Being Thomas Luongo

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

Wednesday, August 17, 2005

This blog is moving ...

After a year of struggling with Blogger and the lack of certain things I now consider indispensible I've decided to move this blog to my new typepad account. Please make note of the link above and change your bookmarks accordingly. I will port all of this content over to that account over the course of the next couple of weeks. There are over 240 posts to move. I will keep this space open for people to peruse, and have a link back here in case somone wants to review the comments that have been made. the new URL for Being Thomas Luongo (which I will hopefully spend more time on) is http://runciter.typepad.com/beingtoml Thanks to everyone who's spent any time here whatsoever. Ta,

Thursday, August 11, 2005

Sabre Rattling -- Yet Another Blog

Hello my regular readers (all 3 of you) with the advent of a new hockey season and my tiring of things political for the time being, I decided to start another blog to scratch my itch about all things hockey. It's called Sabre Rattling and it's a blog nominally dedicated to the Buffalo Sabres. My goal there is to gather the best of the commentators on the Sabres that I've met through the years and give them a more public platform for their great work. This morning I got an accepted invitation from one of them, known on HFBoards and other places as "Chainshot." He's a great guy and a very solid hockey mind. I'm proud to have him aboard over there and I'm looking forward to his regular contributions. We will, hopefully, attract more as time goes on. I'll cross-post things that I think are appropriate for this blog as well. Ta,

SabreRattling -- Bertuzzi's Ultimate Punishment

This morning's entry hopefully makes a couple of salient points about how futile a retributive justice model is. Ta,

Wednesday, August 10, 2005

How High is Too High For Oil

Cross-posted over at The Free Radicals. The above link is to a chart by Lars Lindgren posted on Jim Sinclair's site. I'm not an Elliot Waver in any way but Lars' commentary is still worth noting. While I don't quite understand the signifigance of the Elliot Wave count he's using I do understand the formation discussion. I see two Cup and Handle formations. The one that Lars notated and a larger, earlier one the left side and bottom of which he noted as Wave #3 and #4. Doing a quick scan of the size of the cup (from $40 - $54), it seems to me that it yields a price target of somewhere around $68/barrel. The C&H that Lars noted also has a similar price target ($46 bottom, $57 top... PT = Top plus breadth or $68/barrel). His comment about the latest action being an 'exhaustion gap' within this context seems to be spot on. The slope of the uptrend line has gotten a little 'too vertical' for my tastes, and I would have a very itchy finger right now if I had money in this. Now, whether this is an interim top or the beginning of the end of the uptrend, I have no idea. But, within this picture, I would think that some form of reversal is likely to take place around $68-70/barrel. Ta,

Monday, August 08, 2005

TFR -- More on the Dollar Bear

Cross-posted over at The Free Radicals In the comments to my earlier article on this subject this comment was received by Arthur Franke:

I had a 'discussion' along these same lines with someone in January who had rather explicit opinions about the direction of the dollar over the following year. I told him he could be proven correct, but that I seriously doubted his projections and I expected things would almost certainly turn the other way in short order. He knew much better than I naturally. He promptly proceeded to lose $100,000 that he admitted to via speculations against the dollar in favor of the Euro and the Australian dollar. Head down this path at your own risk. You might first want to notice that America continues to have the fastest growth of any of the industrialized nations, as we nearly always do.

Arthur brings up some very salient worries over what can happen if one is either not careful or unprepared to trade in certain markets. His friend chased a top. And chasing a top is a recipe for disaster. At the time this transaction took place even gold bulls were calling for a reversal of the dollar. It was painfully obvious, even to one as dramatic and worrisome as myself. The technical lesson here is that when the dollar refused to break down below the 1995 low of 80 there was as good a chance at that moment in time for a reversal, at worst a 'dead-cat bounce' and at best a sincere 'bear market rally.' That reversal was more powerful and longer-lived than I would have expected at the time, but that's irrelevant. As of right now, it looks a lot more like a Bear Market Rally than a Dead Cat Bounce. In my opinion, the roll-over in the $USD is happening right now. At a minimum we will see a re-test of 80. Any breakdown from there will be nightmarish for Dollar bulls. Why? Two very important things which Jim Sinclair has noted over the past couple of weeks. 1) There have be no less than 14 attempts to break the Euro below 1.20. All of them have failed. This now constitutes very solid support for the Euro's relationship with the Dollar. 2) The Dollar has tried, unsuccessfully, to breach 90 on the upside and has failed. As well, this is very bad for the dollar. A re-testing of 80 will happen soon. My point in the previous article was to point out that the timing is good now for a move to take advantage of this. My suggestion is a fundamental hedge against both profligate money creation and zero change in policy towards solving either the trade or current account deficit. That is all. The lowest risk is to flat-out buy one of these currencies with your dollars. It makes perfect sense now to diviersify one's holdings into those foreign currencies which have the greatest chance for appreciation. You'll notice I did not say go out and buy currency futures or any other such nonsense. It's a hedge, and a medium to long term one as well. This is not a call to day-trade the Loonie or the Aussie in an Everbank account (although, I presume that is possible), rather a sensible assessment, in my opinion, of the state of the market as it exists right now. Had the dollar breached 90 last month I would probably not be recommending this course of action. As I write this the Dollar is at 87.75 and falling. Gold is steady and the DOW is still trading sideways. No amount of pro-American rah-rah'ing will keep the markets from going the direction they want to go. It can reverse things in the short-term (and there's always someone out there to take advantage of reinforcing the illusion for their own profit), but it can't change a fundamental trend. Personally, I hope the dollar does not break below 80 this year. The carnage would be ugly. But, neither am I going to stick my head in the sand and ignore the possibility either. Even in a re-testing of the 80 support level the Loonie is due to appreciate $0.02-$0.05, a 2.4 - 6.0% return. I'm okay with that. It's certainly better than a similar loss, which is what I'll get if I keep my money in dollars (losses due to inflation). Ta,

Tuesday, August 02, 2005

While the Dollar Inflation Rolls On...

With the news that the Renminbi has been revalued against the US Dollar by 2.1% the Mighty Mogambo(MM) reminds us that this will have an immediate inflationary effect here:

Immediately (and this is the part that ought to make your trigger finger twitch involuntarily and your heart slam-dance against your ribcage), oil, precious, precious oil, which is priced in dollars, becomes instantly 2.1% cheaper for the Chinese! The price to us is (big sigh of relief!) unchanged. So far. Note the caveat "so far", which is very meaningful to those of you with sharp eyes. But the oil exporters have to be looking at this, too, and figuring that getting paid in dollars is really, really, really stupid if they are going to turn around and buy something from the Chinese. If they do intend to buy some Chinese products (and who doesn't?), then petroleum exporters just lost 2.1% of their buying power! In one day!

This is the next step in the removal of the Dollar as the world's reserve currency. And while I believe this is a very good thing in the long run, the adjustments to this New World Order are not going to be painless. The death throes of an Empire are never pretty. Honestly, I don't think we've seen anything close to the worst that the Powers That Be can dish out. My biggest fear is that it's only the beginning. Me? I'm in agreement with Jim Sinclair in that I see the Cando as a benficiary of this turn of events. Canada is one of the world's biggest suppliers of oil, and produces a substantial amount of the oil we consume. Read further in the Mogambo's Latest Massive Missive (MLMM) and you'll see some disturbing numbers relative to electricity demand. I've been a little shy about actually making any moves into foreign Currencies, but the current pieces of information lead me to think that there is still substantial upside in both the Canadian Dollar and the Australian Dollar. For a reasonable amount of money you can hedge your bets with an Everbank World Currency Account. Ta,

Friday, July 29, 2005

And the Salary Deflation Begins

Apparently Sandis Ozolinch didn't get the NHLPA memo about trying to keep his salary near the level of his old contract. With the changes to both the Ducks front office and the NHL's rulebook, Ozolinch looks to be a much more valuable player tomorrow than he was yesterday. So, if that's the case why is TSN reporting that he signed for nearly half of what he would have made under his old contract of $5.5 million? If he signed a 2 year deal at $2.8 to $3.0 million that's still more than a full million less than what his old contract was worth after the 24% rollback. This is the beginning of setting the prices in the marketplace (obviously). If Ozolinch is only worth $2.8 million in today's NHL then there's no way that Scott Neidermeyer is worth the $7.8 million he's reportedly asking for. Frankly, I think this is a solid move by Brian Burke, especially in light of this report that Vancouver is dangling Mattias Ohlund as part of a package to land the #2 spot in tomorrow's draft. Now, the Ducks' blueline is very interesting: Carney, Ozolinch, Vishnevsky, Salei, Skoula and possibly Ohlund. Very solid, very mobile. Good puck sense and great passing. They'll be entertaining... and dangerous. Of course, they'll be on the books for over $25 million with 11 players signed. Ta,

Possible NHL Realignment

First off. You people have no idea how excited I am that the NHL has re-opened for business. As much as I enjoyed spending most of this past winter playing World of Warcraft and bitching about Tom Palmer it could not replace the sheer joy and excitement that an honest-to-God NHL season brings to my life. I've spent too much time over the past couple of weeks trolling around on HFBoards.com discussing, conjecturing, re-acquainting, commiserating, pontificating, and just plain bloviating on what's going to happen this upcoming season. And, it has been good. Any misgivings I have about the myriad changes that are coming (and there are a few) are quickly overrun by the realization that I get to watch, on average, every night, 6 hours of the best athletes in the world flying up and down a sheet of ice trying to put a 4 inch diameter disc of frozen rubber into a 6 foot by 4 foot opening....on skates! Ahhh... the psychosis of your average hockey fan is a sight for sore eyes... or, at least, someone else's eyes. The link above is to an article in the Chicago Tribune that there has been serious discussion about he NHL returning to a 4 division format, shrinking down from the current 6. This year will mark the return of the 'unbalanced' schedule, which I am overjoyed with. The Rivalry(tm) is, in my mind, a major part of how fans become emotionally involved (read: spend more money on) their team of choice. I'm not only a Buffalo Sabres fan, I also absolutely despise the Toronto Maple Leafs. So, there is little more that I look forward to during the year than a good ol' row between the AGH (Angry Goat Heads) and the Queefs. I mean, even Eric Boulton, the mini-Ray, has his face used as a punching bag with a little more oomph when it's Tie Domi who's doing the punching. This year's schedule will see the Sabres and the Leafs face off 8 times this year as opposed to 6. And, that also means 25% more Boston (feh!), Montreal (boo!!), and Ottawa (ow... my goalie's got a sunburn from the lamp being lit!). And much less of those in the Western Conference. Oh well. If I want to watch the San Jose Sharks play (and I frequently do), I'll make a cup of coffee and catch them and their great TV crew Randy Hahn and Drew Remenda on the Center Ice Package. The same goes for Edmonton, Vancouver and Whoever's Playing Dallas.... The move back to the old Patrick, Norris, Smythe and Adams divisions and intra-divisional playoffs would be almost too good to be true. 8 Regular season games plus a potential playoff series. Very nice. No better way to get a good hate going than to see a team upwards of 15 times a year. If they do this, I am formally submitting here, my desired re-alignment (which might annoy some): Wales Conference Patrick Division: New York Isles New York Rangers New Jersey Devils Montreal Canadians Philadelphia Flyers Washington Capitals Pittsburgh Penguins Boston Bruins Adams Division: Detroit Red Wings Chicago Blackhawks Columbus Blue Jackets Toronto Maple Leafs Minnesota Wild Ottawa Senators Buffalo Sabres Campbell Conference Norris Division: St. Louis Blues Dallas Stars Carolina Hurricanes Atlanta Thrashers Nashville Predators Florida Panthers Tampa Bay Lightning Smythe Division: Vancouver Canucks Calgary Flames Edmonton Oilers San Jose Sharks Mighty Ducks of Anaheim Los Angeles Kings Phoenix Coyotes Colorado Avalanche The idea here is to emphasize geographical rivalries as much as possible. Unfortunately, there is no good way to equalize travel costs, that I can see, without severely screwing things up. Some divisions are going to be more widespread (the Smythe and Norris) than others. I did play with the idea of moving Edmonton or Calgary into the Great Lakes (Adams) division, but then that made the southwestern U.S. division untenable, by having Phoenix and either Columbus or Nashville in the same division. I think these divisions would be an absolute hoot. The Schedule should be something like this: 42 games vs. your division (meeting each team a minimum of 6 times) 24 games vs. the other division in your conference (meeting each team a minimum of 3 times) 14 games vs. the other conference (limited to one division, 7 teams, twice) With an odd-number of teams in each conference, the scheudle could not be regular, there will be some imbalance. With divisional playoffs in the first and 2nd round. Then re-seeding based on regular season record for the semi-finals and the SC Finals. Yeah... that's old time hockey. Ta,

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Finally!!! It's Over....

For those of you in the audience who are hockey fans, today will no longer be remembered as Harrison Ford's 63rd birthday (I'm nearly ashamed to admit that I didn't have to check IMDB's gossip page for this info) but The Day The Lockout Died. [cue music] In the end, the owners got exactly what they wanted and the players capitulated, exactly as I figured this would play out. Not only will there be a hard cap in place, it will be directly tied to a percentage of revenues. The talking points of the final agreement haven't changed much from the NHL's proposal of Feb. 9th, only the numbers. The players will receive 54% of league revenues in compensation for their efforts with profit sharing and an enhanced pension system. The bone that the players negotiated for themselves is a lowering of the age for gaining Unrestricted Free Agency. The age will drop by one year from 31 to 27 over the first four years of the 6-year deal. I will pat myself on the back again as I said that the final deal would include dropping the UFA age to 28... okay... I was off by a year. Moreover, the even bigger change to the UFA rules is that a player only needs 7 years of service or have reached the requisite age. This means that for guys like Ilya Kovalchuk and Rick Nash they'll be UFA's at 25 or 26. As one astute poster over at HFBoards.com mentioned a while ago, the increase in UFA's means that average salaries will drop. The same number of dollars will be chasing a greater number of goods. While I love the insights many fans bring to the game itself, such smart economic analysis is truly a rarity over there. So, while individual players will reap the benefits of a lower UFA age, the owners, GM's and ultimately, THE FANS will reap the even greater benefits of seasoned NHL talent at more reasonable prices. Now that this is done, the fun part will be the off-season and it will be interesting to see what Darth Regier will do as GM of my beloved Buffalo Sabres in terms as he's gotten the exact result he positioned the Sabres to take maximal advantage of before all of this started. That, and we, along with the Ranjerks, Blue Jackets and Penguins have the best chance at kid phenom Sidney Crosby in the Lottery Draft the format of which was just announced by Bob McKensie of TSN. Woot! Crosby centering Vanek and Satan.... not quite the French Connection, but it'll have to do. Ta,

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

The Free Radicals

Morning all. At the behest (or more accurately, suggestion) of Daniel Franke, we along with Jason Murad have started a group blog called The Free Radicals. The site is literally brand new and I have not yet posted. This came together rather quickly as all three of us have come to the conclusion that we are incapable of populating a blog individually but as a group should be able to create enough good content to keep things lively. I will cross-post much of my drivel here as well as there, but there will be differences. Now if I can just remember to put an article together for FMNN.... and Lew Rockwell... and, and, and, and, and, and... Moreover, I hope one day to be able to live up to the "Free" in the blog's title. I've certainly got the "radical" part down cold. Ta,

Monday, July 11, 2005

Florida ... Land of the Nearly Tax Free Farmer

The E-E has a great little piece on the Unintended Consequences of tax examptions at the link above. Great stuff that. Makes me wish I was a developer... But, in fact, the Agricultural Property Tax Exemption is an outstanding thing to take advantage of if you can. It's part of the reason why Capt. C. Vain and myself moved out to rural Columbia County. My property Taxes in Gainesville on 1100sq. ft. house and 1/3 of an acre were $569 in 2002, on $20400 in assessed value. My taxes, after homestead exemption, this year were a staggering $1068 on 18.42 acres. Next year's taxes will be over $1400 once the house is added in. That's with the land being assessed at $3000/acre. After the agricultural exemption kicks in (assessed value drops to a flat $165/acre), my taxes will be approximately $350 annually. All I have to do is run 2 horses or 10 goats per 10 acres. Seeing as the land is in bad need of a ground-level cleansing, the goats should perform double duty by saving me $1100 a year in taxes and seriously reducing the fire risk to my all-wood house. Now, if things get to the point where the area begins to build up considerably, and my land becomes massively valued on the open market... well, then I'll be in the same position that the guys in Miami are in that the E-E mentioned in his post. Yeah... that'd suck. But, failing that fantasy scenario coming to fruition, once that nasty old mortgage is paid off, my living expenses drop considerably. All of this is part of the plan to ride out any nasty shocks to the monetary system with as little personal damage as possible. To do what I've done, you need 10 acres minimum. Ta,

Friday, July 08, 2005

Voting with your Wallet

Since mentioning in an e-mail on the LPF Ex. Committee list that I was a fan of Borda Count as the preferred alternative voting method, I've been in discussion with Tom Smith of the Florida Patriot Party on this issue. This started a row on the list because there is a contingent (and a very vocal one) that is strongly in favor of Approval Voting, and want the LPF to change to the use and advocacy of this method. Now, while Approval Voting is far superior to Plurality Voting in just about every way, it does, to me, fall prey to the same unrealistic enforced duality of Plurality Voting. Borda Count is a ranked voting system, which is functionally different than a binary one. The following is an excerpt from an e-mail I just shot off to the LPF EC on this subject: --------------------------------------------------- The FPP platform makes another very salient point about voting methods that we should consider as well: From the Florida Patriot Party Platform: "The FPP considers that voting methods in actual use should emulate how people make decisions." When making a momentous decision, buying a car for example, one may go through all of the available cars on first pass and deem them either 'acceptable' or 'unacceptable' based on any number of factors. That's what Approval Voting feels like to me, a first glance. But, as they dig deeper into the process to decide how to spend that money, some cars will become 'more acceptable' or 'less acceptable' than others, or ranked. Until, finally, based on all the data, a final list of ranks is decided upon and with that list in hand they go and haggle the final price. Now, in choosing political leadership, doesn't it make sense to put in place a system that encourages voter interest to figure out how to rank their choices rather than one that, to me, encourages passing interest or 'first impressions?' When I bought my car recently, I still couldn't make a decision after narrowing the list to 3 different Subarus. I chose the one that was the best value for the money at that moment in time, after exhaustive research and testing. I wound up buying the car that was my third choice along the "fun" axis (and my highest priority), and second along the "comfort" and "price" axis, but first in the "safety" and "image" axis. In other words, just because both Coke and Pepsi are acceptable to you, doesn't mean that you don't prefer one to the other. Absent that qualifying judgement, your choice ultimately carries no real data. Moreover, you don't get to buy both Coke and Pepsi with the same dollar. ------------------------------------------------------------- For those of you still reading (and who regularly read this space) my choices in automobile in the end were:

Subaru Baja Turbo -- A complete blast with the coolest interior, most comfy seats and would have allowed me to ditch my ratty Toyota Pick-up. If the dealer had been willing to go $2500 under invoice I would be driving it.
Subaru Impreza 2.5RS -- EJ25 engine in a small, sporty package. Very nice car and a great value at the right price. It was even Black! Capt. C.Vain really liked that it was black... big Ranger fan (think Stephanie Plum books) she is. Problem was the dealer wanted $17.9k for a car worth $16.9k
Subaru Legacy 2.5i -- Extremely competent and refined automobile for the price. If money were little object I would have been driving the GT version and that would be that. In the end that car was only $1600 more than the Impreza and it was, in my mind, $5000 more car....

...and the winner was the Legacy in Atlantic Blue Pearl, with a manual transmission, spoiler and auto-dimming mirror for $19526 plus tax/tag/fees.... Edmunds TMV . Note, the price has dropped $30 since then, it was nearly a month ago and the 2006's are around the corner. If this had been an Approval Vote, I'd've walked home with all three of them.... Ta,

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

The New LP.Org .. Very Nice

I finally went to look at the new homepage of the LP and I have to say I'm really quite happy with what they've done. I love the membership drive at the top of the page, especially that it is as aggressive a schedule as it is.... 5000 new or re-newed members in 2 months. If they reach that goal that would be very exciting indeed. Moreover, the blog is a phenomenal idea that I've been trying to get the LPF to implement but am meeting with way too much resistance over. Whatever, we finally have an LP website worth hanging out at and checking in with. I'll comment on their new Exit Strategy for Iraq once I've read it. Ta,

No Higher Calling...

This excerpt from Bush's bomb of a speech last night has me completely convinced that he's lost all sense of proportion vis a vis Iraq and the 'War on Terror.'

I thank those of you who have re-enlisted in an hour when your country needs you. And to those watching tonight who are considering a military career, there is no higher calling than service in our Armed Forces. We live in freedom because every generation has produced patriots willing to serve a cause greater than themselves. Those who serve today are taking their rightful place among the greatest generations that have worn our Nation’s uniform. When the history of this period is written, the liberation of Afghanistan and the liberation of Iraq will be remembered as great turning points in the story of freedom.

Now, the last I checked, this guy was supposed to be a Christian. And, in no way does serving the needs of the United States Armed Forces supplant those serving those of God. This shameless appeal to nationalism and the almighty state should be particularly offensive to anyone of any religious persuasion in any country. A devout follower of the teachings of Christ could not possibly utter those words. Hell, I'm not one and I couldn't even conceive of saying such an irresponsible and manipulative thing as that. Desiring to serve the needs of others is a great and noble thing. Make no mistake about that. Bush's ideas on this are like the misguided efforts of Bob Geldof and Live-8, it takes more than a desire to do good to actually do good. It takes execution. Even if one ascribes a nobility of purpose to, which I'm nearly certain didn't exist, Bush's plans in Iraq it is hard to see how anyone's life, especially those thousands of Iraqis killed/maimed, has been improved. Similarly, Live-8's goals of alleviating poverty in Africa by the same methods (IMF loans, freely-donated food and medicine) that have failed in the past will reamin unmet. He cites in that same speech that they are working hard to restore the basic functions of society, like food, water, electricity and the like. But, correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't they already have these things in Iraq, and in much greater abundance, before we invaded their homes and destroyed their infrastructure? If the bombing and terrorizing of civilians is Bush's idea of 'the highest calling' than I'll gladly count myself among the unenlightened and the soulless. This is just further proof that we have the world's biggest tool as the leader of the 'free' world. Everyday that the freak show that is American Politics continues I am further and further amazed at the willingness of people to continue believing the system is 1) worth preserving and 2) salvagable. Last week property owners got kicked in the teeth by 5 people! Why put your all of your future plans and faith in any 5 people, no less people appointed by a corruptable process to a group that has the ability to enforce their definitions of words at gunpoint? It takes a special kind of insanity to submit to that kind of situation and consider it a good thing. Just as it takes a special kind of insanity to believe that your life is worth so little that it should be sacrificed on the altar of one man's definition of 'the highest calling.' Embedded in those same teachings of Christ that our president convieniently lost touch with during his speech last night was the idea that you are responsible for the things you do and the things you advocate. Submitting to someone else's definitions of right and wrong is abdicating that responsibility in the most fundamental way imaginable. As Paul Craig Roberts noted yesterday at Antiwar.com:

Gentle reader, are you proud that American troops are torturing Iraqis? Are you proud that tens of thousands of Iraqi women and children have been killed and maimed with their deaths and terrible wounds dismissed as "collateral damage"? Are you proud that you elected and reelected a president who lied you into an illegal war that has killed 1,755 American troops, maimed thousands more, and destroyed your country's reputation? If you are proud of this, what kind of person are you?

This, my few and far between readers, is the legacy of submitting to someone else's calling. Ta,

More Assault Weapons...? Less Crime.

There is a solid article this morning at LRC and reprinted in the LA Times by John Lott citing the significant drop in gun-related violent crime since the sunsetting of the Assault Weapons Ban in September of last year. I think I can speak for all of the unreconstructed gun-toting, lunatic-fringe, property rights nuts in feeling not the least bit surprised by this. Nor am I surprised at the absolute silence in the news about this either.

It's instructive to remember just how passionately the media hyped the dangers of "sunsetting" the ban. Associated Press headlines warned "Gun shops and police officers brace for end of assault weapons ban." It was even part of the presidential campaign: "Kerry blasts lapse of assault weapons ban." An Internet search turned up more than 560 news stories in the first two weeks of September that expressed fear about ending the ban. Yet the news that murder and other violent crime declined last year produced just one very brief paragraph in an insider political newsletter, the Hotline.

What's particularly funny is that the crime statistics for 2004 in Florida have apparently just been released as a slew of articles gets turned up in a Google News search for violent crime statistics, all basically saying the exact same thing. Many of these articles have paragraphs cut and pasted about the effectiveness of the 10-20-LIFE laws and a soundbite from Jeb Bush on the subject. What's worrisome is the never ending call for more cops and stricter enforcement even though per capita crime in Florida is dropping rapidly, expecially in 2004, where there was a drop from 4833 crimes per million people to 4528. Per Capita violent crime dropped from 0.68% to 0.66%, a 1% relative drop. Digging inside the numbers a little more reveals:

Robberies with Firearms dropped 6.4%
Forced entry burglaries dropped 3.2%
Pick-pocketing dropped a whopping 23.2% (certainly not related to the AWB sunset, but interesting nonetheless)
Forcable sex offenses with a firearm dropped substantially (some classes dropping over over 20%)
and lastly Murder with a Firearm dropped 5.4%

So much for Sarah Brady and the bloodletting that was predicted during the presidential campaign last fall. Imagine how much lower those numbers would be if the Federal Government would end the War on Drugs. As cited in a couple of the counties that saw their number of murders rise, it was probably gang/drug related according the the police. The simple truth is that a combination of easy CCW permits and a whole lot of cops have done a great job in dropping the crime rate here in Florida over the past 15 years. While I'm no fan of municipal police departments and especially the modern, military-style training they receive, when you throw as much money at a problem as we have there has to be something to show for it. But, what I don't understand is why there is an ever-increasing call for more cops and more money when it is obvious that stronger property and defense rights of individuals is the path to a stable and crime-free society? I got an e-mail yesterday from a friend who informed me of his purchase of a new Romanian SAR-1 (semi-auto AK-47) and how much he loves it. Between that purchase and one of a Yugoslavian SKS he is a very happy man. He never knew how much fun eastern bloc infantry rifles could be. Now he does. And the world is a better place for it. Ta,

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Kinsella on Kelo at LRC

Patent and IP lawyer Stephan Kinsella has a great article this morning at LRC about the constitutionality of the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo vs. New London. In essence, he is saying that the Supreme Court arrived at the right result with exactly the wrong argument. His argument also contravenes something I spouted off on earlier in the week, and after due consideration must conclude that he is correct and I was wrong (something I suspected as I typed those words, but didn't feel like checking into first). I made the statement that the role of the Federal Government was to protect the rights of the people from the depradations of indidvidual state laws, that is incorrect. And I thank Mr. Kinsella for clarifying that point for me.

Unlike American States and other states around the world, however, the federal government does not have general legislative or plenary police power (though it has done a good job inventing this power by stretching the "interstate commerce" clause). Rather, it is limited by having only the powers enumerated in the Constitution – the powers delegated to it. This scheme is made clear by the very existence of the Bill of Rights, the Ninth Amendment, and especially the Tenth Amendment, which provides: "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."

With that in mind, now consider the following:

Now what is crucial for our purposes is to recognize that for the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a given State law, this is an exercise of power. This means that the power to review and nullify State legislation must be enumerated in the Constitution.

There is no mention of this power in the Constitution, therefore the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction. It has no more power to overturn state law than it has the power to overturn Canadian law for example. The states are supposed to be sovereign and as such should be free to enact any law that does not run afoul of another state law, with the Federal Government providing a framework for interaction and dispute resolution. Now, all of this said, none of the Supreme Court justices acknowledged this in their opinions. They all focused on the the 'for public use' part of the 5th amendment to inform their decisions. But, as Mr. Kinsella points out, the 5th amendment has no jurisdiction over an internal state matter, and Kelo vs. New London is certainly, for once, not an Interstate Commerce issue, though possibly a "General Welfare" one, depending on how broad your interpretation of that phrase is. So, in essence, the Supreme Court was able to have its cake and eat it too, with this ruling. The result of the decision was to uphold the underlying concepts of federalism but the opinions used to generate that result assumes that the Court has powers that neither the people nor the states have delegated to it. I had been waiting for a few days for LRC to chime in on this subject, knowing that whatever Lew decided to publish would be at once orthogonal to what the general buzz was and probably dead-on correct. If the result of this decision is that people all across this country pound on their state and local governments to pass stricter mechanisms for the use of Eminent Domain than the cause of liberty will have advanced a tiny bit. If not, then, in the immortal words of Dennis Miller, "Aww, F$&K it! Who wants pie?" Ta,

Friday, June 24, 2005

Movement on the ED Front

I just got e-mail from Walt Augustinowicz on the LPF Ex. Comm. list saying that he's been in contact with Rep. Nancy Detert-Venice from District 70, who is "outraged by the ruling:"

Dear Walt, I, too, am outraged by the Supreme Court ruling. In fact, I really can't believe it! I would be happy to file the bill or least explore the possibilities of presenting a reasonable option. I think that most Americans felt that government only has the e d option for roads,etc. but this idea of government taking property so that they can make more money from the increased tax revenue flies in the face of private property rights.

I sent him these two options for changes to the Florida Constitution: Changes are bold Change Article X, Section 6 Eminent Domain to:

(a) The State of Florida does not have the power of Eminent Domain and is prohibited from seizing private property for any reason that is not in conformity with Article I Section 12.

or

(a) No private property shall be taken except for a public infrastructure purpose, limited to the building of roads and railways or the furnishing of utilities, and with full compensation therefor paid to each owner or secured by deposit in the registry of the court and available to the owner. (b) Provision may be made by law for the taking of temporary easements, by like proceedings, for the drainage of the land of one person over or through the land of another.

Let's see where this goes. Personally, I'd be ecstatic if she presented the second option and embarrassingly orgasmic if she presented the first. Either of these should place serious brakes on the juggernaut that is Eminent Domain. We need help though. So, all you people in Florida who read this space get on the horn to your representative in the State Legislature and let them know. We must make this stand now. Ta,

Viagra for City Government

The latest ruling by our illiterate Supreme Court is without question one of the most vile pieces of information I've ever had the displeasure to process. In essence, the Supreme Court just handed out the biggest free sample of Viagra to those city governments suffering from F.E.D. syndrome (Foiled Eminent Domain). With renewed vigor and a smile to rival Bob from the Enzyte commercials the pleasure to be derived from the taking of private property for the public use of 'increasing the tax base' will be akin to orgasmic. Trust me on this. Not only do they not understand the concept of State's Rights, as witnessed by their recent ruling against State Medical Marijuana laws, when they do devolve power back to the state's, as in this case, they do it badly. The U.S. Constitution (and the bill of rights) exists to protect the individuals from the ravages of bad State Laws as well as enumerate the powers of the Federal Government. Thankfully, according to this article, Floridians are spared some of the unwanted adavances by amorous city and county officials. As first they have to seek a legal standing of 'blighted' for the property to be seized, before proceeding with the actual thieving. Personally, this article seems like more of an apology for the abuses to come rather than an explanation of the law. Notice how many of the county officials speak in terms of doing what they have to, even if the decision is a hard one. *Paging Chancellor Palpatine, your apprentice is waiting for you* This quote is especially illuminating of the staggering incompetence of government employees:

"Remember, the (New London) case turns on whether you can cause redevelopment for purely economic reasons," said county legal consultant Mark Lawson, of Tallahassee-based Bryant Miller & Olive P.A. "That is not what Charlotte is doing. Charlotte is trying to economically develop a blighted area."

Uhh, I hate to break this to you Mr. Lawson, but what you said doesn't make a lick of sense. There is no difference between what New London and Charlotte are doing. One situation is more extreme than the other. Both are the unjust taking of people's property for purely economic purposes. I love when people make complete morons out of themselves in public, it makes my job sooooo much easier. Props to Walt Augustinowicz for getting a quote in the article., by the way. This is prrof that is we campaign like professionals Libertarians can be a part of the political process. Ultimately, this decision has further clarified for me that no law is fool-proof. Furthermore, any law with a exception clause that can be expressed using the english language is especially vulnerable to poor interpretation. Therefore it is my contention that the only reasonable political course of action is to put forth a Amendment to the Florida Constitution that reads as follows: Change Article X, Section 6 Eminent Domain to: (a) The State of Florida does not have the power of Eminent Domain and is prohibited from seizing private property for any reason that is not in conformity with Article I Section 12. There is no way to prevent the theft of property by government or its benefactors with any other language. This is the kind of reform that is needed in this society. I include the language of explicitly denying the power of Eminent Domain as opposed to just removing all references to it as a precaution against a Federal argument implying the power exists with the states as well. Any project worth doing is worth paying whatever the costs end up being. Short-cutting this process by thieving from people is wrong and sends the wrong pricing signals through an economy. No road is more important than a person's right to life. No mall or marina or condominium or parking garage or bus depot is more important than a human being. Anyone who thinks that is bully and a coward. Period. If this isn't the hill that a great many Americans are willing to fight and die on, then there truly is no hope for this country and I'll make the appropriate future plans. Now, as a beneficial side-effect of this, watch land values in Florida skyrocket (and the attendant gains in tax revenue, unfortunately) as this amendment would create a unique commodity in the United States... a little thing called private property. Ta,

Thursday, June 23, 2005

More on the Housing Bubble ...

As I made my blog-rounds this morning I came around to this great article by Kip Esquire where he makes a very cogent argument about why housing prices only need to dip a little to have a huge effect on the state of the lending system. I got there from this article at The Marginal Revolution. Kip uses Tarrabok's own argument against him, brilliantly. Equating a mortgage to buying stocks on margin, and with little equity in your position (house or stock) a small change in price creates a huge change in your equity. Just like a small change in the growth rate of a company can have a huge effect on it's stock valuation as measured by P/E. Alex, honestly, only focuses on the rising portion of the rate of change, and not the negative. The bank can, and will, foreclose on you, analogous to a margin call, if your equity drops too low, or becomes negative, depending on the insanity level of the mortgage contract under scrutiny. The real danger in this situation is who is eventually going to foot the bill if prices start to fall? In recent history it's been the U.S. Government/Federal Reserve in the immediate term and everyone else in the medium-term. Think LTCM, Mexico, Brazil, the S&L bailout, Y2K, ad nauseum, ad infinitum. What I'd like to know is where is all of this money going to come from? The Chinese and the Japanese have slowed down their buying of U.S. Debt Instruments. See this article at Bob's Gold Price Column to understand what's happening with the Net Flow of the US Dollar, as seen from the latest TIC Report, which showed a net outflow again this month. All of this is pointing to a firestorm. When these interest only (Smart Loans from Quicken, an Orwellian appelation if I ever saw one) and negative-equity (No one lost another loan to Ditech over my Re-fi, 36% net-equity @ 6.5% for 20 years fixed) mortgages begin to topple the only choice will be, as Bob suggests for the settlement of international trade which is a competing problem, the printing of digital IOU's to cover the shortfalls and stem the tide defaults. In the past the Fed managed their bailouts by selling more bonds to an ever-hungry market. The current situation is much different as noted by the second chart posted by Dan Norcini in Bob's article linked above. This is a recipe for something that in common parlance would be called Inflation. For a less-technical, but equally well-reasoned position on the housing situation check out this other article by Kip here. Ta,

Tuesday, June 21, 2005

Update on the Addition to Outer Luongolia

To those 3 of you still interested in the progress on the house I finally have the energy (and the pics in hand) to give an update on the addition we started building earlier this month. Back in March we put a porch on the place (10'x24') off the south wall, which has done wonders to making the house more livable in the summer Florida heat. My little AC window unit works less than half as hard as it did last summer and the house is cooler. As a matter of fact we didn't turn it on until the beginning of the month, as opposed to last year when they got installed and turned on in mid-april, the moment the temperature reached the high 80's. For our next project a much larger addition was needed, as it needed to perform a few functions:

It had to add a Master Bedroom/Bathroom
It had to be wide enough that the chimney from the wood-burning stove would not be installable without having to take the big 2-story roof into account, i.e. greater than 13' in total width.
Create an area that Capt. Charity Vain could nurse an infant without being disturbed by !, our roommate.
Provide a little more common living space than the teeny 11.5'x11.5 room we have now.

Because the house is a 24' cube, 2 stories tall we couldn't fit all of that into an addition 24' wide. We had to go wider than that. So, the addition is off the east wall of the house (the one with no windows designed explicitly for future expansion), and is 34' x 16' in size. Pics are here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. These are not the best pics I've taken of our work, but it gives you an idea of where we are. Shingles for the roof get delivered on Thursday and Capt. C. Vain and I will spend the weekend roofing. Once that's done, we'll finish getting the studwalls and sheathing up to shore up the structure in case of a storm. I'm hoping to have the place dried-in by the end of July. Ta,

Econbrowser: Babble about a housing bubble

Over at the Econobrowser, James Hamilton argues against a housing bubble because of localized growth rates having a multiplicative effect on expected returns of the property owner. I'm unsure how that argument makes any sense whatsoever, mind you, because in my mind he holds so many variables constant as to remove his example from any realistic application. In essence, he's saying that the rate of change of housing stock to economic growth will create multiplicative increases in the cost of rental housing given a constant rate of rental income. Well, again, holding all variables equal like that creates an unrealistic scenario.

The rental income of $4,000 plus the capital gain of $2,000 provide the requisite 3% return on capital of $200,000. Next year's $202,000 price is likewise warranted by next year's $4,040 rental income and prospect of 1% capital gain on $202,000, and so on. There's no bubble because both the price-to-rent ratio and the rent-to-income ratio remain constant over time.

In his example a home's value could double simply because the growth rate could double relative to the housing stock increase.

In this case, if the stock of available housing is still only growing at 1%, the rental rate would now grow at 2% each year. The analogous calculation to the one above implies that the same piece of property earning the same $4,000 rental would now be worth $400,000 rather than $200,000. The owner is now rationally expecting to earn $4,080 in rent next year and to be able to sell the property for $408,000. The $8,000 capital gain plus the $4,000 current rental income again justify the property value in terms of giving the owner a 3% real return.

That's nice but why couldn't the owner more rationally raise his expected rate of return from 3% to 4.04%. As in, for his $200,000 home that he receives $4000 in rental income from he would be expecting a 2% increase in the price of his home and the rental income the next year. This equates to $4080 (rental income) plus $4000 in capital gains (home now worth $204000). This scenario, I think, is more likely than the one where he keeps his rate of return expectation the same, and doubles the perceived value of his home. If you couple this effect with the lowering of mortgage rates,the derivatizing of risk (and its subsequent distortions...interest only loans, lending 125% of the home value, etc.), and the mania that sets in once the prices start to rise rapidly (Buy now b4 the price goes up ...again) it is then reasonable to see as much as a 10-15% YOY increase in the price of housing in a hot market. I happen to live in one, by the way, and these are the numbers. The blow-off phase, I think, is coming here in North Florida as prices are begininng to rise 5-10% per month. We'll see how sustainable this is, and whether Prof. Hamilton or myself is right. Ta,

Oil Price Follow-up: Chinese Price Limits and Demand

About half-way down this article is a quote from Monty Guild, advisor to Jim Sinclair and an analyst that Mr. Sinclair trusts implicitly.

Oil is strong in June. It’s hard to believe that gold and the rest of the commodities won't follow eventually. Every year in June thru August, not so good economists call for a Chinese meltdown – and every year they are wrong. The Chinese consumer is now starting to buy. If the government will let him. China’s next wave of growth will be both consumer and export driven in my opinion. More consumer products mean more raw materials which means more commodities so after a slowdown I expect commodity demand to resurface! A new data point; Chinese oil imports will be down for the next few months because the government has price limits and they will only allow limited imports above a certain price. This will probably be misinterpreted and will be judged to be forecasting a slowdown in China. We may get 7% GDP growth in China but no lower. I will email some interesting stats of global growth and inflation from the Merrill Lynch global economics team.

I offer this up as counterpoint to the assertion about shortfalls in the demand for oil as expressed by Mr. Polos and Mr. Steven Ayer over at Disinterested Party who seems to think that the U.S. is the only player in the demand for oil and is overly worried that December 2011 future contracts didn't respond to news the way he thought they should. Personally, I remain convinced of a combination of increased foreign demand, especially Chinese, and simple inflation of the money supply to explain these things. Ta,

Monday, June 20, 2005

Oil Price Vindication?

The E-E sent me e-mail over the weekend withthe subject line "exoneration?" over my call for higher oil prices. In previous posts he and I have debated whether oil prices would go up or down, with the E-E bearish for fundamental reasons and me bullish for a combination of fundamentals and actual price action, i.e. the chart of the $XOI and the $CRB. Basically, my argument is that dollar printing (or a slacking of dollar demand or both) has been happening at a faster rate (inflation) than the market has discounted the shortfalls relative to the bullish fundamentals projected when the price of oil started to rise. The backbone of the bearish outlook on oil stems from perceived Chinese demand. If there is a world-wide economic slowdown, the demand for oil (especially in the burgeoning markets of India and China) should be hurt as well. That was the opinion of Steven Polos back in April. He may still be right (in the longer term), but timing is everything in the market. I tend to be overly dramatic in my analysis and it has hurt me timing-wise in the past. All I can do is learn from those mistakes. But, as far as the short to medium term picture is concerned, I addressed the points raised in that article here. And I still believe they are valid. The backbone of my contention was that nothing fundamentally had changed about the $USD. Now, while I will readily concede that the counter-trend rally in the $USD was stronger than I'd anticipated, I didn't consider the effect of a "NO" vote on the EU Constitution either. Check out Jim Sinclair's analysis of the latest TIC report to get a taste of what is coming vis a vis the U.S. Dollar. This can only be bullish for commodities as priced in them. As priced in competing currencies with a stronger fundamental (read commodity) backing, well, that is a different thing entirely. Me? I'd still be long the Loonie ($CDN), Gold, Commodities and Asian Stocks (but, only in the mid-term). Also, if the Fed is successful (and for all of our sanities let's hope they are) in staving off a full-blown meltdown of the Dollar, then I would have powder dry to buy the long bond (also, mid-term). Looking at short-term changes in the prices of things is simply superficial analysis. The chart tells you what the people who live, eat, breathe, drink that particular market are thinking. Ingore the chart at your own peril, I think. Of course, nothing is conclusive at this point and I still may be wrong. I'm uninterested in the price of oil in 2008, preferring to care what is happening now to help guide my decisions in the next 12 months. Personally, I don't think we should be looking that far ahead as the TIC report indicates. Ta,

Friday, June 17, 2005

Ron Paul for Saint

I guess this may be proof-positive that I'm beginning to come out of my self-generated shell. The above is a link to the lead story currently at Antiwar.com of the White House out-of-hand rejecting a congressional bill to set a timetable for our withdrawl from Iraq. Color me shocked to see Mr "Freedom Fries" himself, Walter Jones working with Ron Paul to send a clear message to the President that not everyone in Congress is comfortable with handling of the situation. But, color me not shocked at all to find hide nor hair of this anywhere in the normal U.S. news channels. The link above is from The Australian. People like Ron Paul give me strength when I'm depressed. Ta,

Thursday, June 16, 2005

Movie Review: Batman Begins

For those who read this space regularly you know that I love movies and have more than a passing interest in screenwriting as a craft. That said, I don't get out to the movies as often as I'd like mostly because I hate having my time wasted by a bad film.... and there are so many of them these days. I decided last night that when I do actually get myself to the theatre I should blog my thoughts on that particular film. So, for my first actual film review it will have to be the biggest surprise for me in a long time, Batman Begins is actually really damn good. Warner Bros. has treated their comic book fans like dogs tied out on a line 24/7. Yes, we get the occasional moment of glee when we get fed but after the first 5 minutes there's just boredom and longing. The only time we were ever fed a decent meal and able to savor it after a good long run and romp was the first 2 Superman films 25 years ago. Their handling of Batman has been particularly egregious. Tim Burton didn't make films about Batman, he made films about creepy versions of his nemeses. Of those, the only really successful re-envisioning was Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman. I'm not going to even flatter Ms. Schumacher's two films by analyzing their blazingly incandescent ineptitude. Suffice it to say I hope Uma Thurman slapped him during the first screening. Capt. Charity Vain and I love Batman, the character. The 1990's animated series is some of the best television I've ever watched, and Mask of the Phantasm is a personal favorite. Even though I ceased collecting comics a few years ago, my approximately 10 years worth of Batman, Detective Comics, Legends of the Dark Knight, and the various graphic novels/novellas mean a lot to me. Even when the quality of those books fell off, the character and his milieu resonate with me. Bruce Wayne is a brilliant character and no matter how many times I'm reintroduced to his story, it still affects me. Now, with all of that history, disappointment and angst built up, a trailer that was singularly uninspiring,a cast list that looked more bloated than the Federal Budget, and the recent offerings from Warners (Catwoman, Constantine) I had less than high hopes for this movie. As a matter of fact I wanted it to fail just so I wouldn't have to be disappointed anymore. A similar sentiment is expressed by Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson) when he describes how Bruce Wayne's guilt will eventually consume him to the point of wishing his beloved parents had never been alive for him to miss. That there is a scene in this movie that expresses that sentiment tells you immediately that we are in far different territory than that prowled by George Clooney (...and no George, it wasn't your fault). I even distrusted the early positive reviews of the film, figuring them to be planted to help shore up a dud's opening weekend and staunch the bleeding over the reported $180million budget. I'm one of the few people, apparently, that hated Chris Nolan's Momento, finding it a hollow, manipulative film-school exercise that would have been better served to be told normally. Yes, the movie showed tremendous talent, but also some undeserved hubris. So, the choice of director was as well, a sore point with me. Oh well, so much for my instincts! Nolan starts this movie very strong, with a violent, directionless Bruce Wayne in an Asian prison taking out his guilt and anger on any and all who are willing. This is a slight shift in character focus, Wayne as a corrupted drifter, that lends weight to his training under Ducard through the movie's first act. Ducard is, in the end, more Darth Sidious than Yoda, urging Wayne to use his fear as opposed to letting it go. So, that by the time he's ready to be accepted into the manichaean League of Shadows Ducard hopes that Wayne's desire for justice will allow him to 'do what is necessary,' and execute a known murderer and thief who is a substitute for the man who killed his father. Ducard's surrogate father is no match for Bruce's real father though, and Bruce knows what he's being asked to do is wrong, this is not his responsibility to take on. He will not take out his frustrated desire for revenge on someone he does not know. Positive change comes from building great things and creating wealth, not destroying things deemed irretrievable. Thomas Wayne led by example and he lived just long enough to impart this lesson to his son. Again, fleshing out this relationship in the first act of the film is the key to believing someone would go to the lengths Bruce Wayne does in becoming Batman. This also serves to allow us to forgive the movie it's technological excesses (the superweapon which is the linchpin to the plot to destroy Gotham is really stupid). I had heard in other reviews that the role of Rachel Dawes (played admirably by Katie Holmes) was a thankless one. But, I did not see it that way. She and Jim Gordon (whoever put the valium in Gary Oldman's coffee... thanks!) serve as present-day examples to keep Bruce on track. While her arc is not as well developed as it could have been and her rejection of him at the end rang a little hollow, it may simply be that she's not ready to embrace a man who is still, in her mind, a work in progress. At the very least, I will be interested to see where Nolan et. al. take this in the inevitable and welcomed sequel. Technically, the film was cut to within an inch of it's narrative life. At over 130 minutes, it was obvious that to keep the pace up scenes were not allowed to breathe as much as they could have. Too many scenes needed a few more frames to allow up to process the dialogue or facial expression. Of course, I was sitting in the second row and was just a little overwhelmed by the screen, so that could have been an issue as well. But, Nolan should be commended for his use of Batman. I was reminded of Jim Cameron's great work in Aliens during Bats attack on Falconi's men at the shipyard on more than one occasion. Capt. C. Vain giggled with glee the first time he disappeared while Jim Gordon was talking. It's an integral part to their relationship historically, and it was really gratifying to see it used so well. The cast is uniformly good. The supporting roles are all given good material to work with, especially personal favorite Michael Caine's interpretation of Alfred Pennyworth. This is a character that most Batman writers never bother to do much with, but the template for this Alfred comes directly from the animated series, and the great work by, among others, Bruce Timm, Paul Dini and Efram Zimbalist Jr (voice). Alfred is supportive of Bruce, but also willing to engage and challenge him. He again stands as an example for Bruce to follow. But, all of this doesn't matter if the guy in the suit doesn't convince us. Christian Bale does this. He handles the growth of Bruce Wayne with ease. This is not a demented, psychopath verging towards schizophrenia. This is a man with a purpose, and willing to wear whatever mask he must to accomplish the things he wants, once he figures that out. It takes him time to come to realize this, but by the second half of the movie the superhuman will of Bruce Wayne is firmly in place and ready for the challenges presented in Act III. None of this existed in the previous screen incarnations, and attempts to shoehorn it into both Batman Returns and Batman Forever were vague in the former and redundant in the latter. Being a big Ra's Al Ghul fan I could see the plot twist at the end coming from the end of Act I. This is not a fault of the script, but rather praise. Ra's Al Ghul was created by Denny O'Neil and Neal Adams in the late '60s to be Batman's evil twin and arch-nemesis. To use him as a throw away plot device early in the movie was what I expected them to do (see past Batman experiences above). No other Batman film had ever been written well enough to use him properly, so why should I have expected any different here. Again, I am happy to report I was wrong. If I have any real problems with the film it's that the huge set piece to end the film stretches the credibility already established. I would have preferred a more plausible superweapon to carry out the master plan but, that nit aside, thematically and structurally the script succeeds in spite of what felt like a first draft idea. In the end, though, Batman Begins is absolutely what a modern film starring Batman should be. Tough, dark, relentless and scary. That it was able to overcome a huge chip on my shoulder to win me over is really quite impressive. I will be fascinated to see what Nolan and company can come up with now that they are unburdened by the obligatory origin story. I'll probably see this again before too long. Ta, p.s. Next up... Mr. and Mrs. Smith and a belated review of Episode III.

Thursday, June 09, 2005

The Demolition of 9/11 Mythology

I'm going to file this under "I Don't Want to Live in This Guy's World" because if the information in this article at LRC this morning is correct then this truly isn't a place I want to live in anymore... and unfortunately, there's nowhere to really go. On 9/11 I refused to watch video of the planes impacting the towers until late in the afternoon. I knew that even if the official story was true at it's core, I knew that a lot of things would change for the worse, and I wasn't wrong. The University shut down and sent everyone home. Capt. C. Vain and I wound up over at the Nissan Dealership looking at an Xterra (She bought the Subaru Forester). I saw the famous video of the plane flying into the south tower for the first time on the huge projection TV they had in the lobby. At the time I uttered words that I was almost ashamed of where I told the salesman standing next to me that I wouldn't be surprised if this event wasn't staged by our own government. He nodded, in what I'm sure was habit, agreeing with his potential customer and then walked away. Capt. C. Vain relayed to me later that he was outraged that I could think such a thing. *Paging Goebbels* *Paging Josef Goebbels* *They've swallowed the Big Lie* or I'm an irredeemable cynic. Either way, it's all very cold comfort. I spent a couple of hours this morning perusing 911research.com trying to get a handle on where the author was coming from. As I said to one of my ideologically-sympathetic co-workers (yes, there are other nut-jobs like me out there) in the aftermath of the attack I made the erroneous assumption that the buildings were designed to collapse causing minimal collateral damage in the case of a catastrophic failure of some kind. The tower collapses looked like demolitions the first time I saw them, hence my assumption of failure control. Airplanes being run into them at high speed seemed to be a plausible cause for such a failure. Looking at the way that building was designed (check out the resources on 911research.com) there is no way that that could be the case. It was designed exactly opposite of my assumption... to withstand and localize any individual structural failure. The economics of this make complete sense. Designing something to fail 'cheaply' would support the actual design of the towers than my assumed design. There is no way possible for those planes to have created the collapse that occured. None. Zero. Ziltch. That I'm convinced of. I, honestly didn't believe it the first time I saw it, hence concocting an economically fantastic scenario of planned catastrophic failure. And as we all know, what the thinker thinks... I don't know what the truth is anymore. I distrust anyone who wields power, and have a very dim view of the way the power structures of this world work, but I don't want to believe that our own government would engineer something like this. For what purpose? Was the attack on 9/11 another instance of misguided patriotism designed to make the proverbial omlette by sacrificing 2794 eggs? During that conversation this morning with my co-worker he brought up the misguided patriotism angle (I tend to like to paint people as just nakedly power-hungry, its easier) at which point I invoked Anakin's fall in Episode III. Among the reasons for Anakin's turn to the Dark Side is his conflating his personal world with his political one and assuming responsibility for the well-being of others which is, ultimately, not his to take on. He deludes himself into thinking that he, personally, has brought an end to the Civil War and established "peace, justice, freedom and security to..." his new empire and that that justifies his actions. It only took the wholesale slaughter of millions to do it. No way do I want to live in a world where this level of sickness exists. But, unfortunately, it's hard not to. I thought that I had no illusions left about how things work. Unfortunately, I think I was wrong. If anyone would like to disabuse me of these notions... I'm open to suggestions. More than ever I want to bury my head in the sand and play World of Warcraft. Ta,

Tuesday, June 07, 2005

Gold and Silver --- Signals at a Crossroads?

Two fascinating articles by Brian Bloom over at Gold-Eagle.com (one linked above... the other is here) which together paint the picture of two markets that are linked but also at a junction. While predominately bullish signals exist in both gold and silver (see the charts in both articles) there are some troubling bearish indicators in the silver chart, especially the ratio of $silver:$usd where a long-term trendline has been breached. Taking that in conjunction with a potential long-term topping pattern showing up in the $XOI (Oil index) chart and the recent weakness in the Shanghai stock market may lend credence to the bearish outlook on the price of oil relayed by the E-E in a recent string of posts (here and here ). He and Steven Polos make the fundamental argument that inventories are rising and that the Chinese economy has not produced the demand for oil that was priced into the market in 2004 through early 2005. Me? I'm unconvinced of anything in the market until I've seen a confirmation on the chart, simply because the chart tells you what the people with more information than me are doing with their money. Timing is everything, ultimately. So, until the $XOI chart begins to show real weakness as priced in $USD's and the $USD shows real fundamental strength I will remain skeptical of the idea of the price of oil dropping structurally over the course of the rest of the year. The amount of volatility in the $XOI should be a cause for concern and it is certainly possible that we're looking at some churn before a sell-off, but, again, until the market makes a decision about the $USD, I see this as ancilliary information. Overall, Mr. Bloom makes the case that the market is rapidly reaching a decision point, with most of the indicators he's looked at pointing toward a takeoff of the price of silver and gold, but silver especially. Personally, I've not added to my silver or gold positions in months, concentrating instead on firming up my debts and creating more self-sufficiency. Not that I've been wholly successful, but better something than nothing. Ta,

Thursday, June 02, 2005

On Stress, Big Car Rebates and Episode III

First, I'd like to apologize to those who actually look forward to my rants and ravings for my absense here during the month of May. This post is not going to be about anything earth-shattering.... sorry E-E no insightful witticisms on the state of the Dollar... For a variety of reasons I've had little to no interest in engaging my brain for the past few weeks. Aside from feeling off (which is a euphamism for dizziness and headaches and I just finished that ultra-rare Doctor's appointment phone call), and having a great number of potentially life-changing events not quite close escrow, as it were, it just felt like way too much effort to read a headline, interpret a chart, or pick on Tom Palmer. Be that as it may I know there are a couple of you out there who actually care one way or the other about the state of my breathing so popping off a few words is really the only polite thing to do. Moreover, there comes a point when I have to take a break from all of the bad news coming in from around the world otherwise I will drive myself to drink far more than either my wallet or my liver can handle. So, in response, I've spent the last month obsessively looking at cars to buy and studiously not reading LRC, Antiwar.com or the myriad of great blogs that are normally in my daily search pattern I have to say that being under the threat of being able to refinance my house/property and free up the monthly cash to actually afford the child Capt. C. Vain and I have been trying to create has placed an inordinate amount of stress on my head. If this actually gets completed (and after yesterday's call from my mortage broker it looks that way) it will solve so many of my pressing and long-term problems that I will be much more able to confront each day with just a bare minimum of enthusiasm. The pressing problems include lack of reliable personal transportation, funds to cover cost-overruns on the Master Suite addition to Outer Luongolia (the construction of which is to begin on Saturday... yes, E-E, I'll take pics), and release of the 5 acres to ! to sell to him in September. Long-term problems solved would be having the monthly costs be managable as a single-income home, goat-fencing to procure the Agricultural Property Tax exemption (and small income stream from it), and the preservation of both my sanity and what's left of my hairline. Bound up in this mess is the aching desire/need for a new vehicle, which I talked about previously back in March. I think I've looked at/considered/test-driven just about every car I could think of in the $13k to $21k range, trying to find one that would both fit the budget and bring a smile (albeit a wry one) to my face on occassion. With the exception of any car I buy requiring a back seat accessible enough for a child Capt. C. Vain has put no other demands on my purchase. I am neither particularly good at dealing with uncertainty or risk and, as regular readers know, I'm very bearish on the future, so my choice of car is a momentous one in light of that mind-set. Where do the priorities lie? Reliability? Gas Mileage? Ruggedness? Ride Quality? Safety? Usable Torque below 2000 RPM's? Will chicks think I'm having a mid-life crisis? Will my wife think I'm having a mid-life crisis? Am I having a mid-life crisis? That said, I've narrowed my choices after a hard day of test-driving on Sunday to either a Subaru Impreza 2.5RS or a Nissan Sentra SE-R Spec-V (loaded, moonroof/Side AB's/300w stereo with SW). The former is a great car that just works... the extra money goes into the AWD system and the cohesive suspension/brakes/steering. The Latter is a rocket in a plain package that brings a smile to your face but not to your kidneys. Both are great cars which hit different parts of my personality. The car I want is a Subaru WRX, which, if I had $22.5k to spend would just happen. But, I know I should not spend that much on a new car. Asking a sane question like, "Is the WRX $5500 more car than the Sentra or the 2.5RS?" is something one would rather not do, but should when considering all the other things that make up one's circumstance. This is the essence of being a rational economic thinker. As of yesterday my mind was all made up between one of these two cars. This morning, though, adds a new wrinkle. For those that don't know (and I'm sure that's many 2 of my 3 normal readers) the Saab 92-x is an Impreza wagon rebadged as a Saab. The Linear model would equate to a 2.5RS wagon and the Aero model would equate with a WRX wagon. These cars are Subarus through and through. Normally, they would not be in the running as MSRP on these is $2.5k more than the Subaru-equivalent car. But, these are not normal times. This car is a failed experiment by GM/Saab to offer an entry level Saab and because of that the discounts on them currently are literally INSANE. $7000 on a Linear and $8000 on an Aero. If the dealer in Jacksonville gets back to me with a price that is close to Invoice minus the discounts I know what I'm doing. It'd be like getting the car I want for $2000 less than I was willing to pay for it originally. How does all of this relate to Episode III? It doesn't. The movie was just one of the very pleasant (if terribly sad) moments for me over the past couple of weeks. I've seen it three times and it broke my heart each time. Anakin is the on-screen embodiment of the adage that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Then again, maybe there is some relationship between life and art, after all. Ta,

Thursday, May 26, 2005

The E-E: Playing Book Tag

As a favor to my friend The E-E, I figured I'd be polite and answer his call to know what I'm reading. So here goes (and a public special thanks to both the E-E and an old friend PJL who both contacted my during my absence to remind me that I have done something good in my life....):

Total number of book I own: It's hard to say, most of them have been packed up in boxes for the past two years. I would venture a guess at around 400-500. My secret confession is that I'm a really bad reader, and while I love stories I don't like reading very much. If Capt. C.Vain had a blog (her placeholder LJ does not count) her entry on this would be much more interesting.
The last book I bought: The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Very fun and illuminating for this product of the public school system.
The Last Book I Read: The Writer's Journey by Christopher Vogler. Actually I'm currently re-reading this in an effort to restart my desire to write screenplays in my off time.
Five books that mean a lot to me: Just 5? Even for this avowed bad reader, there are a bunch of books that have single handedly changed the course of my life. Maybe, it's less that I'm a bad reader than that I'm a terribly picky reader. The Lone Mantis calls me a "Flighty Bastard" pretty regularly, and I tend to agree with him. So, for a me to read a book right now, it really needs to grab my attention and prey on my borderline OCD personality. Yes, flighty and Obsessive-Compulsive is not a good combination.... for those who are religious, say a prayer for C. Vain because it'll only get worse from here. That said, here are the five most important books to me:

UBIK by Philip K. Dick. Literally 180 pages of life changing words. I love this book almost as much as I love my dogs. I think I truly am the only person who celebrates June 5th as a holiday. I've probably read this book 20 times and I still find something new each time through it and as I get older it gets more profound.
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Philip K. Dick: You will begin to notice a trend here. DADES was the first book of PKD's I bought as a 13 year old. I never devoured a book before this in my life. It was like finding water in the desert. This book started me down the road that I'm still on today.
The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek: When I first realized I was a libertarian, I read Atlas Shrugged. I burned through that book in a week (forsaking even watching hockey to *gasp* read... C.Vain nearly fainted). The last book I read prior to that (rereading PKD's A Scanner Darkly) took me six months. Atlas Shrugged left me feeling odd... there was something about it I didn't agree with. On the other hand, Hayek's book is a simple, straightforward expression of what people will do if given the opportunity to do so. I went through it at a methodical pace (probably three weeks) digesting and internalizing each chapter and the lessons therein. It is so wise it's unbelievable. By comparison Atlas Shrugged feels like a 'big, dumb book.'
The Gulag Archipelago by Alexander Solzhenitsyn: Now, admittedly, I've only read the fist half of Solzhenitsyn's three volume work, but, that doesn't matter. I started reading this as a teenager, around 17, I finally stopped picking it up around 20 or so. It was just too painful. For all of those people who are still Marxists out there.... read this and be ashamed of yourselves.
The Trial by Franz Kafka: "Like a dog!" are Joseph K.'s last words, and every time I see some petty tyrant lording it over someone and enjoying doing it, that's all I ever think of. It makes me really angry.

Tag Five People and have them do this on their blogs.

Daniel Franke: The most fascinating "youngling" I've met in the past five years
Thomas Knapp: A better communicator than I am and more committed to the cause.
The Ozark Rambler: A fellow Homespunner, Hank is a fascinating, unreconstructed guy. I'd love to see his thoughts on this.
Tex: @ Unfairwitness. A tireless worker in the face of the lies from Iraq. He's been very kind to me here as well.
Stephan Kinsella: LRC denizen and passionate defender of liberty. Also, a fellow Stephen R. Donaldson fan.

There are so many other great books to talk about.... It's hard to believe I left Collected Fictions by Jorge Luis Borges off this list or any one of a dozen other books by PKD. Zelanzy's the Chronicles of Amber, The Lord of the Rings, The Complete Wallace Stevens, Bug Jack Barron, The Gap Cycle by Donaldson... and lastly, the novelization of the Star Wars screenplay, the first book I ever re-read, multiple times BEFORE I'd ever seen the movie..... but that, my dear readers (all 3 of you), is another post entirely. Ta,

Wednesday, May 04, 2005

Francisco D'Greenspan ?

This week over at kitco.com Chip Hanlon has a great piece which starts by floating the theory that Alan Greenspan is the breathing embodiment of Francisco D'Anconia from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. This is of particular interest for me because on many an occassion I've half-facetiously thought the exact same thing myself. I just never had the courage to float that argument in public, preferring instead to keep such ideas bottled up in my living room. The rest ofthe article does an admirable job of thying to piece together a rational scenario for what may happen with the U.S. dollar during the next few years. His underlying assumption is that the bond market is too smart to let a catastrophic scenario (like those promugated by members of the gold community) unfold if they have the power to prevent it. This is sage advice I think and a point of view that one should consider when placing bets on the future. I, personally, am prone to catastrophic flights of fancy, being first and foremost cursed with both a vivid imagination, an ability to see to the root cause of a problem and a over-developed sense of the dramatic (something Capt. C. Vain accuses me of all the time). This leads to some very restless nights let me tell you. So, Mr. Hanlon's words are the kind that should cause some sober re-examination of the state of the financial world. As always just FUD for thought. Ta,

Monday, May 02, 2005

Interest Rates and Gold: Why Conventional Wisdom Isn't

Like the people who Lawrence Roulston describes in the following quote, I stopped reading this article about halfway through (b/c I knew what the rest of it was going to say):

In reality, the reaction in both the currency and bullion markets was more due to the perception than to fundamentals. Traders, in this era of Internet induced group-think, often click the sell icon on their screens before their eyes get past the first paragraph of a news story. The days of somber reflection seem to be long gone. "A higher interest rate means a stronger dollar. A stronger dollar is bad for gold. Buy dollars. Sell gold." What else does one need to know?

In answer to Mr. Roulston's question, "Everything." This seemingly logical progression is simply not true when the actual data is looked at. There has been a substantial amount of work produced which suggests the real market psychology runs completely counter to this idea. Gold does better in an environment of rising interest rates, not lower. Why? High risk ventures have to offer high rates of return to attract investment. Treasury Bonds are no differenct in that respect than corporate bonds. In essence, the direction of interest rates is inversely proportional to the investment community's confidence for the prospect for success. So, as long as interest rates are rising, and the political situation which gave rise to the weak currency conditions have not changed, then people will look for an alternative place to park their value while the investment currency rights itself (if it ever does). With the dollar falling sharply from 1.22 to 0.80, the price of Gold has gone from $255/oz to $430/oz. Nothing politically has changed and the baby steps by the FED indicate that they are actually aware that they haven't been selling bonds at the same rate they used to, and are adjusting their behaviour accordingly. My strategy, is, simply to hold a reasonable amount of gold and silver at these fundamentally low prices until such time as someone at the FED 'pulls a Volcker' and dramatically raises interest rates (i.e. contracts the money supply) to balance out the books of the U.S. economy. When that happens, I'll liquidate my positions in gold and silver, which will have topped (at whatever that price may be... Jim Sinclair is talking $1650/oz gold) and buy T-Bills at that point. Basically, when interest rates are rising, the Dollar is in a bear market. Therefore, Gold should be in a bull market. Once interest rates peak, the Dollar bull market will begin. At that point, gold will go back to being in a bear market. You can always tell the end of a bear market... that is that moment when nobody (except you) wants to buy the thing that you are considering, stocks, bonds, gold, dollars. So, at this point, with leg one of the Gold bull market complete, the question you should be asking yourself is, "Why don't I own more Gold?" Ta,

Thursday, April 28, 2005

Bush Implies the Truth for Once About Ford and GM

With the difficult financial times currently being endured by both Ford and GM it is weird that Washington has not mentioned the word "Bailout." Even more suprising is this statement by President Bush on CNBC:

I think they're going to have to learn how to compete.

The question I'm asking is, "Why should they start now?" It's not like our government hasn't protected the Big (Only) 3 Automakers for decades. It was only grudgingly that the Japanese automakers were ever alllowed into this market. Once here, of course, we all know the history, and the success of those companies placed further pressure on Congress to loosen import restrictions (otherwise known as Protection Tariffs/Quotas). When Honda opened up their first plant in Ohio back in the mid-1980's and I heard the glowing praise from my in-laws about how great those cars were I knew the "Buy American" stupidity was in decline. The Japanese car companies knew that they would get even greater acceptance in the American marketplace if they built their cars here.

The changed attitude reflects the markedly reshaped political situation in the auto industry. For two decades, Japanese and European auto makers have sprinkled job-producing auto-assembly plants across the U.S. Those have created a political constituency for foreign auto companies that didn't exist before. Many of those plants are situated in southern states such as Tennessee, Alabama, South Carolina and Texas, which make up the heart of the red-state region in which today's dominant Republican party is strongest. As a result, politicians have less desire to penalize foreign auto makers as a way of shielding traditional American auto manufacturers than they did in the past.

In my search for a new car I gave only passing glances at cars from both of these companies (Mine was a Chrysler family growing up, not that those cars were any good either) looking mostly at cars from Toyota, Honda, and Subaru, all of whom have plants here in the states. I don't give a hoot where the car was made, personally, but for Bush voters who buy into the protectionist "They Stole our Jobs!!" rhetoric, that fact goes a long way. All of this means one thing, better cars for less money from more manufacturers. Now, my question for the President is this, if the car companies like Ford and GM are going to have to learn to compete, why shouldn't the cattle ranchers and the timber companies? Ta,

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Intellectual Property -- Another Oxymoron of State Control

Thanks to Capt. C. Vain for e-mailing me this link. This is a great article on the true nature of intellectual property including some great thoughts by the architect of the U.S. Patent and Copyright system, one Thomas Jefferson. I remember reading Stephan Kinsella's arguments against intellectual property on LRC years ago and being, at first, recalcitrant to the ideas he was presenting. But, over time this dimbulb(sorry, Stephan I couldn't resist invoking The T.P.) was able to convince me that he was correct. It didn't help that I was willing to re-examine my views on property to see if they were, in fact, in error. Basically, my point about 'intellectual property' is this, in order to enforce your ownership of my idea you have to infringe upon the use of my private property to do so. Any enforcement of this type is clearly theft and, therefore, any claim you make invalid and immoral. The founders understood this conundrum and attempted to put in place an untenable middle-ground system which both had the unintended consequence of stifling the very innovation they sought to protect and laid the groundwork (by codifying the abridgement of private property to a small extent) for an expansion of the system in both time and severity of punishment. Just another example why minarchy is indefensible rhetorically, logically and historically. Not that the people who most desperately need to hear this are reading this page. Ta,

Monday, April 25, 2005

The E-E:The Future for Oil Prices

The E-E links to an article by Steve Polos of Export Development Canada who thinks that oil prices are headed lower. In which he states his reasoning (which I'll offer counterpoints for as we go):

Oil prices seem to be heading down right now. -- See this page and tell me what you think oil prices are currently doing?
The $USD has found its legs. -- See this page and tell me if you would buy Dollars right now?
Worldwide demand is slowing. -- If that's the case then why does the price keep going up? Why are there not refineries being built?
The run up in the Oil Price was due to speculation based on supply interruption. -- Short term shocks to the market show up as dips on the chart (usually coinciding with technically supportable events ) not 4 year long perfectly structured uptrends.... again see #1.

John, I hope the above list is enough to change your mind about the validity of Mr. Polos's argument. He's basically saying that the entire oil market is wrong. I'm not betting with him on that one. My prediction? $4 a gallon for gasoline in the U.S. by this time next year. That's just one reason why I'm not buying a Jeep Liberty, but a Toyota Matrix. Ta,

Ignore the Carnage: The HUI Marches to Its Own Beat

With the consolidation that has been occuring in the precious metals market sparked by the Dead Cat Bounce of the $USD off of the 1995 low centered around 0.80 I have been occupied with other things keeping only cursory tabs on the state of things. There is always a tendency, in me especially, to get irrational while exploring and analyzing a particular thing (market, philosophy, cars, game, TV show, etc). To temper that irrationality I find it best to focus on something else for a while. In terms of market analysis, I'll move away from the day to day moves of the indices and take a look at longer terms views (2 to 10 year charts). If things look healthy from that standpoint, then it's definately time to back off and spend time cultivating some other hobby or interest for a few months. With the recent action in the DOW ($INDU) and both $GOLD and $SILVER, it may be time to begin looking at things a little more closely, especially with an eye towards increasing my positions, if, indeed, we've reached a bottom in the $HUI. The link above is to the latest article by Adam Hamilton over at Zeallc.com , which does a very nice job of showing the non-relationship that exists between the $HUI (Unhedged Precious Metals Producers) and the general market as represented by the S&P500 ($SPX). It is a popular concern that in any broad market sell-off PM stocks will likely take a beating getting caught up in the whirlwind of selling. The question Mr. Hamilton brings into focus, using recent data, is the likelihood of that happening. The results are fascinating to say the least. His statistical regression of the data suggests that there is no relationship at all between the broad market and the $HUI. Ergo, look for something else as a prime mover of the price of that index, and don't sell your gold stocks because the DOW is in trouble. If one is going to sell out of his postion, have a better reason than flipping a coin, because that is what the data says you'd be doing. In a sell-off fear dominates the markets. Those who conquer their fear, survive the carnage better. The general market has begun, I think, its next downleg in this bear market. $GOLD and $SILVER are both fundamentally and technically very strong, so there is no reason to fear a selloff on that front. When their technicals break down, ask why and consider selling. But, now is not that time. Now is that time to consider doubling down and breaking the bank. Gold Stocks are lagging the gold price right now so during the next few months it makes sense (given no technical breakdown of the gold market) to take positions when appropriate. A quick look at all of the charts linked to in this article tells me that the broad stock market has yet to really begin to turn down. 2-year uptrends lines have yet to be broken which means that the fear that looms over this secular bear market has not taken hold just yet. Therefore, focus on the $USD for clues to $GOLD's direction. Eventually, the $HUI will follow. Ta,

Friday, April 22, 2005

No GM bailout now....

With the latest Senate vote the total spending on the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan now exceeds the debt load of financially-troubled General Motors. GM, who posted a $1.1 billion loss on Tuesday and pulled their forecasts for the rest of the year, is obviously over-burdened by both rising material and labor costs. Given the rancorous bargaining going on between GM and the UAW over restructuring the health care benefit it is unlikely that GM's balance sheet is going to improve on that front any time now either. Taking a look at GM's 10 year chart gives us some insight into where this company could be headed. One has to wonder if anyone at GM has dandruff... I mean there's enough Head and Shoulders present here to cure most of western civilization of those dreaded flakes. Even James Cramer is yelling "Sell!" on GM's corporate debt now. Don't be surprised if the link doesn't work... I wouldn't pay this guy for this kind of advice either. Honestly, he's about 5 years too late. Got gold? Have a weekend. Ta,

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

The Trial -- Down Under

For those who have not read Kafka's The Trial, or seen Terry Gilliam's Brazil, this entry by my predictable source of material The Eclectic Econoclast will give you a taste of both of those seminal works. Basically, a christian pastor in Australia was convicted of hate speech for using textual references fromt he Quran on the inferiority of women in his sermon. His crime... 'religious vilification' of Muslims. He found out about this here. While the article starts off strongly, with the bits clipped by the E-E, the author then tries to make a connection between this incident of the state run amok with the National Review removing books objectionable to CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) from their online shelves. She seems dismayed that a bunch of laptop bombardiers and Cheeto-Stuffing Couch Jockeys would duck and run for cover at the first hint of confrontation. Let's just say that I'm amused by this. A great many things have been said about the potential abuses of 'hate crime' legislation and I don't think it's necessary to repeat them here. Besides most of what I have to say about such legislation is both inappropriate to this space and could be, in places like Australia, considered hate speech. Ta,

$HUI to $GOLD Update: Technical Breakdown

While it makes little sense to me (not that I'm the world's most informed guy on these matters) the triangle formation in the HUI:GOLD ratio that I've been tracking here for the past 6 months or so has finally broken down. Looking at the chart linked to above you'll see a breakdowns of both the original lower trendline in mid-march and horizontal support centered around 0.45 last week. That latter breakdown would suggest to me that stocks which comprise the HUI are going to need much more time to recover. With Gold (and Silver, for that matter ... yay! Silver) itself bouncing assertively off of it's multi-year lower trendline this week (an event I had little doubt would occur) it would lend credence to the idea that the stocks of the HUI should recover without much further breakdown. I expect some chop in the HUI, unless Gold does something drastic, in the coming 6 to 8 weeks. If I had any free capital I would probably consider adding to a position at this point. There are some very good buys out there in the small cap precious metals arena. Ta,

W.A.C.O. -- What A Cook Out!

As per usual, Justin Raimondo is spot on with his using Waco as an analogy to the War in Iraq. For those that haven't seen the excellent film, Waco: The Rules of Engagement, I suggest renting/NetFlixing it ASAP. During the construction of my house, it was the only thing that stopped me from being on the job-site by 8:00am. Riveting. Sad. Damning. From Raimondo:

To all those liberal Democrats out there who are horrified by the Iraq war and its consequences, just remember this: before there was a Donald Rumsfeld in the Pentagon, there was a Janet Reno in the Department of Justice.

Ta,

Seriously Challenging the Pro-War Libertarian

Thanks to JT for putting me onto this article (especially in light of the events with the LPAC) from the Light of Reason. Herein the author describes the mechanism of non-debate used by those 'libertarians' who can justify to themselves the foray into Iraq somehow as being in keeping with libertarian philosophy and the resultant stance of non-interventionism. Certainly worth the time. Ta,

Benedit XVI : A Hope for Continuing the Goal of Peace

Having been raised Catholic (and today my mother is Catholic enough for my entire family, which looks good on her, btw) I remember the death of Popes Paul Vi and John Paul I and the hours spent watching TV waiting for their successors to be chosen. While I never truly embraced the faith or the teachings of the church, and today refuse to categorize that which I call 'spirituality,' I do recognize importance of choosing of a new Pope. For too much of my life I ignored the events of the world around me. I did not spend any energy or thought on the works of the current Pope; did not understand the ramifications to the cause of peace that his actions represented. My rejection of the church as a teenager created an all-too-predictable animosity/dismissiveness towards it (and its servants) that I am only now coming to terms with. It's nearly shameful to admit that I did not understand how much John Paul II did in the service of bringing about the kind of world that I now, so passionately (and some would say too passionately), advocate. So, here I am today, having just removed myself from an organization that I founded (the Alachua County Libertarian Party) because I and my 'radical agenda' are no longer truly welcome there, reading the words of John Paul II's successor, Benedict XVI, at just the right time. To know that an organization of such immense power and influence, in these tenuous times, chose to continue the work of John Paul II and stand in direct opposition to the collective horrors of the 140 years (since Lee surrendered at Appomattox), fills me with hope and strength. Ironically, the very thing the church and God are supposed to do for someone. Mysterous ways, indeed. (My mother would be proud of this admission, btw) More importantly, I know that I can stand proudly with the Catholic Church on this issue. Playing politics with the best of them, knowing that 'they've got my back,' as it were. There is no substitute for the truth. This is no retreat (as a friend accused me of in e-mail this morning), only a tactical repositioning of resources, my precious time. These ten days have been spent arguing points with people who were incapable of listening. Unwilling to consider a point of view that they had convinced themselves they disagreed with without having done the examination of that point of view themselves, they proved themselves closed-minded, myopic and insulting. I apologize for having neglected my readers (all 3 of you) to spend time with them in the pointless pursuit of influencing a dialogue, the execution of which does violence to the word itself. The Pope is dead. Long Live the Pope. If Benedict the XVI is half the man that John Paul II was, the Catholic Church, and the world itself, is on the path towards hope. Ta,

Tuesday, April 12, 2005

Common Rail Diesel -- A Viable Alternative?

With the possibility of being able to buy a new car looming my search for a car that will accomodate all of the possible present and future needs for myself and Capt. Charity Vain has led me to an interesting discovery. I live approximately 25 miles from work. We currently carpool the three of us to work everyday in C. C. Vain's 2002 Forester. A great and wonderful car it is. It is also paid for. When we become parents the need for two vehicles becomes an imperative (as C. Vain will be home with the child) As we live back a dirt road of variable quality the need for a car that can commute but also handle the terrain. So, within a budget of $16-$20k FRN's there are only a few choices that are viable. Especially considering that She and I have different vehicular needs. I need a car that can get 25+ miles/gallon with a usable back seat to fit a kid in a pinch. She needs a car that is a good kid hauler but doesn't necessarily have to get great mileage as she's not going to be driving nearly as much as I will. It wouldn't suck for the car to be able to tow a trailer and 5-6 scrubby goats either (they are also in the future plans... raise a cheer for an 'agricultural property tax examption.) Oh, and let's be honest, I don't like paying $800 for a transmission (automatic) that I won't enjoy driving.... so, that's a further restriction on potential cars. So, until yesterday the list was kinda short (basically the mini SUV's):

Subaru Baja -- I have a soft spot for this car which doesn't quite do everything it is intended to do but comes close.
Honda Element -- The biggest drawback is its inherent ugliness and inability to tow.
Subaru Ourback Sport -- Great little commuter (should average 28 MPG)
Toyota RAV-4 - Everything going for it except that I don't really like it.
Honda CR-V -- will not buy. too skinny.

There are others that fit the bill but I won't buy a Ford (Escape), or a GM as I don't trust them one bit. Also, none of the 4-door pickup trucks are available in a 'commuter' configuation that is reasonable. Toyota only offers the Tacoma 4-door with an automatic (YUCK!), Nissan doesn't offer the Frontier Crew Cab with the inline-4, The Chevy Colorado (the only possible Chevy I'd consider) only tows 1700 lbs with the I-4. The I-5 only comes with an automatic (YUCK!) Which brings me to the point of this post. I'd written the Jeep Liberty off because of it's need for the 3.7L V-6 and its 18 MPG. While it would make a great kid hauler, it won't make a good commuter, and I first wanted to look for a car that I would drive, as opposed to Capt. C.Vain. The Forester is nominally her car. Everything else about the Liberty I liked a lot. It's a Jeep, first and foremost, and that carries weight with me. I loved my 1993 Wrangler and other than the master brake cylinder, it didn't give me one whit of trouble in 8 years or 78,000 miles of mostly city driving.... and that car had the vastly underpowered 4-banger. So, color me surprised when I go popping around the Internet to see Jeep offering the Liberty with a 2.8l Turbo Diesel that gets an eye-popping 28MPG and generates 295 FT-Lbs of Torque. All of this comes from a latest generation of a techonology called Common Rail Injection (see link above). In this day of overly-costly political statments masquerading as cars (Honda Insite/Civic, Toyota Prius), where one could buy the gasoline version for so much less that the extra gasoline used would not equal the difference between the two versions. So, for those of us that want a car that can actually do what we need it to do, namely haul 4 people with reasonable comfort and still have room for packages, the techonological advancements made in diesel engines might offer a compelling alternative to not-quite-ready-for-primetime Hybrid fuel-cell/gasoline technology. Jeep, unfortunately puts this engine into a fully-loaded Sport model (4x4) that lists at $25+k FRN's. This, unfortunately, only comes with a 5-speed automatic tranny (YUCK!), but if that is the only comprimise, well, then I might just have to do so. The latest quote from carsdirect.com with rebates and incentives puts this just over-budget at $22.3k FRNs. But, this car solves so many of our problems that the extra up front cost may be worth figuring out how to get one of these procured. Then again, at $22.5k we're talking a Subaru WRX. Okay, now this is a car for a man to get excited about. I had been leaning towards getting the Honda Element because it is so damn versatile, but there's nothing inherently manly about it really. It wants to be tough looking, but, it's still a Honda, and Honda doesn't market their cars for men, the market them for femi-men and soccer moms. I'm neither. Ta,

Monday, April 11, 2005

Animal Cruelty and the Market Failure of Sport

The E-E has a post from last week with some of his thoughts on the economics of Animal Cruelty. In that post he throws up an abstract to a paper by Tyler Cowan on the subject, which has as its method of assigning value something that makes no sense to me whatsoever, ordinal utilitarianism or some such thing. Delving into that approach (yes, to debunk it) will take more time than I am willing to spend at this point. But, I digress. The point of the E-E's post was to call into question human activities via their animals which he is 'uneasy' about. He cites both Racing (Dog and Horse) and Catch-and-Release Fishing as things that may qualify as 'cruel.' While I may agree with him on the cruelty of C&R Fishing, as it causes pain and trauma to the fish for little net benefit, it also puts that fish back into the environment to learn from its mistakes and potentially teach other fish. How's that for turning the tables on the old adage of 'give a man a fish and he eats for a day...' ??? The program seems a lot like the Keynesian make-work argument about paying a man to dig a hole AND fill it back up again in order to stimulate aggregate demand (whatever that means). But dogs, especially, love to chase things. It is what makes them dogs after all. The basic idea of dogs chasing after a rabbit is not wrong or cruel (except for the rabbit, of course), its just the expression of a dog's natural prey drive/instinct. In addition, ff my minimal understanding of Horse psychology is correct, the alpha horse is always at the head of the herd, and therefore, racing is, as well, in their blood, as it were. Again, the behavior is completely normal. What is not normal are some of the more unscrupulous things done to get an animal to perform at its highest level. The unfortunate truth is that the racing dogs sometimes are treated badly. The mis-treatment comes most often when the animal is no longer capable of winning. Now, very much to the credit of the industry that produced these magnificent beasts, there is a concerted effort to adopt them out as pets afterwards. For those that don't know, greyhounds make outstanding family dogs that are, first and foremost, hounds. This means, of course, that they love their rest. The assumption is that they are tireless, high-energy dogs. This is incorrect. They just need to run a couple of times a week to be happy. Traditional family dogs such as Labs and German Shepherds are of a much higher energy level. These dogs need extreme amounts of mental AND physical stimulation to be happy. But, again, I digress. Now, the truly cruel and disgusting thing is Dog Fighting. It is a practice I abhor as I find it cruel and in-canine. I mean that exactly as it sounds, it is unnatural for dogs to fight each other to the death (or even to the point of serious damage). These fighting dogs have to be mistreated (and basically turned psychotic) to perform in the arena. The military's boot camp indoctrination system has a similar goal in mind. Go watch Full Metal Jacket again if you have the temerity to disagree with that statement. By my argument above, to be fair, cock-fighting is a normal behavior. Put two roosters in the same room together and they will go at one another until someone's lost an eye. The spurs the handlers put on their feet just hasten the fight up. The economics of both dog and horse racing do confer a benefit on both the individual animal who wins and the humans who are involved at all levels. Dogs and Horses know they are competing, and love it. They know their champions and are treated as such. Have you ever seen a Border Collie after having won an Agility Competition, which is a race, by the way? They are the happiest dogs in the world. That race you've watched them run is the culmination of years of intensive owner/dog interaction, something all dogs crave. From just that standpoint alone, the dogs who compete benefit in ways that most pets never will. From what little I've learned about horses from Capt. Charity Vain (whose family used to raise quarterhorses an run a hay shop in Ocala) and her family, the thoroughbreds are some of the most pampered animals in the world. Not all of them, mind you. There are, of course, unscrupulous breeders/racers who run their horses ragged and discard them like yesterday's newspaper. There's little to be done about that, and to call that a 'failure of the market' is to hold 'the market' to a standard that is impossible to achieve, in my opinion. So, in the end, I have to disagree with the E-E about his unease on these two particular activities. Now, if he were to rephrase that post in terms of it discussing dog fighting? Well, that's another story indeed. Ta,

FMNN: e-Radio : Me and the NHL

On friday I taped a 25 minute radio interview with FMNN covering the NHL lockout and generally flogging my article over there (which I posted here first, btw). If any of you want to confirm just how much I like to listen to myself talk (too quickly I might add), then click the link above. Curiouser and Curiouser. Ta,

Tuesday, April 05, 2005

A Billion Here... A Billion There

From !, via my Inbox comes this little ditty:

The next time you hear a politician use the word "billion," casually, think about whether you want the politician spending your tax money. A billion is a difficult number to comprehend, but one advertising agency did a good job of putting that figure into perspective in one of its releases.

A billion seconds ago it was 1959.

A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.

A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.

A billion days ago no-one walked on two feet on earth.

A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes, at the rate the government spends it.

And they say nothing bad can happen to you while you sleep the sleep of the just. Hrm. Me? That's why I have rifles. Ta,

Movie Review: Sin City

The troop and I went to see Sin City last night. I was a huge comics fan back in the late-80's through 2000, but eventually drifted away from them directing my focus at other things. I'd hesitate to say that I'm not a comics fan anymore, though. It's more like how I feel about Pink Floyd and The Who, these are bands whose music I love but don't actively listen to anymore, preferring different music to explore. I say all of this because I was there when Frank Miller's Sin City came out and I never could get into it. I loved Miller's Hardboiled (with the brilliant Geoff Darrow) and, of course, The Dark Knight Returns. These, along with Ronin and Batman:Year One are some of the best stories I've read in comic form. I did not like the Martha Washington Stuff (Give Me Liberty with Dave Gibbons) and felt Miller was plowing the same ground. When Sin City came out (I may have bought an issue or two) the artwork and visual flow for me just didn't work and I didn't give it any thought after that. I noted all of the accolades and the huge fanbase the books had, but my interests moved further and further away from what Miller was doing in those books and didn't really give it any serious thought. With all of that out of the way, I went into the theater last night cold, having no earthly idea how the movie was going to be other than what I had seen in a couple of trailers and what I knew of the comics (very little). Capt. Charity Vain had told me some of the mythology surrounding the making of the movie and that was intriguing. A positive review from JG the Socialist (*grin*), whose opinion on these things I respect and an opportunity to hang out with Berry, IrishOne, !, The Lone Mantis and, of course, Capt. Charity Vain made going to the movies sound a lot better than going home and grinding out a level playing World of Warcraft. Suffice it to say, I was impressed. A tightly braided anthology of stories surrounding the neutering of a powerful family held together by the common theme of men proving themselves to themselves. Men in Sin City do what needs to be done, without hesitation, though with a fear that is genuine. All three men, Hartigan, Marv, and Dwight are marvelously realized and well played. Special props have to go to Mickey Rourke (whom I didn't recognize and mornally despise) as Marv. He was just brilliant, bringing the right mix of brutality and pathos to both the onscreen performance and the voice-overs. I found myself smiling and giggling time and again at Marv's little observations. "I love hitmen. No matter what you do to them, you don't feel bad." Ahhh.... movie heaven. I have to agree with Capt. C. Vain that Michael Madsen didn't seem to be hitting the right notes in his scenes with Bruce Willis and their overly-stagy performance hurt the opening sequence a bit. Willis, though, is one of my personal favorites. When in the right role he is brilliant and devastating (Twelve Monkeys and The Sixth Sense come to mind). I would consider this a 'right role' for him. Clive Owen was spooky-good. I had visions of Gabriel Byrne in Miller's Crossing (one of my favorite performances by an actor of all-time) during the opening sequence in the apartment, but with more overt machismo. Let it be known that this movie proves that Benicio Del Toro is capable of speaking english, a statement not provable previous to this. Rodriguez's direction and framing are superb, bringing to life the pages of Miller's comics in a way that was infinitely more palatable to me than Miller did originally. My problem with Miller's work post-Hardboiled is the lack of logical flow from panel to panel, an issue magnified in the sequel to the Dark Knight Returns that I felt was nigh-unreadable. No doubt that the individual panels are gorgeous, but I don't like having to fight through the panels to find the story. In the film, the visuals are stunning, using the source material as an elaborate and intricate storyboard to unwind the tale that was previously obscured (at least for me). Miller's comics obviously spoke volumes to Rodriguez and I, for one, thank him for translating that story into a form that I could readily (and greedily) digest. Bravo! This is not a film for the faint of stomach. Much like the violence in Kill Bill vol.1, here it is over-the-top and highly stylized and brutally effective. No punches are pulled in Sin City. They all hit with a ferocity that unnerves. But, seeing as these people have made their own rules in their own world and know the price they paid to have what they have, it's hard to believe they would react to any threat any other way. I haven't been to the movie theater since re-watching The Incredibles back in December. What a way to go! Ta,

Monday, April 04, 2005

NHL Negotiation Redux

For those that follow this space regularly you know that I just might be the biggest hockey fan south of the Mason-Dixon line. A big claim to be sure, and within a pool of competitors for that claim that is far larger than the many people (including hockey fans) think. I know I'm probably the biggest hockey fan in my rural north Florida town. That's gotta count for something. What that may be, I'm not sure, but, whatever, I'll take whatever small titles beyond Crazy-Mogambo-Worshipper-Who-Lives-Back-Thataway. Be that as it may, this past year has been really troubling for me, what with the players refusal to understand the economic realities facing them and the owners trying desperately to re-work an unhealthy business model in a hostile and overly-complex legal environment. I've blogged about this situation on too many occasions. Everything from political lessons to be learned to my proposed CBA. This pain is especially acute today as the knowledge that this would be the last week of the regular season and the playoff races would be at their very best. Playoff-quality hockey would have been being played by just about every team for nearly a month and the fan would be getting the most bang/crash/shoot/pass/save/GOOOAAALLLL! for their buck. We would be less than 10 days from the start of the single best sporting event in the world, The Stanley Cup Playoffs. Two months of the toughest, most passionate competition available by satellite/cable. The Stanley Cup is so valuable (in economic terms) simply because it is both singular and nigh-impossible to attain. It is truly the Holy Grail of sports and is truly every sports cliche wrapped up in 35 pounds of Sterling Silver, but all that much more so. So, with all of that drama, emotion, history, legend, myth and romance why is it that we as fans have spent more time in the past three years worrying about things like salary caps, linkage, unions, qualifying offers, arbitration rights, salary rollbacks, Impasse, replacement players, and how the National Labor Relations Board views all of this? Because, ultimately, the future of the NHL is now left in the hands of government-appointed bureaucrats and judges, not the men and women who have built the franchises, worn their sweaters and packed their arenas. The dry economics of this problem is bound up in Anti-Trust Law (and the Three Rules governing it). The owners are bound by legalities that create animosity between labor and management. The players get bad pricing signals as to their worth because contract negotiations take place in a favorably-regulated market. The Union is able to bring more leverage to bear against management simply because of the law standing behind them like the proverbial 800-lb Gorilla (and this one has a lot of heavy ordnance strapped to its chest). With the two sides going back to the bargaining table (a misnomer considering the way talks have 'progressed' so far) in light of the filing of grievances against the NHLPA (Union) by the NHL this may be the last chance they have to work out a new CBA before the matter is turned over to the courts. There is little to hope for at this point as the NHLPA has steadfastly refused to accept the reality that the NHL is serious about getting their bottom line straightened out. Worse still, if the NHL is able to declare an 'Impasse' (and allowed to unilaterally impose a new CBA) there are local anti-scab laws in place at a state/provincial level that the NHL will have to deal with. Some franchises will be forbid to ice a team of replacement players (Minnesota, Montreal, Vancouver). None of this information is new or noteworthy to the informed fan, certainly. But, to the casual/non-fan there is a lesson to be gleaned from this situation. Anti-trust law and its imposition onto professional sports has had the effect of destroying the quality of the competition and value, even the NFL. Speaking from personal experience I have come to despise the NFL in its current form. The game is a reductio ab absurdum of the game I grew up with and devoured. To blitz or not to blitz (or to which side to blitz) is all defense is anymore. It feels mechanical and predeterministic and I think that comes from a lack of stability in personnel. The systems that are successful are emulated by every team. They all play the same game the same way (with minor variations detailed to death by ESPN) and the games are rarely entertaining. Feh! Now, that said, the NFL, from a business standpoint is wildly successful and it is truly because they have an economic system that tends to the league first and the individual markets second. Sports leagues, viewed from within, are not free markets. Internally they play a zero-sum game and as such need to have access to resources that are reasonably equal in order to viably compete to win. It is analogous to playing a board game where the Shoe gets to start with more points, accumulates points faster than The Hat does, is in a better starting board position to leverage those points accumulated and yet, the number of points needed to win are the same for all players. So, do you want to be the Shoe or the Hat? Whether the players like it or not, they work for the NHL. Whether the individual owners like it or not, they are a part of the NHL. With the landscape between this CBA discussion radically altered from the last time this process took place (more Hats now than Shoes) there is the hope that a system can be put in place to ensure that everyone will be able to compete for the Stanley Cup, and it will once again go to the most worthy team. That's what is missing from the NHL in my mind. The ultimate meritocracy has been regulated away in the name of fairness. As always, when the government starts regulating fairness that just means we all have to suffer equally. Ta,

Friday, April 01, 2005

LRC Benedict Article Follow-Up

[THIS POST CONTAINS NAUGHTY WORDS... THE ONES I USE IN REAL LIFE ALL THE TIME BUT RARELY HERE] For those who come here before going to LRC (that would be none of you, I know) the above link is to my story about how Capt. Charity Vain and I acquired Bennie from Alachua County Animal Services which Lew Rockwell graciously published this morning. I wanted to blog some attendant details to that story for those who come here from there, as there are things left out that were nor germane to that narrative. As previously blogged here and here, my family (dogs and cats included) are all on a hunter-gatherer diet which consists mostly of raw/rare meat, nuts and vegetables. The dogs are fed the raw meat and bones from animals such as chicken, pork, turkey and beef. Capt. C. Vain also makes regualar trips to the local meat processor in Newberry to pick through their offal bins for bones and fat (She and a friend make soap on the side). What's important to note is the extreme prejudice and ignorance that exists in the veterinary community about the nutritional requirements for dogs and cats. So, during that first visit to the vet after plucking Bennie from the jaws of Death by Bureacracy I told this vet (who I didn't know... our regular vet was no longer affiliated with that hospital) that I'd fed Bennie a pork neck upon bringing him into the house. Well, she about flipped her lid. Her eyes got really big and she became frantic. Hell, I thought she was going to hyperventilate. "Dogs can't digest pork!" she cried. I reply, "Oh really? then tell that to my other two dogs who've been living on them for 3 years!" This is a very touchy issue with me. I hate vegetarianism and despise what's been done by the pet food companies and the vets (who benefit from all of the newly-created health problems) to the animals in their care. "No. No. NO! Dogs lack the enzyme to digest pork," she countered. At this point I think I said something really mean. But, she was determined and made me promise not to feed him pork during the heartworm treatment. I did so just to shut the crazy bitch up. She obviously cared deeply about the animals in her care but was also astoundingly ignorant. I cut her short. His nutrition is my problem, not hers. She muttered a couple more admonishments about feeding pork to dogs and I believe I told her to flat-out "Shut up and finish examining the dog." Needless to say, I took Bennie home and fed him the entire pack of pork necks I'd laid out for him. When Capt. Charity Vain brought him back for a follow-up exam (after the hookworm and coccidia treatment) this lunatic thought he was impacted. She thought he had a piece of bone lodged in his ass, and before C. Vain could stop her had shoved her hand up his ass to extract the offending material. "See! You shouldn't feed bones to dogs!" she cried smugly. Bennie yelped and squealed when she did this, of course, and for 3 years would not let a vet or anyone else really go near his backside. Frankly, I don't blame him. If someone I barely knew stuck their hand up my ass well, I'd be more than just a little touchy about the subject. Visions of my fist and their face making repeated contact come readily to mind. Capt. C. Vain, who is the very antithesis of the shy, retiring female was astounded and, unfortunately, caught flat-footed by this vet's behavior. Her response to this was just to brush it off with, "Hell, I have another dog half Bennie's size who can shit a golfball, you ignorant woman." Unbelievable. Needless to say, we don't go to that vet anymore. In the good news category, we had a mobile vet come out to Outer Luongolia last month and he examined Bennie over thoroughly. We've been afraid since we got him that his hips would go bad soon because when we got him his backside has no strength whatsoever. He wasn't strong enough to trot, he paced. You could tap the dog on his butt and he would yelp in pain and fall down. Being an American-bred German Shepherd with that sloping topline combined with a poor upbringing could easily have led to his hips going bad. But, thankfully, the vet told us he's in great shape. His hips and joints are really strong and tight and there's no inflammation indictating a problem. I guess that year of running around loose in the woods has mitigated any potential for hip disaster. The end of this story is that he's now strong as 2 oxen. The other day I came home to a present on my keyboard.... What was left of the choke chain we had on him. He keeps breaking his collars and his tie-outs. He's around 90 pounds and just solid as a rock. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, that honor goes to Pheobe. Now you have the whole story. Ta, P.S. See the comments for a discussion of our cat's diet and a really easy way to make your own ultra-healthy catfood.

Thursday, March 31, 2005

Is that a Nuke in Your Pocket or Are You....

The E-E has a brilliant post on why the Canadians should develop a nuclear weapons program.

The problem for Canada is that we have no way of threatening anything to the U.S. in order to obtain speedier and fuller compliance by the U.S. with the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, with the North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA], and the decisions made by the WTO. The best we can come up with is, "If you don't stop hurting our beef industry, we'll just have to.... we'll just have to .... well, we'll think of something."

Why do I get visions of South Park running through my head. "Die, Canadian Scum!!!" Honestly, his analysis of the American mercantilist system is spot on, and the idea of Canada raising the stakes to combat U.S. plundering of their resources is not a bad one. However, I'm uncomfortable with nuclear weapons as the mechanism. Really all the Canadians have to do is dump their Central Bank Reserves onto the market and put the Cando back on a Gold Reserve System. That would do the kind of real damage that could topple the U.S. Political Machine. The real WMD's are sitting in the Central Bank Vaults of just about every country in the world. And, so far, the threat of them has not been enough of a deterrent. Methinks it's time for a warning shot or two. Ta,

Elf? This Sounds More Like a Dwarf Name to Me.

From JT comes this little nugget of morning fun. Enter your name at the URL above and it will (supposedly) elf-ify it for you. My good friend the IrishOne will definately enjoy this.

My crappy little elf name is Thom Granitebottom.
What's yours?
Powered by Rum and Monkey.

Hmm... so do you think re-naming this blog Being Thom HardAss would be more appropriate? Ta,

Johnny Cochran Dead

Apparently his heart had shrunk to the point where it would no longer pump blood. Good Riddance. Ta,

Thursday, March 24, 2005

Follow Up: More Non-Academic Poets of Yore

In response to my article at LRC yesterday I got some very interesting (and almost exclusively positive) e-mails. Only one took me to task for an oversight and the writer, Tom White, made a very salient point that I felt needed to be shared here (and this e-mail is being reprinted with his written permission):

> Dear TL: You deal rightly with the flight of poets and writers to academe and the dreadful effect of that on writers and our literary art generally. Could wish you had mentioned the incomparable Ezra Pound, who, after a brief stint teaching at a college in the Midwest (from which he was dismissed, as he said, largely because he was the "Latin Quarter type"), never worked at a college, or even at any job, the rest of his life. Called Harvard, e.g., the "beanery back of Boston." Now he has ended up as the subject of endless theses in academies worldwide, which is precisely what he predicted. We have a little "po group" here in Odessa-Midland Texas: about six of us. Absolutely no public support, and we are all as old as the hills, but I have come to feel that somehow we honor the Muses, and I think some of the work coming forward is good if modest. Keep em flying. Tom White

As I explained in my reply I should not have said that Wallace Stevens was the ONLY non-academic major poet of the 20th Century, but rather a rare example thereof. My excuse was, feebly, that I am a bigger fan of Stevens than of Pound. This is not any kind of excuse for that type of inaccuracy. I haven't read any Pound in years, and maybe I should re-visit him as an older/crazier man. Ezra to me has existed only as T.S. Eliot's proof-reader/editor. Without his ruthless excisions "The Waste Land" would probably be better known as "The Waste of Time." Thanks Tom for bringing this up. Ta,

The Avalanche or Tip of the Iceberg?

The Chevy Avalanche is a butt-ugly automobile if you haven't noticed. It's big, unwieldy, has too much plastic cladding, only salable with deep discounts, and has styling suggesting a misplaced sense of agggression. I drive by a Chevy dealership everyday and at multiple points last year I saw them being discounted as much as $7000 (!!), a nearly 22% discount. In my mind they stand as a symbol of everything that is wrong with GM and the U.S. Financial system in general. The link above is to an article at Kitco by Jason Hommel, publisher of the Silver Stock Report, about what the recent spike down in the price of GM stock means in a broader sense. Honestly, I got less than halfway through before I started writing this piece.... because unlike most people 'educated' in government schools, I can do math and the two most important numbers Mr. Hommel mentions are GM Market Cap = $USD 16 billion GM Debt = $USD 300 billion. So, if GM defaulted on this debt (which it can't possibly repay) how much of a problem would this be?

It's bigger than Enron, Global Crossing, LTCM, K-Mart, and the IRAQ war all put together!

They are set to lose $1.50/share this quarter alone, and the Fed just raised interest rates again, making it even harder for them to service that mountain of debt. It's been well-known for years that GM makes more money financing debt than actually selling cars. By the looks of the cars they produce is it any wonder? I'd read the rest of the article only if you have a really strong stomach. In the immortal words of Ambassador Kosh from the TV show Babylon 5, "The Avalanche has started and it is too late for the pebbles to vote." Ta,

Wednesday, March 23, 2005

I'm a Bigger Totalitarian Than You Are!

Props to the Lone Mantis for putting me in touch with this one as I don't read the daily campus bird-cage liner unless I've nothing else to do when in the men's room. The thing of evil that is HB 0837 cannot be underestimated. The sponsor of the bill, one Dennis Baxley R-Ocala, is so worried about students not getting the full truth, whatever that is that...

While promoting the bill Tuesday, Baxley said a university education should be more than “one biased view by the professor, who as a dictator controls the classroom,” as part of “a misuse of their platform to indoctrinate the next generation with their own views.”

So, to combat these little dictators Baxley himself will act as dictator by forcing them to present other ideas or views. I guess he doesn't like the idea of someone else having control over something he knows nothing about. He's a funeral parlor operator after all, not an instructor at a university, who holds a degree in a field that is incapable of generating any imperical data. Students in public univeristies in Florida would have the right (RIGHT!) to sue a professor who was not respecting the student's beliefs (read creationism), singling them out in class to answer a question, making an off-hand remark that might offend someone's sensibilities (Homosexuals have higher time preference), or grading them based on perceived ideological bias. Instructors could sue the universities for not granting them tenure. This is just more Affirmative Action nonsense. The language of the bill is a complete mess, with vague terminology that will do nothing more thna clog up the court system with nonsensical lawsuits. The chilling effect on what is and is not said in a classroom will be unbelievable. Now, don't get me wrong. Much of the above happens all the time on college campuses. I had a friend fail a course in American History for arguing the Anti-Federalist side of the ratification of the constitution because the instructor disagreed with her premise (not, mind you, that she didn't adequately back up her premise). I have another friend who almost did not graduate because of one instructor's vendetta against him that started with a philosophical disagreement. All of these things suck, no doubt. If Rep. Baxley is appalled at the preponderance of leftists on Florida college campuses then remove their power base. The Florida legislature is one the sources of this problem, the Federal government is another. The unwieldy, unresponsive slush fund that is the modern education system in America is the source of the problem coupled with the already indecipherable and conflicting legislation governing it. This is another example of the Mogambo's wisdom: "More of what is killing you is the cure." Ta,

Mission Accomplished.

When I started this blog last summer I did so with a particular goal in mind. I wanted to get an article published on LRC. Simple and direct. I wanted to join the ranks of people whose work has had such a huge effect on my life in the past few years. Hubris? maybe. Mostly it was just a desire to see if I could do it. My thinking was that I needed to spend time putting words down on paper both to hone my rhetorical skills in a public setting and make the process habitual. I tend to flit from one interest/hobby to the next without becoming excellent at any one thing so creating the habit was of particular importance. On top of that was the inherent doubt that I was writing anything of quality. So, my insecurity led me down this path, as opposed to just writing an article and then submitting it to Mr. Rockwell for his approval, where I started with nothing with nobody (save Capt. Charity Vain) in view. It was a big step for me, actually. I tend to not want to show people my work and am just uncomfortable with either praise or rejection. I was very careful when I was writing poetry, showing my work to only a few of my closest friends. So, with the blog started (and no earthly idea of how to promote it) I started putting words on the page. After a two month hiatus, where I was getting no traffic whatsoever (In hindsight that was no shock... I had no presence anywhere else. One must do some amount of advertising to grab eyeballs.), I came back with a different approach. I decided to embrace the community and find my niche in it. I went in search of resources to promote my blog (Technorati, Feedburner, Blogshares), joined a blogging association, and *gasp* even at one point joined a tit-for-tat browsing community.One day I perused Blogger's list of 'Recently Updated Blogs' and found one called The Econoclast.... ... and it all went down hill from there. I posted a couple of comments in his most excellent blog, and he began reading my work and constantly linking in to my site. For this I am both very grateful and humbled. He deserves a lot of credit for the amount of traffic I get here (Thanks John!). Some other people who have done my a great service are Tex at UnfairWitness, Tom Knapp at Knappster and the Libertarian Jackass, who picked up one of my articles about Tom Palmer's smear tactics and brought a boatload of eyeballs here. This Oscar speech is important because without that kind of positive feedback (accurate pricing information) I would never have gotten the courage to finally e-mail Lew Rockwell yesterday for his submission requirements. I am many things: libertarian, husband, egoist, ex-smoker/bassist/poet, bad drummer, consummate asshole, to scratch the surface. But, one thing I am not is confident of my ability to produce quality. I don't mind wasting my time noodling and experimenting, but I'm acutely sensitive to wasting other's with my doing so. With all that said, I'd like to welcome those of you who have come here from this morning's piece at LRC, and welcome back my (all 3 of you)normal readership. Now, I just have to figure out how to keep the first group of y'all coming back! Ta,

Tuesday, March 22, 2005

Of Guns and Pogo Sticks: The Limits of Trespassing

Tom Knapp is quite the guy. Period. This is an absolutely fantastic piece on the limits of property and how one's right to ownership interacts with another's. Knapp uses the 2nd Amendment's guarantee ot keep and bear arms as his example. Stephan Kinsella years ago on LRC used similar arguments to prove that intellectual property was an oxymoron(see articles here and here) So, for me, this has been a settled issue for a long time. Ta,

The LP Pledge: Should it Go?

Here in Alachua County our local LP affiliate has a yahoo group for discussion. And, after a recent speech by Chuck Muth at the LP of California's convention, a discussion during an LPF committee meeting of whether the pledge that one must take to be an LP member should be maintained arose. Our former chair of the LPAC and current secretary of the LPF, Ray Roberts posted the following up as a potential replacement for the current LP pledge:

"I believe that force should only be used to protect life, liberty, and property." I propose the statement above as an improved Libertarian Pledge that is less ambiguous and more accurate than the current pledge. It has advantages: · It's a positive rather than a negative statement. This is what we believe. · The word "only" makes it clear that force should not be used for any other purposes (unambiguous). · It presents the fundamental rights we value... life, liberty, and property. · It should be acceptable to all "flavors" of Libertarians. · It doesn't forbid tax-supported limited government (accurate). · It's much easier to remember. · It's almost short enough to put on a long bumper sticker. :) Let's make the Pledge something we can all support, promote, and remember. Let's change the pledge!

Ray's got an entire article here which further explains his points. Now, this post is not here to support Ray's idea. Actually, it's quite the contrary. Normally, I would engage in a point by point refutation of Ray's argument, but this time Capt. Charity Vain beat me to it. These are the high points (C. Vain's comments are in bold):

>• It presents the fundamental rights we value... >life, liberty, and property. The oath isn't about rights, it's about principle. Think about it, it is meaningless to take an oath proclaiming what your rights are. Would you ever lie about what you think your rights are? Would it matter? or • It's much easier to remember. So is 'I like pie!' but that doesn't mean it should be the oath. Oaths are not to be taken lightly, and shouldn't be judged for brevity.

Now, you tell me.... Do I have the coolest wife in the world or not? This is also not to demean Ray's efforts here, just that the proposed solution is not a good one. Ray is a damn fine advocate for the cause and is working extremely hard in whatever way he can to improve things. He just ended a two-year stint as chair of the LPAC and we never had a better one. Capt. C. Vain and I are both Chair Emeriti. I don't know what the answer to this problem is, but I know that the above pledge is not acceptable. Ta,

Monday, March 21, 2005

Follow Up: Florida HB1223 Lobbying Report

HB1223 (the Senate version is SB2180) is in committee and I got an update from LPF V-Chair Walt Augustinowicz on it last night. The link above contains both the bill itself and my commentary on the things of interest. For those readers here in Florida please make a point to call, e-mail or fax a couple of the people on the committee along with your state rep./senator.

Rep. Arza 850-488-1683 (Comm.Chair) Rep. Pickens 850-488-0665 (Comm. V-Chair) fax: 850-413-7330 Rep. Ausley 850-488-0965 fax: 850-488-3336 Rep. Bogdanoff 850-488-0635 Rep. Farkas 850-488-5719 Rep. Gottlieb 850-488-0145 Rep. Murzin 850-488-8278 Rep. Richardson 850-488-1798 fax: 850-922-2096 Rep. Traveisa 850-488-9910

You can get relevant information here about your Reps./Senators here. If you don't know who your representatives in Tallahassee are then go here first. If we make a bit of noise in the next couple of weeks we can make this a reality. Imagine high school teachers actually having to discuss concepts such as nullification and federalism. The horror! Ta, P.S. This is what I wrote to Dwight Stansel, my rep:

I would like you to consider putting your considerable standing within the Florida House to use in favor of HB1223. I believe it is important that our educational system dispense facts and not ideology. There are too many good lessons available in the History of American that we are currently not taking advantage of. I urge you strongly to do what you can to make sure this bill does not die in committee.

The E-E: The Language of Anti-Trust Economics

Gotta love the Eclectic Econoclast, after a weekend of painting and studiously not-painting, I check in to see this little gem:

Here are three more lessons to learn about anti-trust economics: 1. If you charge less than everybody else, it called unfair competition. 2. If you charge more than everybody else, it called price gouging. 3. If you charge the same as everybody else, it called collusion.

And when you have all three things at the same time it's called a public utility. Ta, P.S. I couldn't find a legal definition of Price Gouging. Laws against it are certainly on the books, as here in Florida we have anti-Price Gouging laws in effect during emergencies, the very time when we need accurate prices of essentials to effect speedy solutions to the problems caused by the emergency. *sigh*

Wednesday, March 16, 2005

The Poetics of Global Warming

As a regular reader of LRC I have to say that some days the offerings there are definately more interesting for me than others. Today is one of those fantastic days, with two jaw-droppingly engrossing articles. One on the current sad state of poetry in America by Camille Paglia and the other a wonderful look at Michael Crichton and his views of global warming by Donald W. Miller. Now, Paglia first. Having spent a bunch of my youth involved in the Creative Writing dept. at the University of Florida as an undergraduate I sympathize completely with what she is talking about. All the poetry being produced by those who had been there the longest was dead, boring, flat, inward-looking and exclusionary. Written for each other and for their instructors, it seemed to me (and the friends I'd made through this ordeal) that the whole process was designed from the ground up to destroy any sense of individuality and create carefully constructed safe-houses of fragile egos and not engaging or exciting language for its own sake. Moreover, I honestly don't think anyone really had anything to say, they just liked the idea of being poets. I would be dishonest if I didn't admit to being somewhat seduced by the concept. I was, after all, around 21 years old and looking for my niche in life. But, eventually, you come to realize that you write because you cannot do anything else, not because of some image of yourself you'd like to project. This was coupled with the inherently defeatist attitude that the masses don't get it and therefore your work should not attempt to speak to them or use references thereof. Ossificiation of the "Institution of Poetry" had set in with those in charge of the department, which is an outgrowth of simple Authoritarian Socialism, deciding what is and what is not acceptable usage and/or reference. I had it even worse as I was studying Chemistry and Physics while doing this and was fascinated by the implications of various physical laws and their relation to language. At one point I was told flat-out by William Logan, "Scientific references don't work in poetry. Don't use them." The contrarian asshole in me then proceeded to write at least three pieces using Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle as their thematic glue. Had I really been a rebel I would have turned in work that steadfastly refused to incorporate the requirements of that week's assignment. The other day I unearthed a bunch of the stuff from this era of my life, both my work (of all kinds of quality) and those of my friends, replete with commentary from my instructors, who obviously did not understand me, and their biases which nearly destroyed my desire to perservere. This is evident in the general lack of quality in the work I turned in for them. Being forced to write about things I did not want to created sloppy and unfocused work... which, to them, was my fault (as evinced by their comments), not the fault of them or their course. The sheer lack of growth in my work during the two semesters of note is stunning. Much of what I've posted here was written after this period. The classes were treated just like factories. There were weekly assignments with labyrinthine requirements; arbitrary grading of the quality of the pieces; and mandatory revision of each piece. The entire class was graded on a curve... yes, people got "D's" in a poetry workshop after having participated in the discussion and having turned in 12 poems in 15 weeks. The formalization of the Instructor (Authority) and Student (citizen) did nothing but destroy the productivity and morale of every potentially-gifted writer in the group. Some never recovered, while others sublimated their impulse to write by applying it elsewhere. This kind of power structure is not anymore conducive to creative solutions to language problems than the Kyoto Protocol is to perceived climate problems. My poetry instructors in their manic quest to hold on to formal structure, language and tradition were just imposing their neuroses on their students without regard for the damage they were doing to them or the art. The environmentalists who are willing to disregard the hard data about the lack of correlation of climate change to CO2 levels in the atmosphere are guilty of the same thing. Convinced that their ideas are correct (and in a position to enforce these ideas) their single-mindedness can destroy the very thing they are trying to save. Ta, P.S. This was not indended as a means of pimping my old poetry. Much of it is truly wretched. I remember saying to my good friend, The Cuban, that if I could write one line as good as Wallace Stevens', "She sang beyond the genius of the sea." from The Idea of Order at Key West I could die a very happy man. Maybe that's why I'm still so pissed off.

Tuesday, March 15, 2005

For Those Who Asked for Pictures...

... all 3 of you. Pics are here, here, here, and here. The porch that I took off a couple of days from work and blogging to build is mostly finished. It is lacking both paint and screen, hopefully this will be rectified by Friday afternoon. Also, note in this picture that the room behind the porch itself will be boxed in and become part of the house proper. I'll move the door out to that wall and put in a window as well. These pics were taken after Capt. Charity Vain and I spent that morning putting the shingles up (all except the last course and the aluminum flashing). The entire project was started on the morning of Saturday March 5th. By Wednesday (March 9th) afternoon all of what is shown in the pictures was finished (except for a bit of the framing on the right side and the shingling). The only work done on Wednesday was the framing, which I did by myself. After Tuesday's marathon session of pouring/finishing the concrete slab, we all decided to take it easy. My poor Father-in-Law was really tired and he, Charity Vain, and his wife spent most of the day out and about shopping. Really the bulk of the work was performed in 4 days total, as we only worked half a day on Monday (March 7th) as well. A trip into Gainesville was required to pick up some needed things and order the shingles for the roof. Let's all raise a shout and give a cheer for roof-top delivery of shingles!!! For those interested in the building design: the house is a 24'x24' cube with a 5 in 12 roof. It is a Post and Beam building with 6x6's on 12' centers. All of the beams are 6x10's (pics of which are here), and yes, those are three 2x10's with 1/2" plywood gussets between them. A pictoral history of the first 3 months of building(with commentary by !) is located here for posterity's sake. The Porch is 10' x 24' with a 3 in 12 roof. The Poles are 4x6's set on 8' centers. The rafters are 2x8's and rest on a 2x10" ledger board. It is facing South. The plan for the summer of 2005 is to build Module 2 off of the East wall of Module 1 (that would be the big wall with no windows on it in the pictures of the porch). The current plan (which is subject to much hand-wringing and change) is to build a 16'x34' addition (which means, of course 18'-20' long Rafters) that will contain the Master Bedroom/Bath and extend the living room across both modules and allow for the placement of a wood-burning stove to (hopefully) heat the entire monstrosity. Total square-footage will be approximately 1600, with the possibility of another porch off the North Wall of the house. Now, the lesson here is simple. It ain't rocket science. Hell, it ain't even soil science! It's just a lot of hard work, sweat and determination. When we started this project I could barely drive a nail straight (and, boy, did my elbow inform me of this fact). By the end, well, I could frame in an entire room and cut and measure sheathing for those walls in two hours. I plumbed the entire house (with help from !) built the vanity for my bathroom, the counter-top in my kitchen, a book shelf, and a kitchen cabinet (which I have to replicate all through my kitchen over the next couple of years). Capt. Charity Vain wired the whole place (including 3-way switches and the like), tiled the tub/shower surround and kitchen counter (I grouted), painted everything that's painted and laid all of the flooring we have. ! had to learn how to lay out and build a staircase and did yeoman's work in setting the trusses. We all suffered pouring the concrete slab. We're not finishers (yet), the interior is very rough. As time and money permits we will get around to doing all the things on the inside that need to be done.... or not. I frankly don't care. I didn't build this house for someone else. I built it for me, Capt. C. Vain and whatever children we have. Resale value? Feh! This is my home. To hell with all other considerations. If I can do this... anyone can. Ta, P.S.: I'd like to mention that a whole lotta people came out to help us on the weekends and whenever they could. The list is prodigious (!, Rick, Gina, Ken, Geof, Trish, Matt, Ron, Betty, Steve, Kimmy, Gina II, Ashley and G.), and it was insanely humbling to see so many people willing to come out and sweat in the Florida heat for myself and C. Vain. I know that only a few of you check this space, but y'all know who you are and you have my undying thanks and gratitude (and public confirmation thereof).

Guess Who's Coming to FMNN ?

I didn't want to say anything about this until it was absolutely confirmed (which it has to my satisfaction), but about 10 days ago I got an e-mail from Mark Fadiman over at FMNN asking me if I'd like to join their list of commentators on a non-exclusive basis. I thought about it for a second, checked out the site and the list of who I'd be keeping company with, got that little queasy feeling in the pit of my stomach I get whenever the X-Wings dive into the Death Star trench, and immediately agreed before the offer could be taken away. Now, I check the traffic counter on this site more times than any rational or sane person should, and, frankly, I don't understand why anyone would want my analysis polluting their site. After all, if I was more interesting or insightful, there would be a lot more traffic. Hrm... Something does not compute. Maybe, all of this hand-wringing is just vestigial low-self esteem from growing up in a public school. Then again, it could be the pizza I ate yesterday in a gustatory fit of self-hatred (but, damn does Leo's By the Slice make a fine Pepperoni). Whatever. In the end, I'm going to be added to a list that includes the following names: Walter Williams, Jay Taylor, The Mogambo Guru, Edward Griffin, Antal Fekete and Harry Browne. These are the people that I read when I need something to say here. At the very least finding my place within such an august group of minds will be worth the trip. Tom Knapp talked about this very issue here, and it seems to me that he's had more success in defining his role. Needless to say this is a great opportunity and one that I'm trying to take very seriously, as long as I don't take myself too seriously, which, of course, is always a danger. But, that's one of the fascinating things about the Internet, there is no shortage of those willing to take a pot-shot at you for something you've said. The first article I sent to FMNN is an expanded version of a previous article published here. It is this kind of thing that I may be able to do to distinguish myself from the others there... either that or "The House Asshole,' which is something I've had 37 years worth of practice at. They do say, "Write that which you know," after all. We'll soon find out, I guess. Ta,

Monday, March 14, 2005

Silver, Sanity and the Mexican Libertad

Having already passed through the Mexican Senate, a bill to re-monetize Silver, in the form of 1-oz coins known as the Libertad, awaits passage of a vote by their lower house to become law (I presume pending some kind of executive veto I know little to nothing about). They're pretty coins, I may have to pick a few up just to show my support (and have some spending money during the next cruise we take.) The Libertad would exist along side the peso and be valued based on the commodity price of Silver. The underlying assumption is much the same as that of the Liberty Dollar, of which I'm a supporter, namely that fiat currencies are inherently unstable and will be abused by their issuers. We in the U.S. don't have any conception of what it's like to go through real currency spasms, but today's Mexicans do, as the peso was in complete freefall during 1994-95. This is some astoundingly good news for the people of Mexico. A real trade currency that will be protected against the foibles of both the legislature's spending and the central bank's tendancy to print too much money. Of course the Bank of Mexico is unhappy about the idea. It looks to me that the peso will be, in effect, tied to the commodity price of silver now, as opposed to the ratio of pesos:dollars. This will provide, as well, a market for silver production locally, and be a boon to both the savings rate and financial stability of the internal mexican economy. For the protectionist/U.S. Firsters in the audience, understand that a stabilizing of the local economy in Mexico will stem the tide of them coming here to find work. Not that I have a problem with this at all. The crew that comes bi-annually to clean up/bale the pine straw in the the lots next to Outer Luongolia work their asses off and make me look like the lazy slob that Capt. Charity Vain accuses me of being every time I spend a Saturday holed up playing World of Warcraft and not putting up my fence. Here is a bill whose primary motive is improving the lots of individual Mexicans. Our government should be placing as much pressure on the Mexican Legislature to pass this bill and implement this scheme. I love seeing Gresham's Law mentioned in the MSM. It makes the ol' ticker flutter. Ta,

HS XV: Free Speech is not Free

Well, after too much time spent doing productive things like putting an addition on my house and earning my salary, I figured it was time to get back to doing what I do best... drinking coffee and sitting on my prodigious bottom. That being said, welcome to HomeSpun Symposium #XV where the question this week comes from Derek over at Weapons of Mass Distraction (great name for a blog, btw, Derek!) and is a subject I've blogged about previously:

Harvard University president Lawrence Summers has been criticized, and may have jeopardized his job, for stating that the gender gap in the sciences and engineering may be due to inherent differences in the way men and women think. Meanwhile, Colorado University is weighing a possible buyout offer to professor Ward Churchill in the wake of his condemnation of the World Trade Center victims on 9/11 as "Little Eichmanns". The university, apparently fearing an expensive lawsuit, is hesitant to fire Churchill, who has been denounced for years by Native American groups for falsely claiming Indian heritage and recently exposed by Michelle Malkin and others for passing off the works of others as original art. Should these men be protected for exercising their rights of free speech? Does an employer have the right to terminate an employee for statements that are contrary to the employer's beliefs? Are these cases similar?

The short answer to the first question is yes, the First Amendment (I'm assuming his reference to Free Speech is a nod toward this law) protects these men's rights to say whatever it is that they choose without fear of reprisal from Congress, and, by extension, the Federal Government. That is all the First Amendment covers; not State Law, or County Ordinance, or Terms of Employment. Unfortunately, both of these men work for universities that accept federal grant money and so, the problem becomes stickier for those of us paying a portion (no matter how small) of their salaries and disapprove of what they said/advocate. The solution to this problem lies in my answer to the second and third parts of Derek's question. The answer to the second question is more complicated, only because the State contravenes an individual's right to contract. As a side note to this discussion I blogged about Dr. Summers' problems here when it happened. The relationship between yourself and your boss is a contractual agreement. You are both property owners and have entered into an agreement to exchange certain services for a certain amount of compensation. Implicit in this agreement is that while in the service of the boss (unless negotiated to the contrary beforehand) you are to act in a way that he approves. People like Drs. Summers and Churchill work at such places that have very detailed employment contracts which stipulate just what is and is not acceptable behaviour for them to engage in while employed there. So, understanding that the right to contract (the logical extension of the rights to life and property) is inviolate the answer is simply yes, an employer has the right to terminate an employee for ANY reason. The economics consequences of this may come back to haunt him, but that is a decision that he has to make at the time he makes it. Any restriction placed on this ability by the law constitutes a simple abridgement of private property and is both immoral and uneconomic. The employee never learns that his inappropriate behavior (as personally defined by his employer) has costs, and the employer allows someone else to dictate how it is that he will dispense with his property (raising his uncertainty... and therefore his risk), which will make him change his hiring practices to compensate. If you'd like a taste of where this ends I've blogged about this in my response to HS XII, Rothbard at the Movies... Obviously these two instances are related, and interestingly enough I find it funny the question does not mention the furor over a problem similar to Dr. Summers' regarding Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe and his classroom discussion of Time Preference and homosexuals. The battle that Dr. Hoppe has had to wage is even more trivial than what has happened with the other two. It bothers me that Ward Churchill still has a job and that a portion of my taxes goes to subsidize him. Drs. Summers and Hoppe were just engaging in sound intellectual inquisition with subject matter that makes some feel uncomfortable, this is something I approve of (but, still don't want to be forced to pay for). The problem at the heart of this entire discussion is one of governmental imposition upon individual private property, at all levels. Ta,

Friday, March 11, 2005

Why is the DOW still Rising?

This question was posed by the Eclectic Econoclast last week, and I'm just now getting around to catching up with him on it. I just looked at a 10 year chart of the DOW and despite my best analysis I don't have any good answers either. Taking that same chart and looking at a ratio of the DOW to the $USD the conclusion must be drawn that with a falling $USD people are betting that the trade deficit will be overcome because of cheaper US goods, thereby inflating the bottom lines of U.S. Corporations. Another idea I can offer is something the E-E mentioned in his post... 10+% M1 and M2 growth and good old price inflation. Normalized for monetary growth (read purchasing power), the DOW is probably losing ground. All those dollars have to go somewhere, afterall. And with the news that foreign central banks are beginning to diversify out of dollars it makes some sense to assume that those dollars need to get invested somewhere... see point above. In the end, though, the real test comes in trying to best those tops in 1999 through 2001. There's an awful lot of resistance there, and with the dollar on the verge of collapsing through it's 10-year low and Oil on it's way to $60/barrel... the reversal in the DOW could be right around the corner. Taking a closer look at that 10-year chart shows that this latest push is a third up-leg off of the 2003 low, and third legs in a trend are generally very weak and breakdown quickly. Ta,

Thursday, March 10, 2005

There's Growth in Outer Luongolia...

... and not of the emotional kind either. For the past five days I've been busting my prodigious butt putting the latest addition to Camp Luongo together… a screened-in porch off the southern side of my house. Of course, like all home-building projects, it's both over-budget and behind schedule. That's okay though, I’d rather the costs go into materials than to line the pockets of bureaucrats… oh, wait, I paid sales tax on all of that stuff I bought. Nevermind! The plan was to build a 10' x 24' porch off the side of my house, and in that, so far, we've succeeded admirably. There is a functional, if un-shingled, roof supported by way too much wood and steel (never a bad thing to over-build) over a semi-competently finished concrete pad. Most of the walls have been framed in, and seeing as I live in Termite Country (Florida) the entire thing is made out of pressure-treated lumber. Unfortunately, thanks to the EPA (and the Federal Reserve), I paid more last week for an inferior product (ACQ treated lumber) than I did when I built the house (CCA treated lumber). One only needs to saw through an ACQ-treated 4x6 to see the difference. Treated lumber is not supposed to be its natural color at the core. Now let’s move on to the heart of the article. It should be noted that because this project costs less than $4000 no building permit from Columbia County was required. Had my house resided on the other side of the Santa Fe River, in Alachua County, well, let's just say that the requirements would be just slightly higher. Once one adds in the engineering plans, wind-load calculations, environmental impact assessment, permitting fees, and time wasted waiting for the inspectors and the plan-review, the total cost on this little project would have nearly doubled and have taken twice as long to get to the point I'm at in it right now. The underlying justification for all of these costs is that I'm too stupid or lazy or shiftless to want to build my porch to withstand the worst that Mother Nature could throw out at me. Silly me, I must want to be crushed by the weight of my house during a hurricane. There’s a reason why I moved out of the People’s Republic of Alachua County. Now, I may not be much of a carpenter, but I have become a reasonably competent framer and roofer, enough of one to know that mistakes happen and the wife sometimes changes her mind. Ergo, my entire house was put together with screws, and far too many of those I might add, which, if you didn’t know, are far stronger (especially 3” deck screws) than nails. The point is that I know that while my house might look unprofessional (especially in terms of finishing) it is far stronger and far better designed/built than what the County/State building codes require. We are not that far removed from a time when people used to build their own homes. When I started this project I thought I was unique and got all full of myself, and then every time I turned around I met another person who had done something very similar. The egotist in me was properly chastised and placed back in where it belonged, right next to the monsters under my bed, but I still am not the same man I was before I joined this ever-shrinking, regulated-to-the-brink-of-extinction club. My wife looks at me differently now and I, for once, feel deserving of her admiration. Hell, even my mother-in-Law likes me now, even if we do argue about politics. Why we as a society would want to deprive a man of this opportunity is beyond my admittedly feeble ability to comprehend. But, that is exactly what the whole permitting/inspecting process does. Understand that I’m lucky, or smart… let’s go with lucky as it plays better to the egalitarians in the audience (all 3 of you). I live in Florida, where once I’ve claimed a homestead exemption (which I have) the county cannot raise the assessed value of my property by more than 3% per year. In states without such protections there is a real economic disincentive to improve your home. Imagine being followed home from the Home Depot by a county property assessor after having bought a couple of gallons of exterior paint, but I’ve heard that’s exactly what happens in places like New Jersey where they do drive-by assessments, which is akin to a drive-by shooting except that the pain never stops. Ta,

Tuesday, March 08, 2005

On a Mini-Hiatus -- Building Project

I just wanted to pop in to let eveyone who reads this blog (all 3 of you) that I've been on a mini-hiatus from here as I am in the process of building a porch off the side of my house. Between that and Capt. Charity Vain's parents' visit, there has been little time for my usual level of insightful and indispensible analysis/biting wit. :) I return to my normal schedule on Thursday, at which point I might even take a couple of pics to show off how the poor really live -- the latest addition to Outer Luongolia. So, please bear with and I'll get back to y'all soon. Ta,

Friday, March 04, 2005

Out of Jail but Never Free

Well, Martha Stewart is out of the Federal prison she spent the last five months in and safely ensconced (her movements monitored 24/7 via an ankle bracelet she must wear) in one of her homes in Westchester County, NY. The first part of her sentence is over.

Stewart can return to work, start drawing her $900,000 salary again and even throw lavish house parties _ as long as she doesn't invite any criminals. She must wear an electronic anklet to allow authorities to monitor her movements.

She can now serve as an example of the state's terrifying power to destroy an individual. I'm still at a loss to understand what it is that she actually did wrong... as why it was so damned important that she and all the people she does business with had to pay for this supposed crime she committed I wish I could answer that in some other way than, "It served the purposes of those in power." It would be a fascinating economic study to figure out (even to 1 signifigant figure) how much economic damage was done due to the prosecution of Martha Stewart, and can that even begin to compare to the crime that was committed. You've got to wonder if the scales could ever be balanced. And, asking that parasite Eliot Spitzer to do be a part of it is like asking Congress whether the latest bill they've signed into law is Constitutional or not. Remember, Martha was not convicted of Insider Trading, not that that should be against the law anyways. Insider selling of a stock is a boon to small investors, a necessary bit of pricing data that helps to clear a market. The current system actually costs everyone so much more than any insider movement of their shares. In our infinite lack of wisdom we've turned our proletariat envy, much like the proverbial hand-biting dog or face-spiting man, against the very people who help provide the things we deisre and through the irresponsible use of power steal from them precisely because of who they are and what they've achieved. It is a 'crime' born of laziness and self-hatred, and we are the real criminals. She was convicted, ultimately, for giving conflicting testimony. The presumption of the law under which she was convicted (the infallibility of one's memory) held her to a higher standard than those prosecuting that very law against her. This affair speaks volumes about what kind of power the Feds wield, PATRIOT ACT notwithstanding. Martha Stewart, a woman who sells a variety of products I'm mostly uninterested in, has nothing except my deepest sympathies for the ordeal she's had to go through. I will probably make it a point to linger a little longer before switching away when watching Food Network anymore (where I most often encounter her), in the vain hope that my ratings point will help rebuild the business (and all of the other businesses) she's created by both her market savvy and determination. Of course, all that goes right out the window if she ever takes the blame for what was done to her, and becomes just another Helsinki Syndrome advocate for the state. Ta,

Thursday, March 03, 2005

145 Years of Protectionism and Counting

Via the Eclectic Econoclast comes a note that a U.S. Federal judge has put a stop to the USDA's plan to east import restrictions on beef from Canada. What would one expect during a Republican Administration? True to the platform Lincoln was elected on, it seems that nothing in 145 years has changed. Three of the planks of Lincoln's platform were

Strong Protection Tariffs
Strong Central Bank for issuing public debt
Use of proceeds from planks #1 and #2 for 'Internal Improvements" through subsidy of favored corporations.

There was also that bit about setting up a separate colony for all of the negroes in order to preserve the states for whites, but that was only a little side issue, not really worth considering. But, back to the matter at hand. Now, we have the classic example of one Government Agency fighting with another using the consumer as their whipping boy. R-CALF (the organization that filed the grievance) and their members should be absolutely ashamed of themselves seeking protection for their bloated and inefficient businesses because they do not want to compete with Western Canadian ranchers, which they did for a number of years before the Bush Administration and the USDA put a hold on this in May 2003, supposedly over a single case of Mad Cow disease. It was invoked by R-CALF in their filing and upheld by this Montana judge. I refuse to be alarmed about this disease as the rhetoric surrounding it is hyperbolic to say the least. What little actual scientific information I've dug up on this suggests the problem is both dietand insecticide related, and not the biblical plague that will wipe out the human race for being Greedy Profit-Driven Capitalists and Morally-Corrupt Animan Abusers. What I do know is that with the ban on importation of Canadian beef, the price here locally (in a state where a whole lotta cattle are raised, mind you) has sky-rocketed. This is mercantilism at its very finest and yet another argument against the government's interference into the workings of the free marketplace. Ta,

Wednesday, March 02, 2005

Florida HB1223: History in the Making?

Thanks to Walt Augustinowicz for his research into the happenings in the Florida Legislature for this one. The Link above is to the text of HB1223 that was introduced two days ago. While the entirety of the bill is abhorrent, the proposed changes (noted by either strikethoughs or underlining) are, for the most part, excellent. From HB1223 (additions in Bold, Deletions in italic

Section 1. Section 1003.42, Florida Statutes, is amended 17 to read: ... (2) All members of the instructional staff of the public schools, ~~subject to the rules of the State Board of Education and the district school board~~, shall teach efficiently and faithfully, using the books and materials required that meet the highest standards for professionalism and historic accuracy, following the prescribed courses of study, and employing approved methods of instruction, the following: ...

I love the deletion here. This puts the burden of teaching the material back on the one doing the teaching and de-emphasizing the role of over-sight bureaucrats at both the county and the state level. This change in the law is a simple an inexpensive mechanism to free up the classroom to allow for a more spirited discussion of the subjects listed later in the bill.

(a) The history and content of the Declaration of Independence, including national sovereignty, natural law, self-evident truth, equality of all persons, limited government,popular sovereignty, and God-given, inalienable rights of life,liberty, and property, and how it forms the philosophical foundation of our government.

The left may have a real problem with the inclusion of 'God-given, inalienable rights' in this list, but it is important to note that in its historical context the Declaration was issued by people who believed nearly-uniformly in God. To remove that from the discussion is to remove the Declaration from its context. Including this here is no different than studying the Salem Witch Trials or the Enlightenment. All of the issues added above are of paramount importance in understanding the history of why the colonists rebelled against the Crown. The bill contains more specifics about how the history of the U.S. is to be taught, some of which I'm uncomfortable in codifying, believing, of course, that these conclusions should be come to by the students themselves instead of being mandated by the state. The thing that most definitely brought a smile to my face was:

~~(k) The history of the state.~~

In ways as small as this, the world can be improved. Again, while I'd like to see the state removed from mandating how and what should be taught in schools, if they are going to do these things, then, at the very least, the material should be presented the best way imaginable. At the very least, if this is something we, as Libertarians, can point to as having had some success in getting passed, then that would also be a positive as well. Ta,

Tuesday, March 01, 2005

More UnPC History -- I Bought the Book

With the Lone Mantis on vacation this week I'm without a lunch partner, so, I stopped at Barnes & Noble again for something to read (and yes, I picked up the Donaldson book for Capt. C. V.). Making threats in public and not following through on them is just not my style so I plunked down my 20FRN's for Tom Woods' book. Moreover, I also picked up Harry Hansen's "The Civil War" even though I know the title is a misnomer. The gap in my knowledge about the subject in question is just too big not to be filled with some raw factoids about the military campaigns of the war. I'm going to agree with Raimondo (again) on this. Tom's prose is very readable and clear, as is his bias (as it should be), which, of course, is part of the book's goal. In that he suceeds brilliantly. Now, about that joining of the League of the South.... That is going to take some more research. Ta,

Sound Judgement to Free Padilla

In a stinging rebuke to the Bush administration, a federal judge ruled the case of "dirty bomb" suspect Jose Padilla is a matter for law enforcement — not the military — and ordered the government to charge him or let him go.

Well, they say the wheels of justice grind slowly.... 2 and a half years for someone to finally read the Fourth Amendment. Of course, the delay may have been necessary if he'd been reading The Patriot Act.

Floyd wrote in his 23-page opinion that to rule in favor of the government "would not only offend the rule of law and violate this country's constitutional tradition," it would be a "betrayal of this nation's commitment to the separation of powers that safeguards our democratic values and individual liberties."

I love this guy. Simply put, if the guy is guilty of plotting to bomb people... prove it in a court of law. If you can't then let him go. The man is a Citizen of the State of Illinois, the Federal Government has no authority over his person. Oh, there I go again, being all racist and "States Rightsy" again. I'll have to remember to get my hood back from the dry cleaners on my way home from work. Ta,

Rock and Eastwood -- My Oscar Regrets

From the LRC blog, Tom Dilorenzo (author of the great book on Lincoln i'm Currently Reading -- see at right) posted up a joke Chris Rock told the other night:

And you decide to wage war on Banana Republic because of its "toxic tanktops." A thousand GAP employees are killed, there's blood all over the khakis, and then you discover that Banana Republican never even made tanktops! How could you ever keep your job?!

Because the government is different than the private sector Chris! You know this. If you're not funny... you don't gets paid! Your income is tied to the quality of your jokes. The President's income is tied to ..... YOUR INCOME! Not, however, how well the president (the office, not the man) does his job of upholding the Constitution and/or protecting the rights of the people. The pro-capitalist bent of that joke is wonderful, especially considering how well it plays to the leftist/ knee-jerk Bush haters. About the only way that joke could have been improved would to have substituted Wal-Mart and Target for the Gap and Banana Republic. I have a love/hate relationship with Chris Rock. Because, there is a real libertarian bent to a lot of his material (take responsibility for that which you do) but he doesn't always follow it through to it's logical conclusion. I'd love to sit him down for an hour or so and lay it out for him....but, feh, that's just hubris on my part. So, forget that fantasy. Between him and Clint the Squint winning again (at the tender age of 74) it might have been an evening worthy of some of my attention while playing World of Warcraft. Then again, my local ABC affiliate has blocked my receiving their network's programming over my satellite dish, so it's a moot point anyways. I'll go to the local Sports Pub to watch the Stanley Cup Finals *sigh* but not the friggin' Oscars, no matter how hot the women in the audience may be. Of course, for those pics.... there's always my favorite Fug Girls! Ta,

Monday, February 28, 2005

Eminent Domain -- The Original Sin of Government

From the OC Register via LRC comes Steven Greenhut's very solid article on the failures of the Supreme Court Justices to understand the real dangers inherent with Eminent Domain. This was in issue here in Florida during the 2004 election cycle, or, at least, became one after being trumpetted by some Libertarian candidates such as newly-elected vice-chair of the LPF Walt Augustinowicz. With the Kelo case making big headlines this seems like a strategic opportunity for us to capitalize on for the coming election cycle in 2006. There has been a lot of talk within the LPF EC (Lib. Party of Florida Executive Committee) and our current crop of Legislative Candidates (of which I'm a member, as At-Large Director #3) about hitting this particular issue hard. Having just been appointed Chair of the LPF Strategy and Platform Committee guiding these decisions have become my responsibility. In some ways, this post is a call for help from the 3 or so other people who read this blog regularly about what it is that our issue strategy should be. Eminent Domain, at it core, is a decidely un-Libertarian concept and had I been a member of the Constitutional Congress would have fought against the wording of Amendment V because of it. It is, like the General Welfare and Interstate Commerce clauses under Article I Section VIII of the Constitution, a mechanism for broad, injurious interpretation of the phrase "...without just compensation." It presumes that the Government has a great ownership of your property than you do, and as such, will ultimately be able to do with your property as it deems fit. In a place where property tax rates are tied to the market value of the property itself, it is not a stretch to understand the taxing entity's desire to maximize it's revenue (like any good free marketeer) especially in light of the its position as 'working in the public interest,' which anyone moron can argue against the text of the 5th Amendment. The important point to make about Eminent Domain is the codification of mechanism for the taking of private property and the economic effects on the landscape thereof. Without the 5th Amendment there is no definition for just seizure of property, with it there is now a mechanism by which a legal argument can be made. Once that is accomplished the ball 'rolls downhill.' Now there is a ritual by which property can be seized and those doing the seizing can wash their hands of the responsibility of their theft by hiding behind the law and the procedure. As a campaign issue I think this is a potentially brilliant issue to build a strategy from. Ta,

Tom Woods and Why the Neocons Smear Him

Linked above is Justin Raimondo's take on the roots of the Neocons apoplexy over Tom Woods' The Politically Incorect Guide to American History. It's refreshing to note that Raimondo makes a similar point about the parallels between the neocon justifications for the Invasion of Iraq and the War to Prevent Southern Independence to the one I made the other day while beating up on Tom Palmer.

Woods' defense of the right of the states to defy the federal government – and even secede! – cuts too close to the bone in an era when the gulf between "red" and "blue" states is every bit as deep as the chasm that separated North from South in the run-up to the Civil War. And the Woodsian critique of Reconstruction – which looks, from here, every bit as merciless and stupid as the "de-Ba'athification" of Iraq in the wake of our "victory" – earns his [Max Boot's] ire, too.

While this may be an overstatement of the gulf between the Reds and the Blues on Raimondo's part, because at some level both love Big Bother more than they hate each other, it does point towards the future of America in a way that is distressing to the Neocon desire for Global Hegemony. And, Raimondo may be right that this book (and its resultant big sales figures) represents a warning shot to both sides of the Neocon fence. Man, I hope so! I may buy the book now and join the League of the South just to thumb my nose at the odious bastards that are helping to create the horrors we see daily. What's important for me to take away from this little episode in history brought about by Guttenberg's little invention is the importance of doing. The more we do, the more we write, the greater the chance there is to build the world we want to live in. This blog may not be important in the aggregate, but hopefully, some of the things I've said here have become important for someone else. Honestly, it's the only reason I spend the time doing it. You have to think that Tom Woods wrote his book for much the same reason. Ta,

Thursday, February 24, 2005

A New Form of Liar's Poker? Someone Call Hoyle!

Outstanding send-up of a poker game with Dick Cheney sent to me this morning by a co-worker. Check it out and laugh. Ta,

More Notes on the UN PC Civil War

I had a bunch of time yersterday to spend in the local Barnes & Noble while waiting on a colleague and after perusing this month's issue of Maxim (Jennifer Love Hewitt... yum) I waltzed around looking for Tom Wood's The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. At the same time I decided it was high time I began educating myself more on the history of the U.S. up through and including the War for Southern Independence. I found Tom Wood's controversial book de jour, and spent a good amount of time perusing it. It was definately a fun read, if a little superficial, which was it's intended purpose. At the same time, it was not what I was looking for. I can get similar levels of analysis daily from the various internet sites I read, I didn't see the point in plunking down 20FRNs for it. So, I went into the U.S. History section to find a reasonably well-written (and fair) account of the 1850-1865 period in the U.S. and, frankly I couldn't find one that wasn't the typical public school redux of the events into a simple slavery vs. non-slavery interpretation. My goal was to find a book that focused on the issues of the day, with a solid timeline of events both on the battlefield and off, without the hand-wringing of the North's burden and vilification of the South's real motivations. In the end I wound up not even picking up a hardcover of the Stephen Donaldson book I'd found for $4.98 that I knew Capt. Charity Vain would appreciate. I guess I'll just have to keep searching. Ta,

Wednesday, February 23, 2005

UnPC History --Tom Palmer's Smear of Tom Woods

Tom Wood's The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History has caused quite the stir in and around all corners of both academia and the media. I've been following the smear campaign against Mr. Woods for a while without comment because the attacks have been so incompetent to not be worthy of mention. That is, of course, until Tom Palmer weighed in on the subject. Check out the link above to Palmer's website. He puts up a picture of a Klansman and a Klan banner. It's really sad that Mr. Woods, when younger and less coherent in his thinking, got involved in with an organization of supposedly dubious distinction (League of the South), and has explained himself quite thoroughly here in the LRC Blog. As if this, somehow, has any bearing on the quality of the book he wrote and the person he is. Tom is really obsessive about who someone hangs out with, and as he regularly hangs out with heads of state and other 'important' people, it should be noted that associations cut both ways. One must read the comment thread to really get a glimpse into the sickness that permeates Tom Palmer's thinking.

No one has a right to secede from another political unit for the purpose of holding others as slaves. The only way one can say that "the people" of South Carolina or Georgia decided to secede is if one doesn't consider black people to be people.

While Tom's sentiment towards slavery is both understandable and admirable, his analysis, especially for a libertarian, is horrible. Later things he says in that same reply don't even bear on the central premise of his argument. First, a little historical perspective. By Tom's argument the states didn't have the right to ratify the constitution in the first place, no less secede from it, as the 'people' as he is implying in his argument were not fairly represented by the ratification vote. It's presumptuous and dishonest to say that the ratification vote was doing the will of the unrepresented blacks, non-land owners, women, et. al. who did not have suffrage at the time of ratification, and then apply a different standard later on. The truth is the legislatures of the southern states were perfectly within their legal and moral rights to secede. Their stated reasons for doing so may be abhorrent, but that only comes to bear after secession and the eventual relationship (or potential lack thereof) that would exist after the fact. All of this is laying aside the fact that at the time the slaves were, by definition, property and not 'people.' Worse for Tom's argument, in the North where there was no slavery, the conditions for the blacks were arguably worse. They had no access to the courts systems, could not vote, own property, enter into contracts with whites (including marriage) and so on. This is a truly vile situation. The potential for real, unchecked, abuse is unbelievable, and, by the admittedly few accounts I've read on the subject, this abuse occurred frequently. At least, in the South, if another man abused someone's slave, the slave-owner had some form of recourse (the courts), and an incentive to not let that happen again, as the abuse would be theft of property. Both situations are disgusting, but at least one has some form of cost associated with it. But, you know, for making this point I'm now probably some slimy, Confederate Apologist, who pines for a time when I'll be free to own slaves. I don't even believe I truly own my dogs, for pity's sake, but in terms of human law, I most certainly do, and that distinction makes a world of difference. To willfully ignore such a point to undergird his equating Tom Woods with a Klansman is not only dishonest, it smacks of desperation. In the end, even Palmer's compatriots damn themselves with their own words. Quoth Tiny Tim:

Here is my position, maybe it is "neocon" but I see it as simple libertarianism: Any State which enforces chattel slavery is criminal in nature and can be destroyed at will (like any other criminal band) for any reason.

Nice to know that he's finally being honest with himself. You see, here is where the rubber meets the road for a great many 'libertarians.' Some things, like chattel slavery, are repugnant, no doubt about that. But, the non-aggression principle is not situationally-dependent. I've made the point here many times, and I'll gladly do it again. The State is immoral. The State that the Confederates were seceding from was immoral and criminal, by it's very existence, and this interpretation is reinforced (even if you are unconvinced by the argument against the state's morality) by it's willingness to tolerate the practice of slavery by some of it's members. By Tim's own argument the Union should have attacked itself, because it should not have suffered it's own existence. In many ways that's was the abolitionists were arguing for over the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Laws. All of this is sheer nonsense, and Mr. Palmer would do himself a great deal of good if he distanced himself from those like Tiny Tim and Cathy Young for the sake of his reputation as a 'great thinker.' One must be first willing to clean up one's own house before deciding to judge others as unworthy and in need of extermination. It's all well and good to stand up on the Mount of Self-Righteousness and declare that "All who practice such and such are evil." It's quite another to then turn around and destroy (or advocate destroying) said practitioners over it. Ours is not the place to act on such judgment. By acting on such an impulse you invalidate your stated position. You do not value human life any more than the person you are decrying if you are willing to shoot them sans for personal defense. The parallels here to the War in Iraq are striking, because it is for many of the same reasons we have invaded that country (or at least that was the propaganda). And, it is, as well, interesting that Palmer opposed the invasion of Iraq (even appeals to things like women's rights and the existance of a brutal dictator, who is analogous to a slave-owner, except that here he owns a LOT of slaves, could not sway him), and I wonder, if he were to have been alive during the run up to the War for Southern Independence would he have been similarly disinclined to approve of Lincoln's course of action. Simply put, it is impossible for us to understand the motivations and the thinking during that time because it is a world that is alien to us now. Our analysis is colored [sic] by our environment. The goal of historians and economists is to push through that illusion of self and create analysis that is fair given the circumstances and which are beholden to our principles. My issues over and over with Mr. Palmer is that he is fundamentally dishonest in both his argumentative approach and his inability to see the illogic of his positions. He is interested in marginalizing and smearing those who disagree with him in the most vile terms imaginable. Over at the Palmer Periscope, Stephan Kinsella has a simply brilliant, and passionate, attack on Palmer and his amen corner (over the furor regarding Hans Hoppe's problems at UNLV) that is definitely worth reading. Actually, it deserves it's own blog entry here, it's that good. Ta,

Tuesday, February 22, 2005

HUI to Gold Ratio Update

Posted by Hello

Back in November I posted up a chart of the Ratio of the $HUI to $GOLD that has been one of the more popular articles I've posted here (at least according to my RSS feed stats) and, honestly, I can't figure out why. My analysis of that chart was overly-bullish and as such exposed my relative inexperience in chart analysis/reading. I underestimated the amount of speculation in both the Gold and Gold Stock markets and my timing predictions now seem ludicrous in retrospect. With the firming up of those markets, having waited out the Dead Cat Bounce of the the $USD, I felt it appropriate to try and take a another (more sober) stab at this kind of relational (1st derivative) kind of analysis. It's a lot simplistic this time. With the breakdown of the triangle drawn in the November chart, a new up-trend line needs to be drawn in, which, with the most recent low occuring just a few weeks ago and there is no third point available to confirm this as the new uptrend, I think it's safe to say that this line is questionable. The imminent MACD cross, recent breakouts of many stocks that make up the $HUI, and that this low is higher than the July 2004 low lend credence to this point being valid as the new uptrend. Of course, there's also a formed Head and Shoulders pattern from July to today, that if the 0.45 level is breached means a move down to around 0.35. It looks to me as the damage that was wrought on the Gold Juniors in Dec/Jan has not fully been worked through. This chart is suggesting that it will take a few more months for those wounds to fully heal. I would venture a guess that the breakout occur around June or July at a level of around 0.53. Then, maybe, we'll start to see more of the obscene leverage the stocks of the $HUI are supposed to have relative to the price of Gold. I know my bank account would certainly welcome that eventuality. Ta,

Let's Hope These Talks Go Better than the NHL's

Link above is a report (via Antiwar.com's front page) of talks happening in Iraq between the U.S. and some of the Sunni resistance fighters centering around a timetable for our withdrawl from first individual cities and then from Iraq as a whole. Now, how does this square with the reports of a possible attack on Iran? I have no idea. I do know that I'm really tired of doing Israel's bidding, though. Ta,

Monday, February 21, 2005

An Open Source LP: An Avenue to Success?

From Stevens VanDyke and Gordon (Comm. Dir of the Badnarik campaign) comes a great idea about how the LP, supposedly a tech-savvy organization, could re-structure itself and its fund-raising into a much more important political force. They call it Open-Source Politics. I call it genious. My good friend and colleague on the LPF Ex-Comm., Jerry Cameron keeps talking about how to go about doing things differently. We in Florida have been struggling to create the kind of open-source model Gordon and VanDyke are talking about but haven't quite gotten the concept down as of yet. This idea will get discussed at the Ex. Comm. meeting on Saturday. Ta,

My Ideal NHL

Over on HFBoards, there is a thread entitled 'Your Ideal NHL." This is something I was going to post up here today anyways, so it seems reasonable to do so now. Here is the original post:

State: - Rule changes - CBA stuff (luxury tax, hard cap, UFA age, etc...) - Contraction (if any) - Teams (Conferences/division) - Number of games - Playoff layout - Commissioner & Head of NHLPA

In lieu of getting Canadian and U.S. Anti-Trust Law Repealed, which would solve all of these problems, by the way, here's the latest version of what i think will work as a CBA framework. I've already laid out a great many of the rule changes I'd like to see here. My take on the CBA was laid out here back in November, to which my thinking is a little out of date: I have other thoughts about the NHL labor situation here, here, and here. My Ideas for the CBA look like this: 1) I like the NHL's idea some form of Revenue Sharing primarily coming from the Playoffs, which is a league-driven event. So, I will re-iterate my original stance that Revenue Sharing should create a 'normalized' budget among all the teams in the league to level the resource playing field and allow for a budget process that results in near-equal competitiveness across disparate marketplaces. Non-Luxury Tax portion Should provide up to 10-15% of the Salary Cap figure. 2) Unpenalized Salary Cap set at 53-56% of NHL Revenues, a definition of which to be agreed upon by both parties and audited by a mutually-acceptable third party. 3) Luxury Tax which becomes part of the Revenue Sharing Pool that is graduated above the level set annually in point #2: 50% on the 1st $3mill (up to $1.5 million in taxes) 75% on the 2nd $3mill (up to $3.75 million in taxes) 100% on the next $6mill (up to $9.75 million in taxes) 125% on all other salaries. with revenues at $1.8 billion and the Cap set at 55%. An untaxed cap of $33 million is in place. At a $45 million payroll, the team pays $13.5 million in Luxury taxes, or $466k/competitor ($13.5mil / 29). 4) A minimum total team salary based on 35-40% of NHL Revenues + 75% of the Revenue Sharing pool. (at $1.8 billion in Revenues, and RS paying 10% of $33 mil or $3.3 mil) salary floor is $24.97 million). 5) Back-Loaded Profit Sharing for the Players due to some costs not rising linearly with revenues. Because this is hard to judge where revenues will go, it's hard to put numbers on this. Also, my knowledge of the NHL's finances are not that comprehensive to make any kind of informed judgement on this. Depending on how this is structured, this ensures against an owner paying 'slave wages' (an oxymoron if I ever heard one). 6) Non-guaranteed contracts are the norm or set the buyout percentage lower (I'm thinking in the 40-50%), and costs associated with that count as a credit towards luxury taxes payable for up to 3 years going forward. -- Ergo, if the Isles want to buy out the last 7 years of Yahsin's contract, at a cost of $4 million a year (or whatever the number is), that for the next 3 years the Isles will be exempt from the first 4 million in LT's they may owe. -- Guaranteed Contracts, for example, or ones with a higher buyout percentage are still negotiable on an individual basis, but the credit toward the LT is fixed by the CBA. 7) Lower UFA age, 27 or 28, but Restricted FA's are qualified at 75% of current salary. 8) Performance Bonuses paid are considered to be a part of the Total Salary and subject to luxury tax. -- As a result Total Salary Paid for the year will be calculated after Game 7 of the SCF's and all LT payments are due before the opening of Training Camps. 9) Remove all restrictions to entry level contracts. If ownership wants to overpay for draft picks... so be it. 10) Do away with Group V Free Agency. Once a player agrees to an Entry Contract he is the property of that team until he is available for Unrestricted Free Agency. 11) Eliminate Salary Arbitration as a mandatable option. Players and teams may use third-party arbitrators on an individual basis to settle contract disputes. ---------- No Contraction is needed. If salaries are in line with revenue, the teams should be able to survive if they draw in excess of 10,000 people per home game. ---------- I still like the idea of dividing the league as I presented in November: From Northeast to Southwest, thereby normalizing some of the travel costs: 72 game Season. Eliminate Inter-Conference Play, Realign From NE to SW, to equalize travel costs. Conference #1: NYI, NJD, Pit, Phi, Was, Nsh, Clb, Car, Atl, TB, Fl, Stl, Dal, Phx, Col) Conference #2: Bos, Buf, Mon, Tor, Ott, Det, NYR, Chi, Min, Edm, Cal, Van, LA, SJ, Ana) -- All Canadian Teams in the same conference, all original 6 in same conference. -- Rekindle old rivalries... lose others. Move Trade Dealine Back to Late February (After 42-45 games played {60-65% of the schedule}). The Stanley Cup playoffs are outstanding as they are. No need to change that which is the only thing that ain't broken. NHL Commissioner: Mario or Brian Burke Union Boss: Who cares? The union is superfluous with the right economic system in place. Ta,

Friday, February 18, 2005

HS XIII: Is Spreading Democracy always as good as Spreading Butter?

This week's Homespun Symposium is a very interesting multi-part question:

Do you believe there is a downside to encouraging nations to move toward being free societies? Can all nations benefit from the move from dicatorship to freedom, or are some cultures simply incapable of it and why? Might they end up worse off? Also, do you believe these shifts are always in America and the West's interests, or will we simply create democratic enemies that are worse for us than the dictators they replace?

I'll try and take these singly and hope that the answers will build on themselves. Do you believe there is a downside to encouraging nations to move toward being free societies? The key word in this question is 'encourage,' and because of that the answer is no, there is no downside to 'encouraging' anyone toward a goal that you believe to be in their best intestests. If after said encouragement you are politely (or not so politely) told to mind your own buisness... well, guess what, you should respect that. This again is Golden Rule territory, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This is also specification, not implementation. How you go about 'encouraging' people towards a desired behaviour is usually the crux of the problem. My first thought is that the best form of 'encouragement' is leading by example. Living that which you preach to be superior. Can all nations benefit from the move from dicatorship to freedom, or are some cultures simply incapable of it and why? Might they end up worse off? Is a monarchy a form of Dictatorship? If so, the record of Kings is far superior to that of Democracies in terms of real freedom. Hans Hermann-Hoppe has a fantastic book called Democracy: The God That Failed that details the economics underlying the differences between these two systems of government and the 'natural order.' Dictatorships are not necessarily bad for individuals any more than Democracies are necessarily good for individuals. There is a strong argument, based on property, that a Dictator has more stake in the well-being of his subjects than the governing body of a Democracy. Hayek makes a strong argument against democracies as well in The Road to Serfdom. That being said, and now to address the question directly the concepts of 'freedom' and 'nations' are mutually exclusive in my interpretation of the words. Real freedom means no governmental abridgment of an individual's property, while government, by it's very existance, nullifies private property to some extent. In the presense of government one can be freer than someone else, but, in no way does this mean that one is, in effect, free. As far as different cultures' capability to handle 'freedom' I don't feel qualified to make that judgment. Again, I'll state carefully that, while I may not agree with the way a group of people live or organize themselves, it's not my place to judge them. My preference is to live in a completely voluntary fashion, free from coersion. My admittedly limited study of cultural behaviour tends to reinforce my ideas about individualism, in that non-coersive cultural(governmental) traditions were developed for reasons that have to do with stability and procreation and governmental decrees are the source of internal conflict in a society as it clashes directly with those derived behaviors. The Natural Order of things is anarchy (lack of Government), because we existed before we invented government. Any deviation from that is where things become worse via codification and ossification. So, no society is incapable of dealing with being 'free,' simply because all societies are made up of humans who at one point were free. Also, do you believe these shifts are always in America and the West's interests, or will we simply create democratic enemies that are worse for us than the dictators they replace? Any time you force people to become something they don't want to be you will create animosity. There is an assumption that the shift is towards the U.S. and the West in terms of 'freedom,' and that is, in reality, not true. The U.S. is not free. We've never been 'Free!' The existence of the Constitution and the States guarantees that. Real freedom is the complete lack of government. So, no these shifts may not be in the U.S.'s best interests because the interests of the U.S. are not necessarily for making people (including it's citizens) free, but the assumption in the question is that the 'shift' is towards freedom. If by freedom the questioner means 'democracy' (which the careful substitution of one word for the other suggests) then I, obviously, disagree with the premise of the question, as I don't view Democracy as a mechanism by which freedom can be achieved, unless, of course, the Democracy votes to disband itself. I believe that organizations are interested in, primarily, their own survival. Fufilling their stated mandate is far and away of secondary concern. Governments have one thing that all other organizations lack, the power of pointing guns at people with the explicit consent of enoug of the governed to make the threat stick. In that respect, the only thing a government is good at is killing people, either it's own citizens or another government's. Ta,

Thursday, February 17, 2005

The NHL Season is Gone. The Lessons We Can Learn

Well, it had to end sometime, and despite some interesting last minute wrangling on both sides the NHL and the NHLPA could not come to an agreement for a new CBA that would allow them to play some games under the auspice of the 2004-05 Season. Amidst all of the name-calling, hand-wringing, hoping, praying and arm-chair line-changing (there are no quarterbacks in the hockey) a few issues were raised that I'd like to bring up. These things are all over the map, so bear with:

The NHLPA never made a good case as to why they wouldn't accept a salary cap. Nothing underscores this point better than their own proposal, submitted on Moday, which included one.
By offering a hard-cap w/o linkage to league revenues the players implicitly ratified the owners stated position that they were losing money. A hard cap only benefits the players in a scenario of falling revenues, not rising ones.
The Owners offer from February 2nd included not only linkage of salaries to revenues, but also, as a fall back position, a profit-sharing plan in case they all succeeded beyond their wildest estimations such that the players would see a rising percentage of revenues. The NHL has some fixed costs, that no matter how big revenue gets, will not increase linearly with revenues, and will, in effect be pure profit. The owners, in offering profit-sharing placed some of that on the table for the players to share in.
The NHLPA undermined their own position publicly by consistently being 'against' things. One of the first rules of successful politics is to accentuate the positive (Little evidence here that I've taken this particular lesson to heart, I know). The players were against a salary cap, didn't trust the owners, refused to meet with Arthur Levitt, refused to audit the NHL's books, refused to put on the table any kind of reasonable offer (The NHL started their advertising campaign 5 years ago, btw) before the lockout occured. Some have made disparaging statements about their fellow players, and the cities where the game is being played. There's little shock in my mind why the owners had 70-80% of the fans on their side.
The NHL, conversely, were for 'cost-certainty' , 'committed to all 30 franchises' , 'available to meet and negotiate' , apologetic in how things have been going recently (or at least appeared to be) and admitted their mistakes. They asked the fans for the time to fix things, after they had sufficiently made their case in public.
So much of the talk surrounding this lockout has centered on reading the 'real meanings' into what has and has not been said. We have become so conditioned by double-talk and political rhetoric that we are incapable of hearing someone when they speak the truth. What I mean is, "Why is it so hard for people to accept the concept that someone may not be lying?"
This is not about replacement players, breaking the union, Impasse or any of those things. This is simply about the NHL refusing to provide a framework for playing hockey that is uneconomic for them to do so.
This will end when and only when the NHL says it will. Neither the US government, the Canadian Government, or the NHLPA will/should have anything to say about this. Bettman looked honestly confused yesterday during his press conference because as he said, "I have no idea what their end-game strategy is." You can bet that the NHL has an end-game strategy.
Sherman Anti-Trust Law is stupid, inane and needs to be abolished (there I go, being all negative again).

I'll post something up after I've forced myself to sit through Bob Goodenow's press conference. I have to say, I've been quite impressed with Gary Bettman during these negotiations. I know that the Econoclast feels differently, that Bettman has over-played the 'macho-card.' But, I disagree, Hockey players only respect chutzpah, and despise weakness. Bettman has been firm, blunt and, in my mind, overly generous towards a group of people completely out of touch with both the reality of the economics and their position. I e-mailed the NHL yesterday, telling them that it was now time to go for the jugular. Get rid of guaranteed contracts and create an economic landscape that encourages low base salaries (and generous insurance payouts) with heavy performance bonuses. As a fan, all I care about is the product on the ice, and I see both a league and a player's union that is fat and complacent, content with putting out sub-standard effort and an overall lackluster product. The fulcrum to that is the economic system created by the CBA. The players, like all good employees, should be held accountable for the work they do and the work they don't do. The coaches, trainers, fan, concession vendors, parking lot attendants, etc. would all be happier if the players had the fear of being fired put under their butts again. So, waiting until October is a small price to pay to finally see some good hockey played at the NHL consistently during the first 2 months of the season. Ta,

Wednesday, February 16, 2005

In The Trenches: Laptop Bombardiers seeing their Numbers Drop

Thanks to Tex, at UnfairWitness for finding this hilarious sendup of the the War on Terror as practiced by those, like me, sitting comfortably in front of their computers far away from the real horrors of combat/Nation Building/Pillage, what have you. The description of Cheeto-Munching Girlie Man, Jonah Goldberg is just priceless:

“It’s like this,” said Goldberg said, grabbing a fistful of Cheetos from his pack. “I believed in this fight, and my country needed me. They needed able-bodied men – doughy, able to handle the rigors of sitting in a swivel chair for seven, eight hours at a time, and not afraid to put on a little TV make-up when the shit gets heavy. So I signed up.” He spit Cheetos-orange on the carpet. “Any man who won’t opinionate for his country and what he believes … well, I don’t call that a man at all.” At that he pulled up the sleeve on his regulation-issue Tommy Hilfiger powder-blue dress shirt to show me the tattoo on his meaty, girlish bicep. 'Born to Bloviate', it read, emblazoned on the bulging tummy of the Pillsbury Doughboy - the symbol of the feared 101st Fighting Keyboarders.

I know during stressful times some people experience a loss of apetite, especially for killing. But, Jonah had better keep his carb intake up (not only will he need the energy and the near-psychotic moodswings they induce, to perform at his peak efficiency) because of the strict physical requirements of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders he may get demoted for having an under-developed set of 'doobs'[1] or too small of a 'pearbutt.' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Born to Bloviate!" -- Now, that's funny right there. I don't care who you are. When things are as whacked out and sad as they are right now. A little well-timed (and well-written) levity is certainly welcome. Ta, [1] Doob - n. pronun: "doob" 1. a diminuation of the phrase "dude boobs." 2. man-breasts.

Tuesday, February 15, 2005

The End is Nigh, The Seventh Seal Must be Broken

.... because a politician, other than Dr. Ron Paul, spoke the truth: Via the Eclectic Econoclast comes this quote from Rodney Hide, a member of New Zealand's Parliament:

What possible comparative advantage does government have in business? Just one: Coercion. It can thump the money it needs out of taxpayers – no other business can do that.

I nominate him for Time Magazine's Man of the Year... or at least This Week. Update: Further Proof(tm) that this is TEOTWAWKI[1], the NHLPA has proposed a salary cap, I guess they saw the signs of the end as well and wanted to lace 'em up one more time for nostalgia's sake. The weird and sad part about it is why they think anyone will pay to see them do it. Ta, [1] - The End of the World as we Know it.

Monday, February 14, 2005

THe NHL and the Free Market: the Unattainable Dream

I got invloved in a discussion of Free Market Economics over on HFboards.com, during which I took exception (whata shock) o one poster's assertion that the Law of Supply and Demand is a poor way of organizing society's. He responded (surprisingly) thusly:

Quoth Snuffelapagus: At the risk of getting off topic, I feel that my questioning of running a any society based SOLELY on the law of supply and demand being folly is not dominant in the current economic landscape (see Bush Administration, degregulation, etc). I stated that the law of supply and demand is treacherous because it is often manipulated (see Enron) and further there is no accounting for the negative repercussions of this law. I would love to continue this discussion at length, but feel it would be best for this thread if it is done through PM. To keep on topic, in your opinion, jochip do feel that a free market system would be the solution to the NHL's needs? If so, how do you feel that the fans would benefit from such a system?

Quick OT comment: The Bush administration is no where near Free Market in it's thinking.... Corporate Fascism? Yes. Voluntary Capitalism? No way. If you're interested in this stuff I have a wealth of sites/info I can point you to... PM me and I'll be glad to hook you up. I'll cross-post this to my blog for those that want to flame me for that statement. On topic comment: I would love to see a real free market in all things, and as such, yes I do think a Free Market would be a boon to hockey fans and ultimately the NHL. How? Well, the NHL could operate very similarly to how it does now if US/Canada anti-trust law didn't force them into strained negotiations with the player's union. The NHL could set up whatever drafting system they wanted (but their claim to a player would only be binding vis a vis other NHL teams) but other leagues would be able to bid for the player's service, just like any other potential employer (read the WHA from the 1970's and possibly 2005, the AHL or any other potential HL) NHL Franchises would have to agree amongst themselves to the system by which players (under contract) could be moved around within the NHL (trading, 'free agency," waivers etc.). I don't have any earthly idea what that would look like right now b/c I haven't really thought about it. The reality is that there probably isn't enough money out there to support more than one major Hockey league and as such the NHL would be the de facto 'Big Leagues' just like MLB, NBA, and the NFL. All of the major sports leagues had serious competition before 'free agency' when the quality of their product slipped. The younger leagues were subsumed but the level of play rose, and the leagues got the hint to improve their product or face sincere competition. Who wins? The fans, of course. The problem is, as I've stated before, the legal environments of both the U.S. and Canada prevent a real free-market solution. And, honestly, I think Curt Flood and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act have done more to hurt the quality of competitive sports than the other way around. The players would be free (when not under contract) to play for whomever will pay them the best and the leagues would be incentivised to produce a quality product or face losing market share. Within a league, though, the original poster's idea is sound, the franchises are all competing amongst themselves for the purpose of improving the health of the larger organization. The internal economics of said macro-organization must be sound for that to work. Considering the system as it is right now, a salary cap/linkage/budgetting system is the only thing that makes any sense. The NHL has been granted a franchise monopoly (something only government can grant... the only natural monopolies are those legislated by government) on the talent and for that privelege must negotiate with a union of said talent. The legal structure creates the animosity by taking choice away from the players and the owners to contract for services on an individual basis. The real losers are the fans as they have to spend more time worrying about the next labor situation then who's going to win the championship. Ta,

Friday, February 11, 2005

Being An Individual: Defining Government and Your Relationship To It.

This would be part II in the response to The Southern Conservative's entry about the rights of individuals to persue their 'duties.' First off I'd like to quote Benjamin Franklin:

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb sitting down to dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

My version of the above quote is more graphic: Democracy is three men and two women. The men vote to rape the women. Liberty is Capt. Charity Vain's 9mm Beretta. Next, I'd like to quote the Golden Rule:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Now, to quote Darrell:

By “rights of citizenship,” I mean those rights guaranteed by the rule of law. I see a distinction between God-given rights, which are the natural and inalienable ones… and legal rights, which are those agreed upon for each individual by the collective.

If you voluntarily submit to being a member of a collective then Darrell's argument is perfectly correct, leaving aside the semantic point that laws do not grant rights, but priveleges. A voluntary arrangement is only valid if the individuals reserve the right to opt-out of the arrangement, otherwise it ain't voluntary. Now, onto the refutation of Government as moral: Laws, in the governmental sense, imply an enforcement arm thereof (otherwise they would just be guidelines), and are, by definition, discriminatory because in no way can any law be agreed upon by all people. {This is philosophy, leave preceived practicality and utilitarianism at the door, please.} Even laws proscribing killing are discriminatory against would-be-killers. Understanding that point is extremely important to understanding my position that all laws are immoral (or as I lke to say "dangerous and stupid."), be it from a religious standpoint or a 'humanist' standpoint. The golden rule states that for you to have the right to life you must respect the right of someone else to that same right. So, if a law suits you but not me, it cannot possibly be moral to enforce it. You are, in effect, saying, "Your perspective is inferior to mine, I will force you to submit to my will." Now, I know that God didn't tell any of you that this is the right way to act. Every law carries with it the threat of violence if the law is ignored, regardless of how justified you feel in ignoring it. So, by definition, government is not a voluntary arrangement. And, while Darrell's description of it is all well and good, his perception does not fit with reality. Government is force, or the threat of violence. Specific types of governments have the monopoly right on the use of force to enforce it's will over geographical areas, known commonly as cities or countries. You may wish that government is there to protect your rights, but it is not. It is there to enforce rules, however those rules were created. By definition, Government is not an opt-out system. And that doesn't square too well with the Golden Rule. I am not a collective. No one is. The majority opinion carries no moral weight whatsoever. Your definition of your rights and willingness to defend them with your life is what constitutes your morality, regardless of the source. The extension of this argument into economics forms the basis for the Austrian School, as expoused by Mises, Menger, Rothbard, Rockwell et. al. They make a very convincing argument that the most efficient use of capital, and (for Rothbard) the most moral use, is through the pure voluntary transactions that is the definition of capitalism. Rothbard was a practicing Jew, and Rockwell is a devout Catholic, and runs, in my opinion, the single best website on the internet, Lewrockwell.com. Larger tomes than these blogs entries have been written on this subject, and I urge Darrell and anyone else (all 3 of you) to consider them further. If this doesn't adequately explain why my government does not have any moral authority to force me to fight on its behalf, then I don't know what else to say. Now, this does not mean I won't fight for myself, my family, Darrell, or anyone else. But, no one, under any circumstances, will FORCE ME to point a gun at another human being. By the defintions outlined above I am in conflict with my morality 24/7. By using the government's legal tender I commit violence against the person on the other end of the transaction. By cashing my paycheck, funded through theft (taxes) I commit violence. I could go on and on. But, I draw the line at physically pointing a gun, my hypocrisy knows some bounds. Dammit! Ta,

Being The Southern Conservative: Where Your Rights Are Derived

The Debate (now turned much more friendly) with Darrell, The Southern Conservative, continues. I'm gong to have to deal with his commentary piecemeal because there is too much to address all at once. The first point is:

I’m one of those who believes that our rights come from God. I’d call your beliefs humanism, and you may well be comfortable with that label. I think that our differences here are so basic as to prevent either of us from winning the other over to his own side.

First things first, this is not about winning and losing. While I have been known to treat debate as a competition, it really isn't that, it's about dispensing information. Second, I disagree with that. The point I was trying to make earlier was that regardless of whether your rights derive from God or your Humanness, for you to exercise your right to life, you must be willing to respect another's right to life as well. Where they stem from is semantics. Which brings me too:

While I think we’d both agree that our rights are inalienable, we probably interpret that word differently. My position is that our rights are God given, and that no man has the right to take away what God has given to all.

So, tell me again, Darrell, where we disagree? You are using God as your justification for being a good and decent person because that is what works for you. My justifications are different but the conclusions are the same. Your relationship with God (and all that implies) is personal and has its limit (in the mathematical sense) at the point where you attempt to force me to hold the same beliefs you do. My relationship with my environment is personal as well and the limit to which I can affect it ends at the point of forcing someone else to do as I wish. Ultimately, the behaviour dictated by these beliefs is the same, and that's what is important. What we think is one thing, what we do is what truly matters. Ta,

Thursday, February 10, 2005

A Good Day in Precious Metals

Today looked to be very constructive in the precious metals markets. Gold retouched trendline support at US$410 this morning and then took off like a shot. While this is encouraging for Gold, until the downtrend line from the December high is crossed, this is still a chopping market. With the $USD slumping today, it seemed reasonable for Gold to show a little strength. In my mind the $USD Index would have to drop below 84 for Gold to take out the down trend line. Good time to stock up. Silver's intraday chart looks very similar. I noticed this movement this morning and adopted a 'wait and see' attitude, as Silver had paused right at it's 50-DMA around the time I left for lunch. The early move above $6.70 broke the downtrend line that has been in effect since the December high, which was not that significant considering the slope of that line (pretty damn steep). $0.35 daily moves in the price of Silver to the upside are not nearly as common as ones of that size going the other way, so today's price action is indicative of something. What? I don't know. The usual answers come to mind: commercial short covering, technical fund buying yadda yadda. Those with their noses a lot closer to this market will know. If they say anything about it, I'll be sure to let you know. Likewise I'm very happy with the action of Eldorado Gold Corp (Ticker:EGO) which I have a small position in. As a primary gold producer it's good to see both technical and chart strength with Gold in a non-confirmatory position. Today's action so far has a breakout feel to it: very strong volume, down trend line broken, confirmation of a MACD-cross. If EGO is able to take out the horizontal resistance at around $2.90, things look good for a turnaround. Ta,

HS XII: The Inevitable Follow-Up

Darrell, the Southern Conservative, and I got into it kinda hot and heavy yesterday over my response to this week's Homespun Symposium. Given the manner in which I attacked the question, it was a foregone conclusion that this would happen. After having read Darrell's response I felt it necessary to post something less confrontational in his blog as a means of further explaining myself. In looking back at what I wrote yesterday I realized that I glossed over a few basic points because I didn't have a lot of time nor inclination. All of this really should have been handled in Trackback, but that's irrelevant at this point. I'm blogging a comment I left him last night which I feel makes for a more complete understanding of my position and why I feel it's important. In conjunction with that, I think it's necessary to note that that rarest of internet occurances has indeed occured -- Communication between two people who disagree with each other. That this has occured after a virulent verbal skirmish is even more amazing. Ta,

Darrell, I want to challenge a couple of assumptions within the context of your post, because there is wisdom to be gained from defining terms. The problem I have is with the implications you attach to the word 'right,' as if your rights come from some other place. Now, some say they come from God, I say they derive from your being a human being. But, either way, your rights are personal and only an unrepentant socialist would believe that your society or government is the source of your rights. In fact, that is the heart of socialist theory and the crux of the Hobbesian dialectic. Now, in your post you talk about the 'rights of citizenship.' That phrase doesn't parse well. You may have the 'privelege' of citizenship, as granted by your society/government within their legal framework, but not your 'rights.' Again, your rights are your own. Remember, rights are things that only people have. Governments have powers, granted to them by the people which ordained them (see the preamble to the Constitution). So, I'd like to know how the government can have the 'right' to force me into service to do it's bidding? Moreover, any task that has to be forced upon a free-acting adult is a task whose motives and consequences should be questioned. If it was such a good idea to invade this country or kill these people, there would be no need to forcably do anything, except maybe turn away unqualified volunteers. The freeloader vs. team-player argument is specious as well for the simple reason that we are all economically active and as such contribute to a particular cause via the division of labor and our leveraging our unique talents/skills/dispositions to our maximal advantage. So, while you may offer yourself up as infantry, I may be testing the food that goes into your rations to ensure your health. There is no such thing as a free lunch...period. Ta,

Just Say No to Cops in Schools!

Wendy McElroy makes some very salient points about Zero Tolerance and the stupidity that is integral to it in this morning's edition of LRC(see above link). In summary there is a growing movement of discontent among parents who rightly think they should be involved in any decision regarding their child and any transgressions that might have taken place. Not summarily placed in handcuffs and charged with felonies. This is a very good thing, and one of the main reasons why, I think, homeschooling is beginning to reach the formerly-contented middle class. Of course, I believe the parents are doomed to fail, potentially winning only pyrrhic victories on issues such as 'civilian oversight committes' and or parental notification. In no way will they ever be able to wrest control over their children away from the authoritarians who run most local governments and school boards (not an ad hominem attack, btw. If I'd used an adjective like malicious or repugnant, then it could possibly be ad hominem. But, calling a spade a spade no matter what one's personal feelings on that type of spade is not a personal attack). The end-game scenario for homeschooling is once it reaches a signifigant portion of the population there will be another movement to ban it. Just wait for the Freak-Show to be paraded on CNN, PMSNBC, Fox War Channel and all of those others in the government's amen corner. It should come as no surprise that Capt. Charity Vain and I will be homeschooling our kid(s), both for their safety and mine. I wouldn't want to see my reaction to my child being slapped in irons over a kitchen utensil, and frankly neither would anyone else. That being said I would like to take issue with what is probably as mistaken word rather than a chink in her argument:

But those who call police rather than parents, who lay felony charges rather than issue suspensions, who damage a child's life over a butter knife they know was an innocent mistake ... these people bear responsibility for making the legal terms appropriate.

The problem with the highlighted phrase lies in thinking that bringing a butter knife to school is in some way a 'mistake.' One should not have to justify one's reasons for needing a butter knife with whic to eat their lunch. That's letting your government decide the terms of your behaviour (your children are rightly an extension of you until they are adults) and the terms of the debate. This ties back into the argument from yesterday's rant concerning Homespun Symposium XII. By letting someone else define your terms for you, you let them define the terms under which you can argue, and that is truly a dogmatic way to choke off conversation. It's also sadly effective. Ta,

Wednesday, February 09, 2005

Homespun Symposium XII: Justifying Slavery via the Draft

This week's Homespun Symposium is a question whose naked insanity speak for itself:

During last year's presidential election, some people began talking about reinstating the draft. Most conservatives, such as myself, simply saw it as an effort on the part of liberals to distance young people from Bush. Many conservatives have responded to the issue by insisting that there won't be a draft. Yet, I think another question deserves consideration. Do we have the right to insist and expect that the war against terror will not require a draft? The draft was an important element in the winning of the first two World Wars. The war on terror is another global war. What gives our generation the right to expect to abstain from the same duty our grandfathers and forefathers were called to?

I say insane for any number of reasons. First of which, did the author of this question mean it to be rhetorical? This is not a joke, nor am I being glib. Because its tone and underlying assumptions/presumptions cut off any number of points of view that render the question irrelevant. The right answer, according to the question is bound up in the question itself. Honestly, this is less of an opening for discourse than a rebuke of anyone who disagrees with it. Does the author routinely open up discussions with, "You suck! Why do you think you have the right to suck?" I've been noticing this trend in these Sympopsiums and it's beginning to irk me a lot. Are the question writers here so ideologically blind as to not understand basic intellectual honesty? The Redhunter's question last week was almost as bad as The Southern Conservative's is this week. A little less back-slapping and a little more intellectual rigor might make these worth someone's time to read. Ok, enough complaining. I'm going to attempt a rebuttal at what the question meant to ask, but in fact did not ask. The answer is that yes we have a right not to be drafted, both because individuals are sovereign, regardless of what the courts say, and because of the 13th Amendment, which the draft is in direct conflict with. I thought we outlawed Involuntary Servitude in this country. So why does any of our citizens think they have the right to believe anyone should be forced to serve their wishes using the Federal Government as their proxy? Or am I just being all Anti-Liberty again? Of course we have a right to not be drafted by our government. Let's turn the question around? For what duty were our forefathers called? The answer, is, like everything else, personal. For the question-writer I think I can safely assume that he thought their duty was protecting their families. For me, they were called to further the enslavement of millions of people into one sect of socialism as opposed to the other. So, with that duty in mind, I do expect to abstain from such an honor and privelege. I won't even get into the history implied by the question and how our involvement in WWI created the conditions for WWII. Let's also not forget that Germany was in no way ever going to be able to invade America. But, you know, in a democracy voices that aren't strong enough get crushed by the jack-boots of war. Hmmm.... sounds like real freedom to me, no wonder the Iraqis don't want it. Ta,

Tuesday, February 08, 2005

So Far Being 37 Has Been Pretty Good

Warning: This post is personal! Obstreperous social commentary will resume tomorrow. Now, I'm not trolling for birthday wishes or anything but I just wanted to pass along a wonderful bit of my day. I'm sitting here looking at a box which contains a bottle of The Macallan 12 year old scotch which was given to me by one of the researchers in my laboratory. Now, receiving a birthday present is not that uncommon, and, to be honest, Capt. Charity Vain usually is does more to celebrate it than I could wish for. But, to have it come from such an unexpected source, and it be a gift of such obvious thought and care (not to mention expense... I know how much this person makes) is something worth noting and, I think, sharing with my 3 regular readers. Day to day with things as bad as they are in geopolitic terms I am not the happiest of individuals. And, as such, I have a hard time believing that I do any real good vis a vis those I live and work with. Most of the time I still feel like this guy , one step away from a Full Blown Mogambo Meltdown (FBMM). I'm just egotistical enough to believe that what I have to say is worth hearing, and just realistic enough to know that most people don't care. But, as evinced by the gesture put forth today I guess I must be having some sort of positive effect. So, while mine may not be the biggest of movies, it is filled with quite the quality cast. Tonight I'll open that bottle that I'm looking at now and drink a toast to those who've made my life worth living to this point and worth waking up to tomorrow. I can't toast you individually as alcohol poisoning is not my preferred way to die. Also, I have it on good authority that Capt. Charity Vain doesn't want to bury me just yet. You all know who you are. Thanks. Ta,

Gold Paint Tackier than I Thought

Adam Hamilton who writes the monthly newsletter Zeal Intelligence has some really good advice in the first few paragraphs of this week's article found at the link above:

It is natural for investors and speculators to grow concerned if a short-term trend is not moving in our favor. At its very core, speculation is an internal emotional struggle, not an external battle against the markets. When the markets move against our trades or even our biases, fear begins to well up deep in our hearts. The longer the short-term trend conspires against us, the greater the emotional pressures grow. This emotional stress can create problems though. We humans are created as inherently emotional beings, but in order to be successful in the markets we must trade without emotion. Successful speculators trade on cold, hard logic and probability theory. Since emotions kill objectivity, they are ruthlessly suppressed by elite traders.

In addition to that I'd agree with Adam in the next point he raises, which is that when the short-term trend is getting you down, pull back and look at the larger time-frame and place the movement within it's historical perspective. This is invaluable advice. Jim Sinclair likes to break things down based on your desired level of involvement in the market. The more active you are the shorter the time frame you should be looking at. As a major active member of the trading community Jim regularly publishes his analysis of the intra-day charts on a 9-minute time interval. This is not for me, let me tell you. I haven't been writing or, more importantly, fretting about the bull market in both gold and silver recently in an attempt to gain this kind of unemotional response to the gyrations of the marketplace. Regular reaccquaintence with both the charts and the commentary from those I trust has been enough this time around to keep me on an even emotional keel while this correction plays itself out. Honestly, the only emotion I continually show is one of frustration at not having more capital with which to 'back up the truck' with. Building projects at Outer Luongolia begin again next week and capital saved recently goes towards building a porch and a fence that is desperately needed as opposed to another 3 or 4 ounces of gold. Check out this link for a great chart published by Adam and his crew detailing the gold bull market to date. Ta,

Monday, February 07, 2005

The Welfare Margin for Error

From the Ever-Interesting, Increasingly-Eclectic Econoclast comes a great example of the marginal effects of taxes and how that relates to the welfare trap. He links this from Rodney Hide's blog, and the example is from New Zealand, so, while the numbers may not translate directly for the U.S. the principles underlying them are the same. I once had the opportunity to present this kind of analysis to a county commissioner here in Alachua County. We invited her to one of our meetings and during a discussion of tax increases, namely an increase to the gas tax, I explained to her the real effect of the smallest tax increase. I knew I had actually gotten through this unrepentant socialist's head when after I was finished she looked at me and said, "Excuse me, could you repeat that?" with her pen in hand, ready to jot down the argument for later study. What was sad was that a woman of extensive political experience (3 terms as county commissioner) had never once had this basic economic concept presented to her, either by an assistant, advisory board, college professor, fellow legislator, etc. It's unfathomable that such a simple concept could escape her notice for that amount of time. Of course, she could have been humoring me, but I honestly don't think so. Ta,

Cheese-Eating Killing Machine

Tex over at UnfairWitness has a great collection of quotes from Jonah Goldberg, the 1st Lieutenant of the 101st division of LapTop Bombardiers, in his advocation of the invasion of Iraq, replete with a great little political cartoon. This brouhaha has started up in response to "Sorry-butted" Jonah's disingenuous attack on Prof. Juan Cole, who's rebuttal (in excruciating detail) can be found here. This bit of sniping has been picked up by Lewrockwell as well, as Lew reprinted Prof. Cole's rebuttal on toady's LRC front page. I love the response from this corner of the internet world, making a bunch of noise and throwing Goldberg's own words back in his face in a timely and defensible manner. Goldberg is shameless and smug, insolent and ignorant. Consider the following passage:

In the run-up to war, according to Bob Woodward, Colin Powell allegedly coined the "Pottery Barn rule," which holds that if "you break it, you bought it." Saying, in other words, that we'd be obliged to fix Iraq if we broke it. The press loved this phrase because — they believed — it was so pregnant with I-told-you-sos. Fair enough. But keep two things in mind. First, Iraq was already broken — broken by a madman responsible for unspeakable crimes inside Iraq and out. Second, the Pottery Barn rule is merely a pedantic way of saying that America is honor-bound to fulfill its commitments and act on its ideals.

First off, he negates one of the reasons for invading Iraq by his own metric. If Iraq was already 'broken' before we invaded then why are we honor-bound to stay around afterwards to clean things up? Also, which ideals are those that we feel so 'honor-bound' to fufill? The ideals of America were put forth by Jefferson, Franklin and Washington. You remember them, "All men are creaed equal," "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb sitting down to dinner..." , "Entangling alliances with no one, free trade with all." Not to mention, other little ditties like, "Don't tread on me," "Live free or die" (particularly appropos for Iraq currently, considering the number of civilian casualties), "The Government that governs best, governs least." I'm having a hard time rectifying those words with those of Mr. "Killing People is Important" Goldberg and his insistence on remaining in a place we are clearly not wanted. Now, if Jonah Goldberg wanted to define Iraq's 'brokenness' on the basis of 12 years worth of economic sanctions by the U.S. and it's allies then maybe, just maybe, there might be some shred of truth to the "Pottery Barn" Rule of Colin Powell's. Of course, this is pushing aside the idea that Iraqis are capable of nothing without the help of their benefactors on the other side of the world, namely us, and are in desperate need/want of our help to 'fix' what we 'broke' in the first place. Vicsious and deplorable people like Goldberg and Swarthy Ann Coulter stand as a monument to the kind of corruption of mind and spirit only possible with a strong central government which controls/directs immense amounts of capital. They are brought out to disrupt and distract, lie while being entertaining. But, ultimately they both are nothing more than petulant college-seniors writing as if the they are still the minority on campus, when in reality their words have real consecquences, as tex's list of the dad soldiers with qualificiations similar to Goldberg's bears out. Ta,

Friday, February 04, 2005

Refuting Machiavelli and the Invasion of Iraq

On the ride home last night I was discussing this week's Homespun Symposium with The Lone Mantis (yes, I'm adding to the cast of characters here) and after agreeing with me about the many 'Ends Justify the Means' arguments he saw in regards to the Iraqi elections he said:

Bill Smith beats his wife. Everyday. For ten years. She, Sally Smith, gets tired of it, divorces him and writes a book about the experience, which makes her millions of dollars. So, does that mean Bill Smith is vindicated for having beat his wife? Bill's a good man now! Isn't he?

Yet another example of someone who's gift for conciseness I wish I had. Ta,

Iraqi Elections: "Be Careful What You Wish For..."

Well, it looks like the vote in Iraq that has been hailed as such a great triumph for the NeoCon mantra of "Nation-Building through Violence" has been handed the ultimate come-uppance. The deposing from power (peacefully, remember) of the U.S./Britain darling and current Prime Minister Iyad Allawi. Apparently, we have an Ayatollah Sistani-led blowout on our hands, according to the early election results. For some more analysis of Sistani's role in bringing about this outcome, and what it means for the future in Iraq both for our involvement and the stability of the region I urge you to read or re-read Justin Raimondo's article from January 31st. While your at it you might want to check out these pictures from around Iraq on Election Day, simply for some comparison to what we've been deluged with from the U.S. Media. Sayeth Raimondo:

The original Bush plan was to install a puppet regime with the Americans holding the leash while a constitution was being written by a couple of policy wonks over at AEI and their best Iraqi pal, Ahmed "Hero in Error" Chalabi. But the Ayatollah quashed that without firing a shot: instead, he fired off a fatwa – the Muslim equivalent of a papal encyclical – that condemned the American plan as "fundamentally unacceptable" and demanded that the writing of Iraq's constitution be turned over to an elected assembly of Iraqis.

By the way it is better to read Mr. Raimondo's article directly as his links and attributions are lost in my quotations, of which there are 4 in the above quote alone. With the further news that the Sunnis are boycotting the Drafting of the Constitution because of the current and indefinate occupation by U.S. military forces, among other reasons the Civil War that has been predicted by us Antiwar/Anti-Liberty types as a direct consequence of the the Holy Election held this past Sunday is almost guaranteed to come to pass. Make no mistake I don't wish for this conflict to arise out of this election. I do wish for peace, even if an uneasy one is won by the U.S. Occupation of Iraq. My opinion is that the probability of this is very low, but if I have to live with this situation as it exists it would be the height of arrogance and stupidity to wish for the worst possible outcome from it. Unfortunately, I have to state this explicitly because this is the Internet and the worst is always assumed about you if someone else disagrees with you. You see, there is the fantasy of what we want to believe and then there is the truth and the harsh reality. I don't presume to know that truth but I do know that state violence can only beget more violence in response. The general principle for living your own life applies to everyone else as well: "When you treat people like idiots, don't be surprised when they act like idiots." This works for city planning, managing your staff, raising your dogs, educating children, treating diseases and on and on and on. It doesn't really matter I guess, every war-mongering Blogger for Bush will be holding up their purple-stained fingers in celebration ofthe Miracle of Democracy all the while hoping we don't notice the Powder Burns and the Blood underneath. Ta, Update: Check out Tex's article at UnFairWitness which, if interested will lead you to a timeline of Sistani's Involvement and further commentary on the matter here.

Thursday, February 03, 2005

Rothbard at the Movies -- Iraqi Elections Validating Bush's Invasion?

For this week's Homespun Symposium we have a wholly predictable and simplistic question posed:

"Do you think that the elections in Iraq vindicated President Bush's decision to invade Iraq?"

From the Mises Institute blog is an excerpt from an article written by Murray Rothbard on that old socialist canard, "Do you have the right to falsely yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theatre?"

This formula of that old cynic, Justice Holmes, has been used time and again as an excuse for all manner of tyranny. Just exactly why does no man have this right? Is this really a case where libertarian principle must give way to a diluting "prudence"? There are two possibilities: either the shouter is the owner of the theatre or he is not. If he is the owner, then he is clearly violating the evident contract which he made with the patrons: to put on a play which the patrons can watch – a contract which they executed in cash. By disturbing this performance, he is violating the contract. If the shouter is not the owner, then he is clearly trespassing on the owner’s property. He was permitted on that property on the ground that he would peacefully watch the play, a contract which he is obviously violating. The false shouter of "fire," therefore, is punishable not because free speech should be restricted, but because he is violating the property right of others. And property right, in libertarian principle, is one of the basic natural rights of man.

The two issues are absolutely related and as I needed something to blog about today (the state of my gastro-intestinal system after last night's State of the Union address is specifically off-limits here) this week's symposium question (one I was going to toss off with a dismissive wave due to both it's desperation and naivete) seemed like as good a subject as any. That, and I talked about the NHL's woes yesterday. Rothbard's analysis above vis a vis property rights is correct and can serve as an example of how to approach the viability of a proposed mechanism for solving a problem. I've encountered this exact argument from those wanting to justify all manner of behavior and invariably it comes down an issue of perceived practicality, or implementation. In our quest or desire to accomplish a particular thing we often will gloss over the long-range and/or secondary implications of our methodology, focusing solely on the desired outcome and whether it meets with our approval, which then forms the basis for whether or not the action was 'successful.' This, of course, is a tautology. Moreover, it becomes the only metric by which 'success' is measured. Put more simply, the ends will/do justify the means. Arguments, be they philosophical, political or economic (all sides of the same coin, mind you) over mechanism invariably confuse specification with implementation. This week's Homespun Symposium Question is the above example writ large. This is the point of the exercise quoted above. The question Rothbard raises about principle giving way to 'prudence' strikes to the heart of this issue. The person yelling "Fire!" is engaging in the agressive act of fraud, and moreover, as Rothbard points out he is tresspassing. So, the specification for mitigating this problem is to call for it's eradication. Now, the problem becomes one of implementation, and this is where we have gone horribly wrong. As opposed to affirming the property owner's claim by letting him set the terms of punishment, and by extension, anyone who was harmed by the yeller also has a claim, we have opted for the seemingly more expedient and direct way of handling this by declaring it illegal thus usurping the property owner's rights and imposing our will upon him. Then, of course, if there are fewer instances of "Fire!"-yelling sociopaths inhabiting movie theaters we declare that we are vindicated in our expediency. We ignore, of course, all of the other things that get done using this justification, such as anti-smoking laws, sign ordinances, health department regulations and the like. This seemingly inocuous use of state power undermines, in a legal sense, the entire concept of self-determination. The President stated last night

Our aim is to build and preserve a community of free and independent nations, with governments that answer to their citizens and reflect their own cultures. And because democracies respect their own people and their neighbors, the advance of freedom will lead to peace.

If Democracies are so good at respecting their people why have we invaded and destroyed countless lives both military and civilian and why if I am so against this war am I forced to fund it with my tax dollars? Doesn't sound like there's a lot of respect there now does it? If, by this time you can't see how this relates to the question of the legitimacy of the Iraqi invasion then you probably already stopped reading and I'm not going to spell it out for those that already get it. Nothing good can grow in tainted ground, that's my view. The justifications for the Invasion of Iraq will ultimately be personal, and for me the cost in individual liberty both here at home and in Iraq are too high. There are members of this association of bloggers that can write just as lengthy and eloquently as I can and come to the exact opposite conclusion. I may disagree with them, and I most certainly do, but that does not mean I cannot respect their desire for a particular outcome to come to pass. We are after all, arguing about implementation and not specification. But, the important thing to come back to in all of this is not some naive concept of 'objective vindication' as that is an oxymoron, but the respect for differing world-views and how they are to be considered in any implementation. I have said on many an occassion, both here and in the 'real world,' that all of those who wish to attack and invade another country are free to do so, just don't make me support you in what I consider to be pathological behavior. I disagree with communism, but I respect those who want to implement on a voluntary basis a community that looks very much like what communist theory says will come to pass, for example. It is hard to rectify the president's words about working for peace and freedom when he is engaged in wholly agressive and violent behavior. It's harder still to believe any of his reasons, or those of his apologists, when all they argue for is more of the same and that by not agreeing with them I am helping their enemies. That's the kind of insane, paranoid thinking that begets the collective horrors we witnessed throughout the 20th century. In the end, the concept of vindication is nothing more than a lame attempt at shirking the responsibility of the violence that one has advocated. For many of those that have answered this already in the affirmative, that, 'yes the elections vindicate the president's actions' or the more perverse, 'he already had justification based on some stupid U.N. resolution,' I hope that for them their concepts of the after-life truly do have a mechanism for forgiveness. I don't have that luxury and am erring on the side of caution in the here and now, hopefully to be vindicated by the respect given freely by my peers. Ta, Update: See my follow-up (much shorter) here.

Wednesday, February 02, 2005

NHL Wish List

The Ever-Eclectic Econoclast has a post this morning about improving the state of the actual hockey to be played eventually once the players and the owners remove their collective heads from their collectively-bargained asses and actually sign a deal . But, then again, I did promise I would not talk about the NHL Lock-Out until it was over. The E-EE would like to seet the ice surface widened as one of the changes to make the game more skill-based and less clutchy/grabby/defensive. I agree, but only to a small extent. The common idea bandied around is to make the ice surface equal in size to the European/International rink used in both the Olympics and the World Championship. While those competitions are fun to watch on a short term basis I find the drop-off of hitting and physical play to be too steep. A 115-foot wide rink is too big a correction for the currently too-small 100-foot wide rink currently employed by the NHL. I'd prefer increasing the width of the rink by 5 to 10 feet. I think with that change and a few others that I will outline next will really improve the quality of the hockey and showcase the players who make those salaries so many feel are exorbitant:

105 to 110 by 200 foot Rink.
Move the goal-lines back to their original position (2 feet back from where they are currently)
Widen the Blue Lines from 1-foot to 2 or 3 feet, which creates both more offensive area and more neutral zone, mitigating the over-abundance of 2-line offside passes that now kill the offensive break-out.
Play a 62 to 70 game regular season. Give players more time to recover between games and coaches more time to refine their game plans. Fewer games creates more urgency on a nightly basis as well. (This is probably going to happen btw)
Either widen the nets by 6 inches on each dimension (from 6' x 4' to 6'6" x 4'6") or shrink goalie equipment by 10 to 20%.
Touch-Up Offsides needs to return (In the works)
No-Touch Icing -- but change the definition from "red-line to goal line" to 'defensive blue-line to goal line."
More Opportunities for "4 on 3" and "3 on 3" -- Fighting Majors should result in 4 on 4, with a proxy who was on the ice at the time serving the time in the box.
Remove the Instigator Rule!!!
Remove the Instigator Rule!!!
Remove the Instigator Rule!!!

I think that's enough for now. Hockey is the greatest team sport on the planet and it's a shame that it's greatest collection of talent has shown tremendous reluctance to showcase that talent in a way that is accessible to both the casual viewer and the hard-core fan. When the NHL finally does return to my living room I would like to see a committment to me, the fan, otherwise even I won't come back.

Ta,

Governmentium -- It's not just big, it's really big

Huge props to my good friend Bill VanAllen for bringing this to my attention:

A major research institution has recently announced the discovery of the heaviest chemical element yet known to science. The new element has been named Governmentium. Governmentium has 1 neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons, and 111 assistant deputy neutrons. These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities lepton-like particles called peons. Since governmentium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be detected as it impedes every reaction it comes into contact. A minute amount of governmentium causes one reaction to take over 4 days to complete when it should normally take less than a second. Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2 to 6 years; it does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization causes some morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientists to speculate that governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as Critical Morass.

As a chemist, I laughed til it hurt, stopped, then shook my head in sadness because it's soooooo true. Ta,