and poorer Asian immigrants. Originally hostile towards his new neighbors (the term ‘gook’ is used frequently throughout), he befriends a young teenage boy named Thao who lives next door. Walt becomes a good influence on Thao and shows him how to work, find a job, and curse with the best of ‘em. However, some of Thao’s family are members of a gang and want him to join, trying to take him by force if necesarry. The movie follows Walt’s attempts to protect Thao from the gang, using scorching profanity, violence, and his constitutionally-protected right to bear arms.
The most obvious anti-liberal theme in Gran Torino is its depiction of gun ownership. The film accurately portrays the reality of the gun situation in the real world. Both Walt and the gang bangers use, store, and own guns in ways many liberals would love to outlaw. But who would benefit from this? The criminals, of course, who would never follow such a law in the first place. As pro-gun advocates have maintained, gun laws only harm the innocent by disarming law-abiding citizens.
Secondly, the movie puts to rest the absurd liberal argument that gun ownership breeds violence. The mantra guns don’t kill people, people kill people rings true. Violent people will be violent whether they use guns, knives, sticks, or stones. Remember, the most heinous murder in modern American history was committed with box cutters and airplanes. We’re not going to outlaw those, are we? It is the gun that makes equal the physical disparity between a muscular twenty something gang member and a frail, 68 year old retiree. If left unchecked, barbarians will steal and assault at will. It is consequences that prevent thugs from committing violence, and there are few things like an armed and self-defensive populace to bring about consequences.
A theme in Gran Torino I also liked was the method by which two cultures meshed, that being the culture of the Hmong immigrants and the native Michigander, Walt. While liberals would prefer legislation, banking regulations, and demonizing western culture as the source of all evil as a method of cultural reconciliation, the film shows how even the most stubborn people can mesh over common values like family, hard work, accountability, and good food. Thao doesn’t earn Walt’s trust by berating him on the evils of the white race or American exceptionalism. No, he does this by showing his respect for elders and his work ethic. Likewise, Walt does not come to be accepted among Thao’s family by apologizing for his patriotism, military service, or political-incorrect vernacular. He does this by standing in solidarity against violent thugs, of any race, and by partaking in the delicious Hmong cuisine that the family leaves at his doorstep.
Finally, it’s worth noting a little jab that Gran Torino takes at those who would antagonize our military and glorify collectivist dictators abroad. Begrudging the escalating racial tension in his community, Walt asks Thao’s sister, Sue, how the Hmong people ended up in suburban Detroit. She explains that when in Southeast Asia, the Hmong were anti-communist and supported the Americans. When the U.S. withdrew, the communists began slaughtering the Hmong people. She then explains that the Lutherans were instrumental in bringing many Hmong people to the U.S.
So let’s get this right, communism: bad, religious-right types: good? Definitely not your typical Hollywood mantra.
Political dissection aside, Gran Torino is an awesome flick. Its a lot of fun, and it makes you think. It also gives me hope that I’ll be as spry as Clint Eastwood when I’m 78. Get out and see it, and take your liberal friends!
Jan
16
Crossing Over to the Dark Side: How I Became a Conservative Republican (Part III)
Filed Under Conservatism | 1 Comment
I was still in high school when 9/11 hit, and to say it shaped those in my generation is an understatement. It is very hard for young people to envision a world without a terrorist attack on home soil on our mind. It has shaped a huge portion of our lives. On that fateful Tuesday morning I, like the rest of the country, watched in shock as 19 murderous fanatics executed a coordinated attack on American soil, in the heart of our most prominent cites. With the loss of 3,000 of our brothers and sisters, it was clear that we were at war.
We all know what happened next. Our leaders in Washington pontificate about unity and patriotism. The country briefly bridges the partisan divide as we go into Afghanistan and knock out the Taliban. Next up is Iraq, where we make the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Then, something strange happened.
The problems with the Iraq war are well documented. We went in with half-ass numbers, were not greeted as liberators, didn’t find what we went in for, and the efforts of our troops were tripped up by an incompetent defense secretary and an isolated president. It wouldn’t be until 2007 that things began to break our way. These are all legitimate concerns, and there were voices from the left and right that were against the invasion from the get-go. But as the 2004 presidential election rolled around, the Democrat party saw the political oppurtunity of a lifetime.
Slowly but steadily, voices out of the Democrat party began to denounce the war, and then to say it was all based on a lie. “This whole thing was a fraud,” as Ted Kennedy put it. Immediately the left went into whining mode, and I think for two reasons. One, was that I think a lot of the former hippies saught to relive the Vietnam war and have one last battle before they went out to pasture. Two, without an unjust war brought on by Dubya The Terrible, the party had little issue-wise to go with. Ever since Reagan had taken Mondale to the woodshed in ‘84 (for the record, that’s 49 states to 1, with a 525-13 electoral college), the liberals had looked like the Detroit Lions of the political world. Now Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards and company saw their chance, and said that big bad Bush and Cheney had lied to them, and the public ate it up. In the 2006 and 2008 campaigns, they began calling for an unconditional withdrawl. That’s when this Democrat began to get suspicious.
The Democrats can say what they want about how we never should have invaded Iraq, how it was all a lie, there were no WMD’s. And hey, they may yet be correct. But I would offer the old saying that whenever you point a finger, there are three more pointing right back at you. This was not George W. Bush’s war. This wasn’t even the Republicans’ war. This was a war initiated by a strong coalition of both parties. But don’t take my word for it. Take Bill Clinton’s in 1998:
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
Or these folks:
· “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
· “There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” Letter to President Bush, Signed by: — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
· “We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
· “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
· “I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
· “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” — Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
· “Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein.” — Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
So when it comes down to it, there were only two ways to expain the inconsistency of the Democrats. One, that those in power commited the resources of the United States and the lives of thousands of Americans in error because of the lies of one man (in which case I guess Dubya is a hell of a lot smarter than we make him out be), or two, that they cast those votes in good conscience and still agree, but seized upon a political strategy to portray Bush as a liar for electoral gain. So either the Democrats were mindless idiots or treasonous panderers. Looking back, both seem so plausible that I have yet to figure out which one it is. And both are reason enough to throw their butts out of office. No, Senator Kennedy, the “fraud” was not the war, it is the way your buddies like to rewrite history. If the Democrats had any dignity, they would put Dennis Kucinich in as house majority leader and run Noam Chomsky in ‘04. But of course they didn’t.
The final straw for me, foreign and defense policy wise, was when the Democrats began calling for unconditional withdrawl from Iraq. Even if the invasion was a mistake, giving up was madness. Just because getting knocked up at prom was a mistake doesn’t justify an abortion at 8 1/2 months. And trust me, with Iran waiting in the wings, leaving Iraq would make Darfur look like a freaking birthday party. And what about our responsibility to the International Community that the Democrats seem so concerned about? What is more of an injustice, removing a tyranical killer who slaughtered his own people, or removing a tyranical killer who slaughtered his own people and leaving the place in chaos before cleaning up the mess? The only one left was Joe Biden, who, in my waning days as a Democrat I supported for president in ‘08. He rightly reasoned that leaving Iraq would be condemning our grandchildren to return. But boy did he ‘change’ his tune when he got put on the Obama Hope-o-rama. I could only laugh when he said John McCain was “not who he remembered.” I guess they injected the botox a little too deep, Joe.
With my trust in the Democrats as a party shattered, I had to cast my eye on their principles. As I said in parts I and II, I had gained a healthy confidence in free-market principles. As I began to consider the ideas of thinkers like Adam Smith, Calvin Coolidge, Barry Goldwater, Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, and others it became apparent that a free market and an interventionist government were mutually exclusive. That is, one cannot exist with the other. The reason is simple; a dollar left in the free market can literally create another dollar. That’s right, throw the law of conservation of mass and energy out the window. That’s because someone in the private sector acting in their own self interest will use a dollar to buy some apple seeds and start a fruit stand. Wealth is created. With government, they use that same dollar to buy apples to be eaten by those who can’t or won’t produce, and the money is gone long before the private sector could have multiplied the dollar (and apple supply) many times over. The two cannot coexist becuause the government has to get that dollar from somewhere. The truth that the liberals and Keynsians refuse to see is that every penny spent by the government has to be taken from the private sector where it could have generated a better return. Yes, some will end up with a disproportionate amount of wealth, but if inequality is the price of prosperity, its worth every penny.
But there is a more sinister side to the argument.
While in my liberal intellectual-larva stage, I began dating a wonderful, beautiful, smart, and talented girl (hey folks, she’ll probably read this:) ). There was just one drawback - she was one of the evil conservatives. Not only did she despise welfare and government control, but she came from a family of active Republicans. She had a ‘Viva Bush!’ sticker on her car, and the first time I came to her house, her faithfully Republican mother had none other than FOX News on. What am I getting myself into? I remember thinking. Her mother was a smart-as-a-whip 4′11″ woman who had emigrated from Mexico at age 13. While she never completed high school, she knew more about politics and government than most people know about the alphabet. She would playfully mock Democrats, welfare, and any arguments that I had supporting either. I came to realize that I didn’t know what the hell I was talking about. But what stuck with me was a view that I had (embarassingly) never encountered. Looking me in the eyes, she said that welfare was no help to those in need; to the contrary, welfare was no more than a mechanism to force the poor into government dependency and foster political constituencies.
The free market is the best and only weapon ever devised by nature to liberate humanity from poverty. For almost the entire history of our species, in every country, community, and era, people have lived in poverty, sickness, famine, and oppression. And let it be clear, freedom is the exception, not the rule. In the few instances where free markets have been somewhat allowed to reign, that is where systems maintain private property, fair and consitent tort law, limited government and abolition of force, there have been explosions of population and living standards. At times, entire groups of people have gone from near stone age level to full development in a single generation. With advents in communication and information technology, this pace will only quicken. When people are allowed to act in the full measure of their economic self-interest, wealth has been created by entrepreneurs who made higher standards of living accessable to the masses. Everything that you and I own, without a single exception, began as a luxury for the super wealthy, upper crust, top 1%, etc. Through innovation, hard work, decentralized decision making, and unrepentant “greed,” producers slaughtered poverty, crushed infant mortality rates, and empowered millions by bringing luxury to the people. Where people are allowed to innovate, decide for themselves what to buy and sell, and amass personal wealth, there is prosperity. Where the inventive are constrained, where decisions are centralized by the powerful, and where people are not allowed to reap the benefits of their labor, there is misery, death, violence, and oppression. No student of history can deny these facts.
As I had these revalations, I made the decision that I was finally going to leave the Democrat party. They obviosly were interested only in making victims out of people and winning elections. But it was too much for me to swallow to become a Republican or call myself conservative or even libertarian. I was satisfied to remain independent. During this time, I got my hands on a very good book by Neal Boortz entitled Somebody’s Gotta Say It.With example after example, Boortz pounded into my head the fact that not only were the Democrats and statists against the free market, but they saught to destroy the concept of the free individual and control every aspect of our lives. Our country, our freedoms, and our way of life were very much under attack, and to sit idly by was nothing short of betrayal. I realized I could not sit on the sidelines. I had to get involved, speak out, and vote in primaries.
I disagree with Republicans on some issues like the seperation of church and state, gay marriage, and some foreign policy, and sometimes the party is a willing accomplice to the Democrats’ assault on freedom. But in the real world, one side or the other is going to win elections, and Republicans by far stand more for freedom and personal responsiblity than Democrats. I owe it not only to myself but the millions who have not yet escaped despair and poverty to preserve freedom and capitalism. I am proudly an active and vocal conservative Republican. To summarize my journey from Democrat to Republican:
When I thought that welfare and government helped the poor, I was a Democrat.
When I saw that welfare and government did not help the poor, I was an Independent.
When I realized that welfare and government hurt the poor, that was the day I registered as a Republican and vowed to advocate for free minds, free markets, and free souls. Anything I can do, from voting, to becoming active, to getting the word out (such as this blog) will be my charge to continue the revolution began over 200 years ago. For that was when men put their names, lives, and fortunes on the line to declare that people were free, that we exist as sovereign individuals, that our rights are a natural endowment and cannot be divorced from us by force, and that government must be constrained, its poweres ennumerated, and its mandate from consent.
Jan
14
Crossing Over to the Dark Side: How I Became A Conservative Republican (Part II)
Filed Under Conservatism | 7 Comments
I suppose my somewhat conservative leanings had always been there. I was personally conservative and looked down on lying, cheating, sexual promiscuity, drug use, and sloth. I had always been generally pro-life, and initially supported the war in Iraq. Yet I remained antagonistic towards the wealthy and big business. My view of conservatives and Republicans in general was somewhat of a caricature. I suppose the vision in my head was similar to when Tina Fey likened Bush supporters to those who, “believed Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church,” on Weekend Update. I saw those on the right as intolerant, racist, greedy, stupid, war-mongering, religious-fundamentalist, anti-Darwin zealots. Pretty assumptive for a teenager who had never met a real conservative, much less discussed or researched conservative principles. To me, conservatism could be summarized as: “I like money, I like God, I hate lazy people on welfare and I hate fags.” With this kind of skewed mentality, its not hard to see why I was a democrat - who wouldn’t be?
Ironically, my view of liberal Democrats was equally skewed, although in the opposite direction. As I got older, I appreciated capitalism a lot more, and I viewed the Democrat party not as enemies of the free market that they are, but as the guardians of it. Capitalism was great, I reasoned, but its excesses can create problems and inequality, and of course the Democrats could come to the rescue. Global warming was a very real threat, just like Al Gore warned, and I recycled with fervor, regardless of the gas I used to drive our cans and bottles over to the recycling center. I was doing my part. Welfare recipients were simply those who had fallen on hard times, and government programs were just a one-time temporary bridge. The rich were mostly lucky, and used their wealth and power to control the masses with lobbyists and advertising. While the Republicans used every dirty political trick in the book, the heavenly Democrats simply searched for common-sense answers. Every problem had a possible government solution, unless the blood-thirsty republicans tripped it up, of course.
My mindset was obviously a ridiculously unrealistic bubble, and it would pop sooner than I knew. My political path was irrevocably set to the conservative side by, ironically, my father. When I was sixteen years old, he gave a book to me called The Millionaire Next Door. This book literally changed my life. While the book had nothing to do with politics, it totally changed the way I viewed the world, and from where else do our political leanings spring? For those who haven’t read The Millionaire Next Door (you should read ASAP), it chronicled Americans with a net worth of over $1 million, more specifically who they were, how they acquired their wealth, and how they spent it. Instead of reinforcing my popular view of millionaires as lazy robber barons who cashed out when their parents kicked off, the book made the contention (with volumes of statistical backing) that:
“Most of America’s millionaires are first-generation rich.” (p. 15)
Through a steady diet of case studies, statistics, surveys, and simple logic, The Millionaire Next Door showed that wealth (and more generally success and happiness) are more a product of hard work, planning, sacrifice, and personal decisions rather than luck and circumstance. A few more statistics about millionaires from the book:
- More than half never received as much as $1 in inheritance
- 91% never received, as a gift, as much as $1 of the ownership of a family business
- Nearly half never received any college tuition from their parents or other relatives (p. 16)
I became convinced that success in life was formulaic, and that if I made the correct decisions and planned, I could be there too. More consequentially, it was probable that most of the rich had not attained their status through greed and deception, but rather through hard work.
After my misconceptions of personal wealth had buckled, my misgivings of big business were next to go. It became apparent that in a true free market, the only way a business could get rich was to provide the absolute best products for their fellow man. This was true even when it violated my sense of fairness and right and wrong. For instance, I had been brought up to never buy anything you didn’t need, and to only return it if it was defective. Yet, when I began working at a large retailer in college, I saw that they would return nearly any product for nearly any reason, often without a receipt. Many times I saw that even when a “big business” was totally justified to tell a consumer to screw off, they wouldn’t, and in fact would provide whatever they could to the consumer in pursuit of their own self interest. It was clearly apparent to me that capitalism used the only reliable human instinct, self interest, to provide the most goods to the most amount of people in the most efficient manner.
Yet even as my faith in free-market solidified, I remained a Democrat still, as I mentioned above that I saw the party as the guardians of fair capitalism. What really began to erode my trust in the Democrat party was, of all things, the war in Iraq.
Jan
14
Crossing Over to the Dark Side: How I Became A Conservative Republican (Part I)
Filed Under Conservatism | 3 Comments
I think the most lacking part of political discourse is that people don’t explain what principles they stand for and why. Sure, everybody is more than willing to say what their position is on issue x, y, and z, but they never explain what’s really driving them. It seems that people just assume everybody is affixed a certain viewpoint and political party at birth, and therefore must follow the line for every issue. When this happens, politics just degrades into a screaming match with two competing sides that refuse to be persuaded. All political decisions, including at the ballot box, seem to be riding on who will do the most for me, rather than who is providing the most reasoned, logical arguments.
As you can tell, I am on the conservative side of the spectrum, with a libertarian bent. But I wasn’t always that way. I want to tell the story of how I went from a moderately liberal, fiercely loyal Democrat, to a pro-freedom, pro-limited government conservative.
I was born in New York state, an obviously heavily democratic domain. My parents fit the bill. Both were loyal blue-staters (although my mother would sometimes stray, as she would vote for Jeb Bush for governor in 1998 in Florida). Throughout my upbringing, my parents would have 60 Minutes on and eat up the stories of big business and their evil republican allies. I would pick up on the snippets of politics my parents would drop about the ills of violence and gun ownership, the greed of business, and the need of government to step in to help people. To a child, and even as a young adult, this all seemed hunky dory, and I quickly learned to despise republicans, and to a lesser degree, big businesses. As for the wealthy, I wouldn’t say there was any animosity on my end, but I definitely felt like there were so many people that were simply given a better shake than I. Growing up my family wasn’t poor, but we struggled an awful lot. It was easy for envy to creep in and drive my emotions and the way I viewed the world, especially in high school when my friends had cars that had AC (a must in Florida) and could successfully exceed 50 mph.
Yet for all of my parents’ railing against conservatism and siding with the big-government types, they were, as most democrats are, a walking contradiction. While on one hand my father would not set foot in a Wal-Mart and vote for redistributionist politicians, he was the single hardest-working person I have ever met, encountered, or even heard of. There wasn’t anything he wouldn’t do or any burden he wouldn’t bear for his family. When he was laid off at the end of the supposedly blessed Bill Clinton era, he took on a paper route to make ends meet, and continued it even when he found work. My father would put in around 80 hours of labor a week for several years out of his sense of responsibility. To give him help or a handout was an insult. My father also was not fond of the police, and would be the loudest complainer if a government agency were to interfere with his burn pile or building a porch. Helping out with the paper route in middle and high school and working beside my father on our 5 acres would foster my liberal leanings, but it would also instill a strong work-ethic and sense of personal responsibility that I hope is my father’s proudest legacy.
My mother was also an ardent Democrat and went through a signifigant Al Gore phase, where saving the environment and stopping global warming were her missions, and even bought a Honda Civic Hybrid and had a Live Earth house party. She’s politically-correct to a T and is, like my father, an avowed enemy of Wal-Mart. Development, big business, government contractors, war profiteers, and gun owners were the favorite targets of my mother’s politics, and for the most part I carried this over to my own view. Yet my mother, with her Catholic faith grounding her, was rooted in traditional values, honored her marriage vows with utmost seriousness, and was unabashedly pro-life. From her I would impart a sense of compassion and selflessness, respect for family and morality, and a deep suspicion of power.
It was in this environment that my political intellect began to take shape, and I took an early interest into the workings of elections and government. I remember being a kid and being very impressed with an ad from Ross Perot: “I love America, and I love you!” Being proud that a former Buffalo Bills quarterback had been selected as a Vice Presidential running mate, and then being dismayed upon learning that he was one of the evil Republicans. Skipping school the day after the infamous 2000 election watching the news and hoping all the way to December 13th that Gore would pull it out. Trying to “shop responsibly” with envrionmental and nationalist concerns in mind. Watching Farenheit 911 at the only theatre showing it and taking its talking points hook, line, and sinker. Doing a woefully under-researched paper in my first college English class entitled Hurricanes and Global Warming (thank God for liberal educators - thanks for the A+ Mrs G.!). I had proudly registered to vote on my 18th birthday and of course checked the box for Democrat. Yet, little did I know, my journey towards conservatism had already begun.
Jan
14
Introduction to Zoominac.com
Filed Under Uncategorized | 1 Comment
Today marks the beginning of my blog, Zoominac. As I wrote on my ‘about’ page, I started this blog to cover politics, economics, and business from a libertarian-leaning conservative view point.
My first posts will soon follow. I reccomend also taking a peek at the ‘quotes’ page. Check out my other posts, comment, tell your friends, and return frequently!
Also, if you want to contact me but not in a post comment, email me at Matt@zoominac.com.
