November 4th: Vote, if you dare.

[Pertains mostly to Massachusetts residents]

Voting in modern society has become a cruel game. Somewhere along the way, America lost its entire value system and replaced it with a lowest common denominator. Now, voting is just a way to fit in, as it doesn't really change much, and is more of an advertisement than anything else (see my recent Corrupt.org article here for more on the 1960 election and how it symbolized a change in the way Americans viewed political candidates). However, there are a few ballot questions and candidates that may finally get me to the voting booth come Tuesday.

You can see from my posts below that, in my opinion, the only effective Presidential candidate, until he dropped out of the race, was Dr. Ron Paul. He's the only one who could actually tout a decades-long voting record of limited government, traditional American values, and more power to the states with a more realistic and sane fiscal and foreign policy platform. Unfortunately, the government bailout and what will surely be a resulting recession, if not decade-long depression, is occurring too late for the 2008 election. People still stare at the TV, convinced that Obama The Messiah is somehow going to dangle whatever they want in front of their eyes; they're going to be transfixed by it and vote for it, but in the end, we're going to be worse off when no one realizes how to pay for any of it. The below excerpt from the Campaignforliberty.com website is a great analogy as to how I feel about Obama:

The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade. The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest. I decided we would have an election for a class president. We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote.

To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members. We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have. We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot.

The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were good kids. I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support. I had never seen Olivia’s mother. The day arrived when they were to make their speeches. Jamie went first. He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place. He ended by promising to do his very best. Every one applauded. He sat down and Olivia came to the podium. Her speech was concise. She said, “If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream.” She sat down. The class went wild. “Yes! Yes! We want ice cream.”

She surely would say more. She did not have to. A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn’t sure. Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it. She didn’t know. The class really didn’t care. All they were thinking about was ice cream. Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a land slide.

Every time Barack Obama opens his mouth he offers ice cream, and fifty percent of America reacts like nine year olds. They want ice cream. The other fifty percent know they’re going to have to feed the cow.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=3270

Obama is a commercial, an advertisement for how 95% of the morons in this country want the government to simply provide for them without working for it. Dr. Paul is a candidate who simply wants to return to American values - keep prices low by using sound currency, allow people to work for whatever they get, and government can be there simply to protect the American people from fraud or liberty violations. Our founding fathers were libertarians; it's time we go back to simpler government and less illegal, undeclared wars.

Specific to Massachusetts, I'm supporting the following candidates and proposals:

• Brion Cangiamila for State Senate: wants less government involvement, lower income taxes, lower levels of corruption, elimination of red tape - in short, simplifying state government and taking the pork out of the barrel. Easy decision.
• Question 1: Cut state income taxes. Our government has shown just how corrupt it has become - we're the fourth most taxed state in the nation, and yet we're about to become the most bankrupt, without any money for fixing crumbling infrastructure while toll collectors make $70,000 per year, not even collecting enough money per day to pay their own salaries. Send a message to the MA State House by voting YES on this measure.
• Question 2: Reduce penalties to those caught with less than one ounce of marijuana to essentially a speeding ticket. I support this law because there are far too many drug busts with very limited amounts of a substance that doesn't cause nearly the reckless behavior that legal drugs, such as alcohol and even cigarettes, can cause. Pretty simple here, no reason to lock people up and have a CORI entry (background check) for less than an ounce of weed. This would hopefully be a small step toward legalizing many substances our pharmaceutical company would rather keep to themselves or regulate for the sake of pumping millions of chemical substitutes into the market. Voting YES on this measure.
• Question 3: Eliminate dog racing in Massachusetts. At first, this seemed like an easy "Yes" vote. But after learning that veterinarians are on hand during these races and that most of these dogs are treated fairly well and are adopted out once their careers are over, I'm not so sure this is so cut and dry. I'm probably voting "No" on this simply because the state would take back all of the land owned by the dog racing tracks, and that would result in a lawsuit - this is more red tape we don't need.
• United States Senate: Though there is no acceptable third party candidate, Jeff Beatty (Republican) seems to have a good head about him, and has worked with a few counterterrorism agencies in his time. He's no fan of the war in Iraq, and any opportunity to unseat John Kerry is one I'll gladly take. I'm voting for Mr. Beatty in this election.

Andrew Lahde: A Living Legend

Update 10/30/2008: An article I wrote for Corrupt.org on this topic was published. Please click here to see the full article at Corrupt.

Please read the below letter from Andrew Lahde, someone who decided to say "kiss my ass" on the way out the door, preferring to profit from an empty, materialistic industry but with a long-term view on life much more healthy than any of his contemporaries.

I applaud Mr. Lahde for doing the right thing and not giving into the soulless pursuit of money for the sake of it. He has plenty of money to retire on now; why not go for a hike, buy a house in a remote area, and live off the land with that money instead of living in congested cities and attending parties with other empty creatures? The best part about Mr. Lahde's success is that most of his money came from the knowledge that the subprime debacle, as he calls it, was going to come home to roost at some point, and when it did, all his bets proved correct.

Without further ado:

Today I write not to gloat. Given the pain that nearly everyone is experiencing, that would be entirely inappropriate. Nor am I writing to make further predictions, as most of my forecasts in previous letters have unfolded or are in the process of unfolding. Instead, I am writing to say goodbye.

Recently, on the front page of Section C of the Wall Street Journal, a hedge fund manager who was also closing up shop (a $300 million fund), was quoted as saying, “What I have learned about the hedge fund business is that I hate it.” I could not agree more with that statement. I was in this game for the money. The low hanging fruit, i.e. idiots whose parents paid for prep school, Yale, and then the Harvard MBA, was there for the taking. These people who were (often) truly not worthy of the education they received (or supposedly received) rose to the top of companies such as AIG, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers and all levels of our government. All of this behavior supporting the Aristocracy only ended up making it easier for me to find people stupid enough to take the other side of my trades. God bless America.

There are far too many people for me to sincerely thank for my success. However, I do not want to sound like a Hollywood actor accepting an award. The money was reward enough. Furthermore, the endless list of those deserving thanks know who they are.

I will no longer manage money for other people or institutions. I have enough of my own wealth to manage. Some people, who think they have arrived at a reasonable estimate of my net worth, might be surprised that I would call it quits with such a small war chest. That is fine; I am content with my rewards. Moreover, I will let others try to amass nine, ten or eleven figure net worths. Meanwhile, their lives suck. Appointments back to back, booked solid for the next three months, they look forward to their two week vacation in January during which they will likely be glued to their Blackberries or other such devices. What is the point? They will all be forgotten in fifty years anyway. Steve Balmer, Steven Cohen, and Larry Ellison will all be forgotten. I do not understand the legacy thing. Nearly everyone will be forgotten. Give up on leaving your mark. Throw the Blackberry away and enjoy life.

So this is it. With all due respect, I am dropping out. Please do not expect any type of reply to emails or voicemails within normal time frames or at all. Andy Springer and his company will be handling the dissolution of the fund. And don’t worry about my employees, they were always employed by Mr. Springer’s company and only one (who has been well-rewarded) will lose his job.

I have no interest in any deals in which anyone would like me to participate. I truly do not have a strong opinion about any market right now, other than to say that things will continue to get worse for some time, probably years. I am content sitting on the sidelines and waiting. After all, sitting and waiting is how we made money from the subprime debacle. I now have time to repair my health, which was destroyed by the stress I layered onto myself over the past two years, as well as my entire life – where I had to compete for spaces in universities and graduate schools, jobs and assets under management – with those who had all the advantages (rich parents) that I did not. May meritocracy be part of a new form of government, which needs to be established.

On the issue of the U.S. Government, I would like to make a modest proposal. First, I point out the obvious flaws, whereby legislation was repeatedly brought forth to Congress over the past eight years, which would have reigned in the predatory lending practices of now mostly defunct institutions. These institutions regularly filled the coffers of both parties in return for voting down all of this legislation designed to protect the common citizen. This is an outrage, yet no one seems to know or care about it. Since Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith passed, I would argue that there has been a dearth of worthy philosophers in this country, at least ones focused on improving government. Capitalism worked for two hundred years, but times change, and systems become corrupt. George Soros, a man of staggering wealth, has stated that he would like to be remembered as a philosopher. My suggestion is that this great man start and sponsor a forum for great minds to come together to create a new system of government that truly represents the common man’s interest, while at the same time creating rewards great enough to attract the best and brightest minds to serve in government roles without having to rely on corruption to further their interests or lifestyles. This forum could be similar to the one used to create the operating system, Linux, which competes with Microsoft’s near monopoly. I believe there is an answer, but for now the system is clearly broken.

Lastly, while I still have an audience, I would like to bring attention to an alternative food and energy source. You won’t see it included in BP’s, “Feel good. We are working on sustainable solutions,” television commercials, nor is it mentioned in ADM’s similar commercials. But hemp has been used for at least 5,000 years for cloth and food, as well as just about everything that is produced from petroleum products. Hemp is not marijuana and vice versa. Hemp is the male plant and it grows like a weed, hence the slang term. The original American flag was made of hemp fiber and our Constitution was printed on paper made of hemp. It was used as recently as World War II by the U.S. Government, and then promptly made illegal after the war was won. At a time when rhetoric is flying about becoming more self-sufficient in terms of energy, why is it illegal to grow this plant in this country? Ah, the female. The evil female plant – marijuana. It gets you high, it makes you laugh, it does not produce a hangover. Unlike alcohol, it does not result in bar fights or wife beating. So, why is this innocuous plant illegal? Is it a gateway drug? No, that would be alcohol, which is so heavily advertised in this country. My only conclusion as to why it is illegal, is that Corporate America, which owns Congress, would rather sell you Paxil, Zoloft, Xanax and other addictive drugs, than allow you to grow a plant in your home without some of the profits going into their coffers. This policy is ludicrous. It has surely contributed to our dependency on foreign energy sources. Our policies have other countries literally laughing at our stupidity, most notably Canada, as well as several European nations (both Eastern and Western). You would not know this by paying attention to U.S. media sources though, as they tend not to elaborate on who is laughing at the United States this week. Please people, let’s stop the rhetoric and start thinking about how we can truly become self-sufficient.

With that I say goodbye and good luck.

All the best,

Andrew Lahde

[link]

Please contact me via commenting here if you'd like a .pdf version of this document.

Visit UMFreedom.com

Below (in italics) is a blurb about the UM Constitutionalists, an organization which values traditional American culture of libertarian politics and free market economics.

Some might say these values are outdated and it's the government's job to provide for its citizenry. This idea is called socialism and is one that our Founders were afraid of. Socialism is the same as corrupt politics, and any economist knows that the occasional monopoly or "robber baron" is much preferred over a corrupt government which artificially fixes prices and attempts to provide for people instead of simply governing the people. Unfortunately, most of those economists are in academia, and the ones who are supposed to be upholding free market economics are bought off by the government to perpetuate a now-bankrupt federal reserve system that was never supposed to exist.

Take the example of railroads. Broadly speaking, there was a monopoly, and many were afraid of all the power one man in one industry could have. Any forward thinking economist at the time would have told you that without the government stepping in and creating anti trust laws, the industry would have eventually reached the point of diminishing returns until it figured it was profitable to allow other small railroads to pop up as intra-state enterprises. Eventually some of those smaller companies would have merged, effectively allowing competition. And while all this is happening, another manufacturer of railroad cars would have come along and simply asked about a fee to allow them to use the track. Both instances would eventually have allowed competition into the marketplace. Somehow, this point was lost on the example of Bill Gates one hundred years later, and we're finally seeing that a monopolist, after years of success, eventually settles back down and has to work extremely hard to continue creating a product that people want in the marketplace.

The broad strokes which outline an argument against our current debtist/socialist government are as follows:

- income taxes: illegal, something our founders never intended, and an excuse for government to over-regulate
- Libertarian values: no longer upheld; the individual in the collective (meaning sheep) is valued more than true individual liberties in our society, and this has to change
- Federal Reserve: bankrupts our economy and provides zero benefit to the free market whatsoever (look what's happening to our economy, and the fact that our Fed is printing money to fund programs now because the US is in so much debt)
- overregulation: the US government has decided to price-fix wherever possible to justify the huge sums of tax money collected, and they've ended up ruining industries and workforces instead of allowing them to thrive.
- Separation of government/business: this is just as important as a Church/State separation, and our Constitution has been falsely amended so many times that the government
- 10th amendment: Powers not granted to the federal government go to the state governments, and state government laws challenged in courts that are found to be in violation of any of the principles of the Constitution can be overridden. Any other state laws are permissible and should be regulated at the state level.
- Right to bear arms: Pretty simple; when you outlaw something that the Constitution explicitly allows, most scratch their head and wonder why. Since most people are sheep and simply want to obey the law, they steer clear of guns because the government tells you not to have them, even though our country was founded upon values which allowed citizens to have guns. This only makes the criminal and aggressive element of society stronger, who for the most part are sociopaths and don't reflect the type of people who should be the only ones carrying firearms in our society. Clarifying this by simply allowing the free market to decide which guns get produced and for whom would go a long way toward ending violence. It should come as no surprise that Texas, known for upholding the 2nd amendment, ranks in the middle of the pack with respect to gun violence, nowhere near the top of the list.

Read more below.

This club’s mission shall be to raise awareness of the US Constitution as the foundation of American government through political activism including, but not limited to: rallies, protests, speeches, booths and general campaigning for candidates who endorse a constitutionally limited government. We seek those willing to actively and openly campaign for the Constitution as well as the candidates endorsed by this club. However, we are open to all members who adhere to these beliefs, regardless to the extent of their activism.

The purpose of the organization shall be to foster the principles set forth in the United States Constitution among the student body of the University of Mississippi and to organize student activists in preserving those fundamental beliefs.

The UM Constitutionalists are affiliated with the University of Mississippi. It is here where the first UM Constitutionalists, inspired by the current political climate, decided to organize in pursuit of a common goal of political change. The UM Constitutionalists hope that with the ever increasing corruption in American politics, more Constitutionalists groups will be formed on other college campuses, all united as one major political force. For information on how to be a part of this movement, please go to the contacts page to get in touch with an officer. Together we can make a difference.

http://umfreedom.com/about/

John LaBruzzo is eased aside after controversial eugenics plan

John LaBruzzo is a Republican State Representative from Louisiana, and a member of the House of Representatives Health and Welfare committee. Corrupt.org has been following his story since the news broke that he wanted to offer welfare recipients incentives to be sterilized in an attempt to scale back some of the welfare abuse in his home state.

Obviously, LaBruzzo was removed from his leadership role as vice chairman on the aforementioned committee. Even if you don't support eugenics policies, it would have been a great springboard for a debate, but apparently no one in the Louisiana State House of Representatives was up for such a debate.

I helped write the script to the video posted below, and Corrupt.org links below will do a better job than I can of explaining their viewpoint and why they support LaBruzzo. Please check these links out. For those of us who are not weak and would have something to contribute to a better society, don't feel guilty about agreeing with some of what LaBruzzo says - he's not Hitler, he's just a realist, and we are all better off with like-minded individuals than force-fitting multiculturalism into what was supposed to be a Libertarian, free-market society.





How LaBruzzo wants to end welfare abuse

LaBruzzo and Corrupt.org campaign to end welfare abuse

States going bankrupt; say hello to socialism

The launch of Governor Deval Patrick's ambitious proposal to provide students with a free education, from preschool through community college, will have to be scaled back next year because of the state's ever-worsening budget problems, Education Secretary Paul Reville said.

"We don't have the dollars to do it," said Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. "It's not that we don't believe in the virtue. We don't have the money."

[+]

As someone who commented on this story wrote, using Deval Patrick's campaign slogan in jest:

"Together we can..."
1) Run the state into receivership.
2) Overspend on the governor's car and drapes for his office.
3) Take the first four months in office off because our spouse is tired.
4) Not make good on a single campaign promise.
5) Do NOTHING to make this "historic" administration noteworthy.

Massachusetts politics are outrageously corrupt. Some people, even outside of Massachusetts, still see the Commonwealth as some beacon of hope for education and welfare. Somewhere along the way, the fact we borrow money from the federal government and waste insane amounts of it - while simultaneously having the highest revenue-generating state lottery in the country - translated into Massachusetts being a "progressive" state; a symbol of the future of the US. Let's hope people wake up soon and realize that less government is better, that legalizing gay marriage is just a BS symbolic gesture of liberalism, and that when our state goes bankrupt, no one will be able to help pick up the pieces because the federal government will probably be bankrupt too.

True leaders don't come from Massachusetts anymore - gravy-train incumbents like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry do nothing for this state and are only concerned with their own image on the Hill. Until people in this once great Commonwealth go back to the Constitutional values upon which this nation was founded (as a start, we could go back to defending rights and not entitlements), Massachusetts will go bankrupt and will be forced to cut its welfare programs and wasteful spending. The only question is whether or not we'll have the foresight to break our fall a little, a lesson that the country may finally begin to heed from Dr. Ron Paul, who has been spreading this same message for years.

Populations starve while national resources are literally burned up in mid-air

SRIHARIKOTA, India (Reuters) – India launched its first unmanned moon mission on Wednesday following in the footsteps of rival China, as the emerging Asian power celebrated its space ambitions and scientific prowess.

Chandrayaan-1 (Moon vehicle), a cuboid spacecraft built by the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) blasted off from a southern Indian space center shortly after dawn in a boost for the country's ambitions to gain more global space business.

India's national television channels broadcast the countdown to the launch live. Some scientists thumped their chests, hugged each other and clapped as the rocket shot up into space.

Greeted with patriotism in the media, the launch appeared to have distracted India from an economic slowdown, collapsing stock prices and outbreaks of ethnic and religious violence.

[+]

India and China, two countries which can't afford to feed their respective populations, are somehow finding money (likely from the US in the form of borrowed, soon to be worthless dollars and foreign investment), have now made the jump into space.

This is a perfect symbol of our dystopic future: money being spent on insanity like space missions while people starve. I'm all for learning as much as possible about the universe, but first we should fix the problem with our over-regulated, pseudo-capitalist democracies around the world. Since the US has stuck their nose in everyone's business, it's the unfortunate reality today that news like this affects us all. If the US reined in its empire around the world and allowed free market economics to provide services and goods to the population, we wouldn't discuss socialized medicine and inefficient, bureaucratic social welfare programs.

Digg and comment here.

Ron Paul

A few people and organizations I trust have recently led me to check out the views of one Dr. Ron Paul, a Republican in the House of Representatives - Texas, 14th District.

As many know, Ron Paul ran a presidential campaign in 2008 as he did in 1988, but this time, he refused to leave the Republican Party in order to do it (in 1988 he ran as a Libertarian third-party candidate).

I've avoided politics for most of my adult life. I'm one of those disillusioned people who believe that no politician is ever really looking out for the people, and who doesn't really care about the future of this nation. But there is a simple solution: all politicians at the federal level take an oath to uphold the Constitution; the only problem is that few follow it. The few that do follow it are an example of what the federal government should be about, and Ron Paul - a strict Constitutionalist - seems to have more of a pulse on the problems this country faces, and sensible solutions to those problems - than anyone else in Washington.

Here's a summary of his views, as well as a few YouTube videos and links. You'll understand quickly why I support him instead of either Senators currently in the race for the white house (Barack Obama, John McCain).

• Federal Reserve: RP's position is that the Fed needs to go, along with fiat currency. Only sound currency (based on some asset) has any real value over time; all fiat currencies eventually end. The Federal Reserve abuses its unconstitutional position of power to play God to the markets when the free market is the only entity/organism that knows how to set prices of any kind.
• Federal Government: The Constitution clearly lays boundaries to the government's level of authority, with a checks and balances system, and even holds that any powers not specifically granted to it should be in the hands of the individual states. Any social welfare program, income tax, etc. that limits your rights as an individual or attempting to redistribute wealth, or artificially limiting moral hazard in the marketplace is unconstitutional and should not be allowed. The current size of our federal government is too large and should be limited back to the vision the Founders had.
• Individual Liberty: The Constitution provides that no person shall be denied life, liberty, or property (without due compensation). Any law limiting those liberties (drug laws, gun laws which also go against the 2nd amendment, etc.) at the federal level is inconsistent with separation of powers between the federal government and state governments. RP also believes in no entitlements for anyone, as this leads to social welfare and redistributes wealth via a form of socialism (usually that wealth is accumulated by the government via taxation). The free market would take care of all of the people's goods and services demands, and is the only entity qualified to do so.
• War/Foreign Policy: Believes that we should be out of any territory unless there is a clear and present danger to the sovereignty of our nation, in which case a declaration of war is necessary in order to take action against another nation. In today's world, this means withdrawing from Georgia, Germany, Iraq, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan - any nation in which we have troops where Congress did not declare war on that nation.
• Trade: Believes in free trade, not managed free trade (no NAFTA, no WTO). Free market economics dictate uniform tariffs where required and otherwise free trade among private entities even across country's borders (note: this is an important distinction between isolationism and non-interventionism; RP is non-interventionist but still believes in free trade).

These are just a few of his positions and I may edit this document to add more focused viewpoints later. Seeing the man himself speak is the easiest way to get a sense of what he believes in:

Be sure to watch all six clips.

More below, mostly on the economy, the Fed, wars, and current election:









[Recent Interview with The Cauldron (Ohio)]
[Campaign for Liberty website]

Advertising Across America

Advertising is a powerful tool in any society run by mass media. If a political entity or a corporation has liquidity, a good portion of that liquidity is usually spent on some type of advertising budget. Instead of undisguised propaganda, which can at least be questioned by the masses even in secret if necessary, the modern day capitalistic approach to advertising pushes propaganda in disguise - we're selling a product, not a government service; this has nothing to do with society so you can choose to buy or not buy - your freedoms are still protected here in Washington, DC!

Lost in the fray are the political messages and subliminal attacks on anything that challenges the status quo. A car commercial will show you a family with kids staring at the DVD screen hanging from the ceiling, while the parents argue about whether or not they're lost, and the wife turning on the navigation system. Women have so much more purchasing power since the 1970s; didn't you know that? So the woman in these commercials need to play a role too, and hey, can't you relate to this situation if you have two kids, a dog, and a collection of Disney DVDs? You can't?? Then you don't fit in, silly; go back to the dark ages and leave us alone to conform to this Utopian imagery!

Since television has become such a large part of our lives, with advertising fueling that engine, advertising has permeated almost everything you see when you turn on the TV. It started in the 1950s with cute product placements in shows - innocent enough, until we find out later that corporations wouldn't allow certain plot lines if they didn't conform to an image with which the advertiser was comfortable. But in the 1960 Presidential debate, when Kennedy scored huge points for good looks, posture, and youth over Nixon's five o'clock shadow and worn down appearance, advertising crossed a cultural divide: it wasn't just about TV anymore; the image of candidates were becoming increasingly important, vs. the ideals and messages of those candidates. It's no wonder that at about this time in US history, we lost strong leadership.

This is not to say advertising was never a problem before TV came along. Of course, advertisers had sign placements and product placements well before TV - on radio, on city streets, in magazines. As television became ever more important, however, so did advertising, and in 1960, we saw just how important it was when Kennedy clinched one of the closest elections in US history away, from a Vice President of eight years no less - even after radio broadcasters had declared Nixon the clear winner in the debates.

Fast forward to 2008, and we have much the same problem: candidates parroting words that the crowd wants to hear, and advertising simply mirroring that same problem in the form of pushing junk like hamburgers and sugar-water down our throats:

"McDonald's spend over two billion dollars each year on advertising: the Golden Arches are now more recognised than the Christian Cross. Using collectible toys, television adverts, promotional schemes in schools and figures such as Ronald McDonald the company bombards their main target group: children. Many parents object strongly to the influence this has over their own children.

"McDonald's argue that their advertising is no worse than anyone else's and that they adhere to all the advertising codes in each country. But others argue it still amounts to cynical exploitation of children - some consumer organisations are calling for a ban on advertising to children. Why do McDonald's sponsor so many school events and learning programmes? Are their Children's Charities genuine philanthropy or is there a more explicit publicity and profit motive?"

[+]

"Advertising Age estimated global measured advertising expenditure of$1.9bn in 2006, making Coca-Cola the world's #12 advertiser."

[+]

In politics, money is collected in the form of donations (read: special interest groups attempting to buy a candidate so that if they do get elected, they would be forever tied to that group and their needs instead of the needs of the people). Those donations buy advertising for the candidates, and in the past few decades, the candidate with the most advertising dollars wins. Once the masses allowed Obama's campaign to catch fire, and once he became the trendy pick for President, money began pouring in - and now the final push begins, with the election merely two weeks away:

"Sen. Barack Obama shattered, by a country mile, the record for dollars raised in a single month, pulling in $150 million in September, according to an e-mail the campaign sent out this morning....

"The number explains why Obama has been able to saturate the airwaves in swing states, and afford luxuries such as the half hour infomercials he plans to run later this month."

[+]



In a healthy society, would morons be so powerful en masse with their "votes" - which are really bought by candidates - who are bought by special interests - via parroting ideals like 'change', without any details behind what's changing or how? This is all indicative of a broken system; advertising government to the masses with fluff (which, not coincidentally, is allowed in the corporate advertising world). The government has inserted itself squarely into the marketplace, which the founders of this country envisioned as free of government intervention. To strike back, corporations have inserted themselves squarely into politics, so two institutions which were supposed to be separate (industry and government) have begun regulating each other, leaving the rest of us to watch bright images on high-definition screens - alternating between the football game, pictures of cute girls in beer commercials, and candidates on TV telling you how if you're not happy with your current lifestyle, things will change for the better as somehow, some way, more money will be put into your pocket - or taken out so the government can take care of you like the baby you are.



It's time our society rid itself of the collusion between government and industry: the two working together have helped produce some of the most harmful products ever seen in history for consumption - be it political candidates, Bisphenol-A, poisonous but legal pharmaceutical drugs, or sugar water assisting the spread of a diabetes epidemic. Your tax dollars, in part, go toward fueling the advertising of all of these things right back to your TV set. Speak with your actions, not just your vote: ignore the TV!



Note: this article was also published in an abbreviated format at the following link: click here

Europe wants a "mini-me" directly north of the US

"The problem with Canada," senior EU official involved in the talks told me, echoing a view that is heard in many of the EU member governments today, "is that it's not really one place. You think you're talking to Canada, and you make a deal, and then it turns out that someone else, in one of the provinces, has gone the other way. There's no unity."

While the premiers of Quebec and Ontario both gave this deal their outspoken assent this week, the Europeans can't help noticing a major barrier to a deal that would harmonize European and Canadian standards and allow companies to do business with governments as if they were at home: Canada's provinces have never been able to get that kind of co-operation between each other. Note the tragic irony: Canada, a sovereign nation with 10 provinces and three territories, is considered fractious and lacking in unity by an organization that contains 27 independent nations and employs 3,000 full-time translators, including a woman who spends her days rendering Estonian into Maltese.

[+]

Europe has become a totalitarian state over the past few decades, slowly building up 27 "independent" nations into a bureaucratic mess. Now they want Canada to do the same and are frustrated that Canada's provinces actually have some independence from the mother ship.

Europe has taken its seize-control attitude, muscle it has flexed in particularly fine form with Ireland and Romania recently, abroad. Watch out, US - when the depression hits home and Europe(tm) is busy diversifying its portfolio of satellite nations, we might have yet another superpower/competitor to deal with.

Europe used to be a beacon of how great a continent could be if each community followed its own rules, and if each culture stayed true to itself and allowed/disallowed certain members of the population to live among them based on merit. It has now become worse in terms of corruption and self-service than the Italian mafia just before RICO statutes took most of it down.

Ford Motor Co. turning focus toward parenting with new models

A car company isn't just a car company anymore. Apparently, vehicle manufacturers also feel the need to parent for morons with even more moronic kids:

[Ford] will roll out a new feature on many 2010 models that can limit teen drivers to 80 miles per hour, using a computer chip in the key.

Parents also have the option of programming the teen's key to limit the audio system's volume, and to sound continuous alerts if the driver doesn't wear a seat belt.

Let's cut through the pleasantries: Ford suddenly is concerned about kids driving faster than 80MPH on the highways? And about drivers wearing seat belts? Consider the source: Ford is one of the three decaying, formerly great American car companies. Add to that a social welfare state where people desire material wealth and comfort without working for it, and you have parents who don't really like to parent but would rather use machines and technology to limit their children - "don't do that" instead of telling them why it's bad and, oh, by the way, setting a good example.

As I stated in my post about quaint parenting gestures vs. real parenting, these actions only breed contempt, and has fostered an increasingly dangerous environment for teenagers and college students whereby as soon as parents and professors aren't around, they're acting out like wild animals and drinking/getting laid as fast and as much as possible. The more parents try to control the MySpace, Facebook accounts, emails, and friends (impossible in these times), the less they respect that authority and the more they act out against it.

Set a good example for your children when they're young: Be good parents, and try to build communities with shared values instead of accepting our reality at face value, then trying to limit a child's participation in that reality through artificial means.