What Would Ben Say?

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Who in our government today would speak for Benjamin Franklin, especially under the pressure of ongoing terrorist attacks? Not many, but Representative Ron Paul makes the effort more than most. Here's a excerpt from a recent article by Rep. Paul:

"Let’s remember that London is the most heavily monitored city in the world, with surveillance cameras recording virtually all public activity in the city center. British police officials are not hampered by our 4th amendment nor our numerous due process requirements. In other words, they can act without any constitutional restrictions, just as supporters of the Patriot Act want our own police to act. Despite this they were not able to prevent the bombings, proving that even a wholesale surveillance society cannot be made completely safe against determined terrorists. Congress misses the irony entirely. The London bombings don’t prove the need for the Patriot Act, they prove the folly of it.

The Patriot Act, like every political issue, boils down to a simple choice: Should we expand government power, or reduce it? This is the fundamental political question of our day, but it’s quickly forgotten by politicians who once promised to stand for smaller government. Most governments, including our own, tend to do what they can get away with rather than what the law allows them to do. All governments seek to increase their power over the people they govern, whether we want to recognize it or not. The Patriot Act is a vivid example of this. Constitutions and laws don’t keep government power in check; only a vigilant populace can do that."

The full text of this article can be found here:

The Patriot Act Four Years Later

The Fog of Media Nonsense

Has anyone noticed that the media continues to emphasize and elaborate on the fact that the Brazilian immigrant who was accidentally killed by London Police was suspicious because he was wearing a bulky jacket on a “hot” day?

On the other hand, did anyone notice that all of the live camera views after the shooting on the major networks like CNN showed the police wearing yellow jackets, with shirts and vests on underneath? Is that a little strange for a hot day?

Or did anyone take note that most of the pedestrian passers-by on live television were also wearing long sleeve shirts, sweaters, coats and leather jackets, and only the occasional person was even wearing a short sleeve shirt?

Or did anyone consider that the temperature in London that day ranged from 55 to 69 degrees F (12 to 20 degrees C)? Since when is 55 F (12 C) in the morning considered “hot”, especially to a Brazilian?

Let’s not blame this on the London Police. We don’t know that they emphasized or originated the “hot” part of the story. The simple fact that a large jacket could conceal something is more pertinent, and is probably closer to the actual truth.

But we can blame the people in the media, who like to add their own spin, spin their desired yarns, and continue to report gossip, hearsay, and exaggerations.

What is even more ironic is that several radio show hosts in San Francisco have continued to push this particular “hot” angle of the story, while at the same time they probably wear their own jackets while out in the cold, foggy summer mornings of San Francisco.

A couple of quotes widely attributed to Mark Twain are appropriate for this situation, as well as the weather in both London and San Francisco:

The coldest winter I ever spent was summer in San Francisco. - Mark Twain

Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. - Mark Twain

The Violence Continues

Terrorist murderers kill 88 and wound 119, mostly Egyptians.

London Police kill innocent man.

It’s been a busy couple of days in the cycle of violence, and no good has been done for anyone. Of course lines can be drawn between mistakes, collateral damage and intentional massacre, but the bottom line is that innocent people have died, for no purpose, and to no ends, except an escalation of violence.

In the case of the terrorists who struck the Egyptian resort area, and killed mostly Egyptians, what is the desired outcome? To kill innocent people just for fun? To hurt the economy and rulers of Egypt? Perhaps the later is the desired outcome, but it won’t work. It is a flawed theory. Certainly there will be passing fear and a drop in tourism, but in the end, it certainly won’t be the oligarchs and powerful of Egypt who will suffer, it will be the common people.

Once again, the philosophy of violence requires the absence of reasoning. They have adopted violence as their tactic and their strategy; their belief is in violence; it is their philosophy. And this particular philosophy never works; simple reasoning and historical example shows this to be true.

In the case of the London Police mistakenly killing an innocent man, it is an entirely different situation, yet perhaps it is an acute example of the philosophy of violence, in that violence was the option taken. It was excessive, and it was somewhat random. There certainly wasn’t any hard evidence that the person posed a threat, either immediate or in the future.

In an earlier post calling for tighter containment of a few extreme examples of well known advocates of violent jihad, this caveat was included: “containing those who preach violence should be done in a civilized, controlled and rational manner”. While the circumstances of the killing of the innocent suspect were understandable and regrettable on all sides, the question remains as to whether it was controlled or rational. There is no doubt that the undercover officers believed that the person was a potential suicide bomber, and not just a preacher, but for that one person, it turned out to be a fatal misunderstanding. This kind of mistake will occur occasionally in day to day law enforcement, but under the glare of the current situation, let us hope that it does not provide fuel to the continuing fire. Unfortunately, the odds are slim that those who preach violence and terrorism will be understanding and sympathetic of the circumstances of this accident. No one expects them to be.

Too Much Tolerance in London

When is religion not really religion? Where does the freedom of religion end, and criminal activity begin?

These questions are relevant today, as we examine the aftermath of recent terrorist events in London. The British have been surprisingly tolerant of extreme and radical teachings in their midst, disguised as religious views. Perhaps it is not wise to allow extremist views on violence and terrorism to be publicized, praised or advocated. Such views are no longer religious, and those individuals should not be considered part of any religion. When they advocate violence, terrorism and murder of innocents, they engage in conspiracy to commit murder. This is simply a crime against society.

One would think that after September 11, persons who advocated this type of violence would have been stopped, and that they would not be given any venues for their extremist views. Apparently this was not the case, and especially in Britain, they were allowed to continue.

For example, a particular cleric in London, Sheik Omar Bakri, has continued to preach his brand of hatred and violence for many years. After the first set of London subway bombings, he blamed the British government for the attacks, and said that more would come. He was correct.

To add insult to injury for the British people, he is on the public dole in Britain, so in essence, he is paid by the British government to preach jihad against the West. This situation is more than ironic, it is just plain stupid. There has been talk about deporting Sheik Bakri; perhaps they should jail him instead.

The jailing of persons who advocate violence is uncommon in societies where the freedom of speech and differing points of view are highly valued, but it has occurred in the past, long before the current rise of terrorism. In these extreme situations, such preachers of terrorism and global jihad need to be shut down. It is only common sense in a civilized society.

Schools and religious institutions have often taken on the role of teaching societies’ values. These values universally include teaching children not to murder or steal. To end this cycle of violence, the world needs to ensure that no one is indoctrinating children or adults into violence, terrorism and hate, and that the classic, universal moral values are taught instead.

And of course, in keeping with those universal values, containing those who preach violence should be done in a civilized, controlled and rational manner. Using excessive or random violence to curb violence has been proven time and again not to work. Violence begets more violence, and it certainly doesn’t set a good example for children, when the whole point is to teach them moral values.

Insanity in Baghdad

Once again, there is no justification. Senseless violence on children, perpetrated by mindless murderers. In both a secular and religious sense, they serve evil, and nothing else:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A suicide car bomb exploded next to U.S. troops handing out candy and toys, killing 18 children and teenagers Wednesday. Parents heard the shattering explosion and raced out to discover the worst — children's mangled, bloodied bodies strewn on the street.

Up to 27 people were killed by the blast in the Shiite Muslim neighborhood, including an American soldier.

What more can be said? A recent statement by Marie Fatayi-Williams, the mother of a terrorist victim in London, is appropriate for this recent attack, as well as the attack that took her son:

"There has been widespread slaughter of innocent people. There have been streams of tears, innocent tears. There have been rivers of blood, innocent blood. Death in the morning, people going to find their livelihood, death in the noontime on the highways and streets.

They are not warriors. Which cause has been served? Certainly not the cause of God, not the cause of Allah because God Almighty only gives life and is full of mercy.

Anyone who has been misled, or is being misled to believe that by killing innocent people that he or she is serving God should think again because it’s not true.

Terrorism is not the way, terrorism is not the way. It doesn’t beget peace. We can’t deliver peace by terrorism, never can we deliver peace by killing people.

Throughout history those people who have changed the world have done so without violence, they have won people to their cause through peaceful protest. Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, their discipline, their self-sacrifice, their conviction made people turn towards them, to follow them. What inspiration can senseless slaughter provide? Death and destruction of young people in their prime as well as old and helpless can never be the foundations for building society."

WorldClass Criminal

Can charity buy lenience?

Bernard Ebbers was sentenced to 25 years in prison today. What makes this criminal different is that he was the CEO of WorldCom, the company that had a spectacular collapse. In essence, he stole billions of dollars from investors, and also hurt a large number of employees. Usually, white-collar criminals like this get off with a slap on the wrist and a fine. Perhaps when the money runs out, so does the goodwill of the criminal justice system. We will see if this sentence sticks, or if it is overturned some time in the future, when the story is somewhat forgotten, and the “point” has been made.

Perhaps this leniency will be based on Ebbers' charitable donations:

"Defense lawyer Reid Weingarten had asked for leniency, mentioning Ebbers' heart condition and his charitable works, cited repeatedly in 169 letters sent to the judge. He described Ebbers as "a modest man" and an angel to many desperate charitable causes."

What is interesting here is that almost all mega-business titans are big charitable givers. Is this a way to buy public goodwill? An absolution of guilt? A way to buy oneself a ticket to heaven? A favorable footnote in history?

Let’s look at a quote from Andrew Carnegie, the classic rags to riches industrialist, who may be one of the greatest philanthropists of all time:

"the millionaire will be but a trustee for the poor; intrusted for a season with a great part of the increased wealth of the community, but administering it for the community far better than it could or would have done for itself"

Is the big corporation like a socialist government, where the dictator at the top is in charge of the administration of wealth, for the benefit of all society? Is Castro simply the CEO of Cuba?

While Carnegie seemed to be sincere in his interest in helping the poor, and his charity is not in question, he created a mold for modern day oligarchs: become rich, and then give back to the community.

Benevolent contributions and endowments today carry a certain amount of skepticism in the case of some huge corporate titans: how genuine are those who have followed in Carnegie’s footsteps? Are some of these contributions just marketing expenditures? An inexpensive insurance policy to protect against bad publicity?

There are situations now where captains of industry engage in practices that could be seen as anti-social, or even criminal. Does throwing a few dollars to charity make any modus operandi acceptable? Is it really moral for powerful individuals or corporations to:

• Form monopolies and trusts?
• Put competitors out of business under questionable circumstances?
• Prevent competitors from even getting started?
• Go through convoluted processes to pay some employees as little as possible?
• Sell the future of a corporation to make a quick dollar right now for the executives?
• Import cheap labor into the US without any concern about the effect on quality of life issues such as the environment, housing, traffic, pollution, natural resources and overpopulation?
• Export the entire business out of the country via outsourcing, leaving only a select few here at the top in the US to reap the profits?
• Export key industries completely out of the US that could have an effect on national security?

The process by which extraordinary profits are created can have a bad effect on a nation or a society, and to give a little back after the fact does not change the circumstances.

Bernard Ebbers is now going to pay the price. Of course the crime of which he is convicted is not those listed above, it is simply the crime of failing, and once there is a failure of this magnitude, the fraud that created that failure could not be ignored.

What remains to be seen is if his charity will buy him an early exit from the criminal justice system.

Senseless Violence

Once again, there has been a random and senseless act of terrorist violence, making headlines and creating momentary fear. It has happened many times in recent history, perpetrated in many ways, and this time it was an attack upon people in the subways of London.

What reasoning is there for this? Violence does not help a cause, and it only makes matters worse. It is purely an emotional outburst, by the impotent, by the frustrated, by the misguided, by those with an erroneous belief that raw savagery is the answer to an issue. There is no reasoning.

The philosophy of violence requires the absence of reasoning.

While the opposition to violence often comes from religion, or from people with an emotional distaste for violence, the same conclusion can come purely from logic: that violence is counter-productive, and creates more problems than it solves.

Here are some relevant quotes from the past and present:

"Nothing good ever comes of violence." - Martin Luther

"Violence, even well intentioned, always rebounds upon oneself." - Lao Tzu

"Social justice cannot be attained by violence. Violence kills what it intends to create." - Pope John Paul II

"Experience convinces me that permanent good can never be the outcome of untruth and violence." - Mohandas Gandhi

"Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time; the need for mankind to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence. Mankind must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation." - Martin Luther King Jr.

"Islam teaches tolerance, not hatred; universal brotherhood, not enmity; peace, and not violence." - Pervez Musharraf

Capitalism Gone Wild

Should the purchase of Unocal by a mostly Chinese government owned company go through? Putting aside the issue of US national security interests, perhaps the bigger question is whether Unocal should be allowed to merge with anyone at all. Have there been too many mergers in the Oil industry already?

The basis for capitalism, open markets and free trade is competition. Once competition has been removed from the equation, what do we have? Does Capitalism turned into Communism?

A totalitarian communist government has complete control over manufacturing and supply. Is this the model for the ultimate corporation, where a single entity or trust has control over all manufacturing and the supply of products?

Obviously, we have not progressed to that point where all corporations and government merge into a single, super-conglomerate, similar to the old Soviet government. But in certain industries, the manufacturing and supply are controlled, via endless mergers and collusion. In these cases, the consumer suffers, and is at the mercy of huge entities, that are not elected or controlled in any way, and corporate change only occurs when there is an internal political battle among the elite who run the companies. Average shareholders and employees have no say in the operation or direction of these government-sized entities. They are not democracies.

In the gasoline industry, a recent newspaper article is enlightening. It sites many examples of how the gasoline refiners have colluded to control prices and production, in a series of internal memos:

"In a 1995 internal memo obtained by U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, whose office has investigated the industry in recent years, Chevron discussed an industry meeting at which an analyst warned that if capacity wasn't reduced further, there would be no substantial increase in refining margins."

"In a 1996 internal memo, Mobil officials called for a "full court press" to stop an independent company from restarting a refinery in California that might reduce gas prices by 3 cents per gallon. The effort was successful."

"And a Texaco memorandum, also in 1996, stated too much capacity was hurting refinery profits. “Significant events need to occur to assist in reducing supplies and/or increasing demand for gasoline," according to the document."

The key to this problem is enforcement of existing anti-trust law. Oil companies were broken up in the past, but in the last 25 years of "pro-business" government, we have gone from simply being pro-business, to encouraging mega-mergers and monopolistic practices.

The Federal Trade Commission was compiling one of its biggest antitrust suits ever against the gasoline industry, but with the rise of "big business can do no wrong" politics, the case was dropped:

"A detailed portrayal of that turnabout is contained in a previously undisclosed 393-page document, assembled by Federal Trade Commission lawyers as part of an antitrust suit that was pending before an administrative law judge that was later dismissed.

As countries around the globe nationalized their oil industries, the domestic oil industry increasingly looked to refining for profits. In some instances, according to the FTC document, the oil companies cooperated among themselves to reduce refinery capacity. "

In the final analysis, perhaps it is not the merger of Unocal with the Chinese government that is the biggest issue, but the commitment to competitive capitalism. It is time to take a look at industries that have engaged in trusts, monopolization or collusion, and enforce those anti-trust laws that were boldly created in the past, in times very similar to these.

And in this light, the purchase of Unocal by another oil corporation is a bad idea, no matter who the buyer may be.

Independence Day

In addition to fireworks and BBQ's, let us not forget what Independence Day is all about, and what our founding fathers wrote...a blog from the past, for America today.

Declaration Of Independence

In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security -- Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. -- The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.


--------

The Bill of Rights

The first ten Amendments collectively are commonly known as the Bill of Rights.

Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II - Right to bear arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III - Quartering of soldiers. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV - Search and seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI - Right to speedy trial, confrontation of witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII - Trial by jury in civil cases. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII - Cruel and Unusual punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Souter Hotel

It seems that someone is proposing a new hotel for "public use". A humorous (?) press release can be found here:

The Lost Liberty Hotel

----------------

Another note on Eminent Domain:

Upon further consideration, it seems that the most important aspect of the recent Supreme Court decision is that it has moved us further down a slippery slope. At first, eminent domain and "public use" was used for public projects like roads. Later, it was applied to blighted areas in need of redevelopment. Now, it is being used to take "desirable" property. The end result is redistribution of desirable property, from those with less power, to those with more power. Why does this sound like a mugging?

Inflation Fabrication

Is there inflation in the US? It seems that the price of everything has gone up over the years, especially the essentials. Many homes have more than doubled in price, the price of gasoline is going through the roof, and even the price of groceries seem to be going up.

What does it cost for a person to go to the movies? Is that the cable bill or a car payment?

Well, speaking of movies, the media, and make believe, the big disconnect for quite a while has been the official inflation rate (CPI). It is always announced by the media, with the full authority of the business reporter, and based on official government statistics. We certainly feel better when we hear that the inflation rate is somewhere between 0 and 3 percent. But somehow, it doesn’t make sense.

Of course if we take into account that many of the government’s costs are adjusted based on the inflation rate, there is no doubt that there is an incentive for the official government inflation rate to stay as low as possible. The cost of entitlements such as social security and government borrowing in the form of inflation–indexed bonds would go up if the official inflation rate goes up. It’s not in the government’s interest to let that number go up.

So on the surface, if it keeps government costs down, this artificial inflation number seems like a good thing. The problem arises when that number is passed on and used for other purposes, such as reality.

On this topic, here’s an article that goes into far more detail. It’s worth a read:

THE CORE RATE