Trouble's a' comin'

I’m sure I’m going to read this in 20 years and laugh my ass off at my naivety. In fact, I pray that I do, because if that is the case, then I will have been proven wrong, and society did not experience a multitude of big, nasty changes and possible total breakdowns in the next few years.

Right now, though, I just can’t see any way around it. We are spending ourselves into a hole so big that it can never be overcome, and we are completely unwilling to make the tough choices necessary to fix the problem.

Here is what I mean. Our national debt is 14 trillion, when last I checked. Our budget deficit is 1.5 trillion, also when last I checked.

The toughest, most extensive and most heavily criticized (for being too much, not the other way around, surprisingly) budget reduction program submitted to date by House Republicans calls for 64 billion in cuts to the budget. I want to emphasize that this will never pass, because almost everyone, including the great Harry Reid (un sarcasm) is saying that it is far too “ambitious” and cuts way too many “necessary programs” with no concept of the fact that it doesn’t matter how “necessary” something is when you cannot fucking afford it! When ordinary Americans cannot afford something, no matter how much they think it is necessary, they go without. The government, on the other hand, thinks it just gets to tax those same Americans more so it can continue to fund its $500 dollar toilet seat addiction.

Here is a graph that shows the national debt, the budget deficit, and the almost universally lamented, far too “ambitious” proposed cuts to the current budget.



Can you see the cuts? Look closely, it appears to be just a thickening in the X-Axis line over the words “Proposed Cuts.” Pretty “ambitious”, huh?

Have I made my point? Not yet? Okay, try this on for size:

You live in a family that has an income of $50,000 per year. If you sported numbers like the Federal Government, this would be your story:

You would owe $308,370 in debt.

You would spend $84,361 per year, despite only taking in $50,000 per year, which means that you would be putting the difference of $34,361 on your credit cards every year, adding to your deficit next year as you struggle to make payments and interest on the existing debt.

And you would be telling everybody that tries to help you that a suggested cut of $1,400 (a bit over $100 a month) out of your $84,361 budget is far too ambitious and simply not attainable.

Can you see why I think we are in trouble?

Even the most ambitious, most aggressive, and largest cut that has been proposed does not even show up on a graph compared to the total budget and debt. Even the bravest of our representatives in government are only willing to suggest that we cut $1,400 out of an $84,000 budget when we are already spending $34,000 more than we already have. If this is all the further we can go, and it appears that we can’t even get this far, then why even bother? A $64 billion dollar cut will change nothing, so why even care?

The entire house of cards appears to be collapsing around us as we speak, and our representatives are arguing over $1,400 out of a $34,000 deficit. They don’t see it. They don’t get it. They are preparing to crash this ship of state into the rocks, and are quibbling over whether the decks have been swabbed enough – it won’t matter when she sits at the bottom of the ocean, I can assure you.

Like I said, I hope that I am wrong. I hope I look back at my archives in 20 years and laugh at myself. I hope that we continue to live free and with a high standard of living, for the sake of my newborn daughter and her children. But I don’t think we will.

The Place of Gubmint

Because these are people that no sane person would willingly wish into their lives, we must demand that they effect our lives as little as possible. As I’ve said before and I will say again – the valid functions of Federal Government include:

1. Regulating commerce between the states and foreign interests. Not dictating. Regulating. As in, settling disputes and laying the ground rules on fair trade. This means commerce, as in, monetary transactions where goods and services change hands. Not the commonly-used definition, which is “anything that effects commerce at all” which is to more clearly say “everything”.


2. Maintaining a military for common defense.


3. Building the Interstate Highway system (the “Post roads” described specifically in the Constitution).


4. Coining money.


5. Ensuring that all states provide a republican form of governance (no, I don’t mean the Republican Party, you ninny, get an education).


6. Collecting taxes from the various states, NOT THE INDIVIDUAL, to pay for the above.

The valid functions of State government are:

1. Regulating commerce within the boundaries of the State. Not dictating. Regulating. Basically, setting up the UCC.


2. Building and maintaining state roads and highways.


3. Protecting the commons within each state from exploitation in whichever way is deemed most expedient.


4. Collecting taxes from the individual, including those taxes that will be passed on to the feds. This allows the state to act as an intermediary between the feds and the people to check federal power.


5. Setting about laws and codes, sticking to malum in se as much as possible, and malum prohibitum as sparingly as possible, to regulate the actions of those citizens who would not self-regulate without rule of law, and to punish those who choose to not abide by these rules.


6. Provide a state-wide police force, restricted in power to only assist local police forces with technical needs when requested, investigate local police action if needed, and with no direct police powers over the people, themselves, except for over the local police.


7. Protect private property rights and defend the individual citizen from all violations of his rights.


8. Setting educational standards to be met by schools.

The valid functions of local (county, city) governments are:

1. local codes and ordinances, including zoning, land use, and so forth, but heavily restricted to only the most basic, common sense rules. No factories in residential zones, and so forth.


2. Provide a police force that is the only force that has direct power to police the individual, whose power is checked by the state police, and who’s mission statement, to serve and protect, not to discover and punish, is drilled into their heads every single dy, and fire anyone who does not fall into lockstep with this creed.


3. Providing schools by whichever means is most practicable, with the caveat that vouchers for taxes paid for public schools shall be issued to whomever wishes to opt out of public schooling and use private schools, instead.


4. Provide for local roads and maintenance.


5. provide for utilities, water, sewer, etc by whichever means is most expedient.


6. Lay taxes on the people to pay for all of the above.

The Domino Effect

I find it strange that a mere 6 or 7 years ago, George Bush was standing before the nation suggesting that the installation of a democratic regime in Iraq could possibly cause a “domino effect” in the middle east, causing the people of the middle east to begin, one by one, to demand similar governance from their established regimes. The reason that I find it strange is because that very thing is happening, right now before our very watchful eyes, and it seems no one has the temerity to even consider mentioning that on any major news outlet.

I will go on record reiterating that I am not a fan of George Bush, and never have been. There are a myriad of reasons for this, but suffice it to say that he was no defender of freedom (USAPA, DHS, TSA) and was fiscally about as reckless a President as we’ve ever seen (until Obama). I am not really even suggesting that his efforts in Iraq really started the domino effect that we are seeing today, because I don’t know enough about the root causes of these revolutions to really say. But the important point is that no one does so anyone waving off the possibility that Bush’s invasion and regime change in Iraq was the catalyst for all of this is just as honest as anyone claiming that they know that Bush caused it.

Of course, the reason it is being ignored isn’t because no one has thought of it. It is because it doesn’t fit the narrative that Bush was an idiot, evil warmonger Halliburton/oil company stooge that invaded Iraq to get oil. To present the idea that he was right as possibility, it would present as possible, also, that Bush was actually an astute and shrewd planner who had foresight that no one in the media bothered to have. They simply will not allow that.

Now, consider that it was Barack Obama who had suggested the domino effect 6 years ago. Do you think that the media would have conveniently forgotten about it? Or would they be screaming on every headline about how Obama deserved credit for these revolutions, what with his clear, focused, forward thinking and almost omniscient ability to foretell the future and all? I think I know how I would vote. How about you?

Keep Me From Being... The One The Wolves Pull Down

I hate busybodies. I despise the very concept of a person that would dictate to others how they should live because they think that they’ve found some better way of doing things. Notice I said “dictate” not “suggest.” Suggestions for improvement, or opinions, are one thing – God only knows, I’ve got enough of both. It is when the person chooses to use the force and violence of government to impose their will on another that makes my blood boil.

My most recent experience with this is fraught with misconception, laced with idealism, and completely ignorant of reality, and it has to do with wolves.

Yeah, like howling-at-the-moon wild canines.

First, a bit of history. Men and wolves have a strange relationship. We either love to live with each other, or hate each other’s guts. Case in point, we took wolves into our villages and domesticated them as dogs, and yet, those wolves that decided to stay wild have been a competitor and the bane of our existence since the dawn of civilization. They are stiff competition to natural resources; they kill massive amounts of prey that would otherwise be in the forest for humans to eat. Often times, wolves kill just for the sake of killing, further driving up the competition for resources that have, historically, been much better and more thoroughly used by man. Wolves also kill livestock. Lots of them, and again, often times just for fun.

For these reasons, men and wolves have developed a very contentious relationship, leading to bounties on wolves placed by ranchers who’s livelihoods were being destroyed by thrill-killing predators. Current elite city folk like to pretend that the bounties placed on wolves back in the day were the result of misunderstandings, and prejudices, ignorance, dim-wits, and fear of stories about the “big bad wolf.” This is wrong. The men back then understood fully what they were doing, why they were doing it, and fear and prejudice had nothing to do with it; rather, it was brute survival. The wolves were killing these men’s stock, and destroying their ability to sustain themselves – it was kill or be starved. People and wolves do not coexist well. They never have.

That being said, I do not agree with the idea of extirpating them, as is what occurred. There was the ability back then, as there is now, to reasonably manage the wolf population so that they would not run the wild stocks so low that they had to resort to much more risky livestock killing. Instead, they killed them all, and I think that this was a crime against nature.

That being said, when the concept came about back in the 1990’s to reintroduce wolves into Idaho, where they had be extirpated 70 years earlier, I was not against it. I will admit to some concern at the concept, though, and my concern appeared to be well-founded.

They made several mistakes long the way. I’ll start from the tippy-top.

First, they didn’t reintroduce native, Idaho wolves. They went north, to the Tundra, and caught some timber wolves, and reintroduced those. The problem here is that what used to be a population of small, 65 to 80 pound wolves, is now a population of 130 pound super-predators (Note the weight - 127 pounds !!!)*. There is a reason that big, Canadian timber wolves never lived in Idaho, and it is because Idaho’s ecosystem wasn’t designed to have them there. The big timber wolves of the north are designed for very cold climates where they are pulling down very large prey like moose and caribou. The smaller, Idaho wolves were designed to hunt deer and young elk, but it was conjected (and backed up with some historical data) that they rarely preyed on mature elk, the way the current lot of wolves is doing.

Second, they reintroduced them, and then kept an eye on their numbers with the attitude that every additional wolf was a good thing, without any concern for the capacity of the ecosystem and the current herds of elk, moose, and deer in Idaho. Wolves remained federally protected (and still are) throughout the process, so there was no method by which they could control overpopulation in an ecosystem that had gotten used to them not being around. What this means is that over the 75 years that no wolves roamed Idaho, the elk and deer herds stayed about the same size, but concentrated into smaller areas as more land got developed and lost to elk and deer, and the animals, themselves, felt much less pressure to move and range away from wolf packs. They also got complacent, because they were only being hunted for 2 months out of the year by humans, and for the remainder of the year by absolutely nothing at all besides the occasional single cougar. So, you have thick population density of animals not used to worrying about wolves being around, and what resulted was a slaughter. Wolf populations soared as gluts of easy-pickings resources were taken, and elk and deer populations suffered horribly. The only method for population control was to live trap and relocate these superpredators, but the problem then became that they eventually ran out of places to relocate. The whole of Idaho is now overpopulated with wolves, and Idaho very seriously needs to do something about it. (Note, Washington isn't far behind. We are starting to have our own problems with wolves and also relocated problem Grizzly bears, also federally protected by people in Washington, DC)

And here is where we get into the busybodies. You see, they have followed the wolf saga from day one, and throughout the whole thing, they have been orgasmic with the concept of fixing that which we screwed up in the first place. In the process, however, they’ve screwed things up even worse than they were to begin with, but are not willing to accept that. Every day, we here in Idaho have to live with livestock losses, the decimation of our elk and deer herds, and the constant depredation of property and beloved family pets brought about by wolves, while they get to live in their ivory towers, 2000 miles away from the action with the smug feeling of satisfaction that they get by thinking that they’ve undone a horrible wrong, when in fact, all they’ve done is create another.

And this is where the elite part comes in, because, from 2,000 miles away, not having experienced on the ground what we are experiencing, and not having to deal with the wolves, themselves, they are calling us ignorant hillbillies that believe in the big bad wolf stories from our childhood that don’t know what we are talking about and that the wolves won’t cause problems. Again, they speak in theory (communism is a great thing!) while we, here in the trenches, speak in reality and actual experience (communism has killed more people than all other forms of evil combined, and makes even Hitler look like a piker in total body count). They ARE causing problems. There is no theory remaining, just actual experience. Idaho has actually created a wolf hunting season, and has released quite a few tags for a tiny harvest of the total wolf population, and the feds have sued to stop it. A legally issued tag by the state can become a liability to anyone that shoots a wolf, because even though Idaho says it is legal, a shooter still risks federal prosecution if they shoot a wolf. Idaho has told the Federal Government that they created a huge problem when they released wolves (against Idaho’s wishes, by the way) and now are saddling Idaho with the burden of handling the problem and not helping. The Feds have basically ignored every complaint.

And so, we are left with a choice. We have a sustainable, population control harvest of wolves, or, we allow things to continue until all livestock, deer, and elk have been killed in the state, and then the wolves starve to death, leaving nothing in their wake. Our Federal government has chosen option 2.

It boggles the mind.

*Take some time to read the website "Wolf Clash." Especially if you are from New York, or back east somewhere and you think the "re-introduction" of these non-native super-predators was a great, noble thing. Then, shut the hell up.

Sick, Wrong, and Gore-ey‏

All of you know who Al Gore is right? He’s the environmentalist guy that lives in a house, by himself, that is big enough to fit four of my houses into, and uses 20 times the energy my house uses (oh yeah, and he has 4 houses like this, too); who jet-sets around the globe in a private jet; and who spends all his time telling us that using energy is evil and should not be done. So, yeah, that hypocrite.

Remember his claim to fame?

No, not inventing the internet. The other one. The Love Canal. How he was all about cleaning it up and saving the poor residents of Niagara from the evil corporations that used them as a cheap place to dump toxic chemicals? You remember? You know the story. It is an Erin-Brokovich like story, where the evil company was trying to save a few dollars by killing everyone that lived around it with toxic chemicals. Remember?

Did you know that that was all a lie? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal

Pretty much everyone has the straight skinny on what really went down, but there above, is a link to a Wikipedia page that sums it up pretty well. If you don’t want to link, here is my condensed version.

Mmmmkay…

So there was this guy named Love who wanted to dig a canal through Niagara for some reason. He started it but didn’t finish it. In the 20’s, 30’s, 40’s, and 50’s, the government used the unfinished, dry canal as a place to dump chemicals and waste products from military/industrial sources (including waste from the Manhattan Project, sooooo, yeah, probably some pretty nasty stuff). In the late 40’s, and early 50’s, they started allowing other companies to dump there. A chemical company named Hooker got a permit to dump there, and created a clay-lined, haz-mat landfill per standard practice (this is still more or less the standard practice for these things, even today), and with government permission also dumped a bunch of stuff there. By the late 50’s, they were finished dumping there, and backfilled the landfill to essentially reclaim the site. It became a big field, with no leaks, and no problem. Oh, yeah, and also by this time, they were the sole user of the site, and had somehow by then also become the owner of the property.

The local government became avaricious in regards to the site. They wanted it to build a school or some shit. Hooker told them that it was unsafe to use the site for anything because of all the stuff, both known and unknown, that had been dumped there over the last 50 years. The school district, replete with their avarice, told them that they did not care, that they wanted the land, and would take it via eminent domain if necessary. After months of arguing with them and warning them that it was not a good idea to use the land for anything, the school district stood by their guns, so Hooker agreed to sell it to them for $1, with the caveat that the school district sign a piece of paper holding them harmless for damages caused by the school district messing with the property, and also strongly recommended that they not build on the land.

The school district built on the land anyway. In the process, they breached the integrity of the clay lining of the landfill, and a spill occurred. Bam. Love Canal is national news.

Now, here is the real gasper. Hooker was held liable for the mess. That’s right. Hooker. So let me lay it out for you in summary:

1.) Hooker was LEGALLY using a government dump site with permission from the government to do so.
2.) The government signed rights for the site over to Hooker, who continued to legally and safely dump there, per the permit that they had to do so. The dump site was contained and built to the standards necessary to contain such a dump site.
3.) The government demanded the property back to be used for development, which Hooker advised against strongly, and only allowed it to happen with their protest and after the government released them from liability for any spills.
4.) The government, not listening to Hooker, dug and breached the landfill, and created a horrible mess despite Hookers warning that just such a thing would surely happen if they didn’t listen to them.
5.) after all of this, Hooker is held responsible (when it cant even be proven that the waste that was released was even Hooker’s waste to begin with – remember, the government dumped there for years, too). This AFTER it was established that dumping there was completely legal, done in a manner that was to the standards of the time and safe, and that the site was rememdiated and left in a condition where it would not leak if someone didn’t f^&* with it. The government f#$% with it, and now it is Hooker’s fault.

How does that work again? Why would anyone want to start a business in their country when you can operate legally for 50 years, then have everything you did get undone by government meddling, and then get blamed for it?

And you people want these people to have control over your healthcare? What the hell?

They Aren't Superheroes... Hell, They Aren't Even Above Average

It has long been a staple of conservative thought that Governmental organizations mess up everything that they touch, and so are better off touching as little as possible. Many of us do not understand why this is other than to assume that the people in government are stupid or dull or misled or… or… or…

Sometimes, we are right. Sometimes, we are wrong.

Sometimes, the motive is evil, unadulterated thirst for power. Sometimes, the result is merely an unfortunate result of unitended consequences (a necessary result of any governmental action, explained quite eloquently here by the esteemed and brilliant Francis Porretto. Go. Read.)

The law of unintended consequences is unswervable and all-encompassing for government-related ukases and determinations. I think we all can see this happening daily – pass healthcare that costs more, and stocks go down after the companies effected take the write-down as they are required by law; pass a law in California banning the sale of large-screen TVs, and a new business plan is hatched in Nevada where huge electronics stores are erected on the border between the two states selling – yup, you guessed it – large screen TVs; or, take a more recent example, which hit me much more closely to home here recently.

In the spirit of protecting our environment and our river from pollutants, our county representatives banned the sale of phosphate-containing dish soaps and detergents in our county. Not wanting to start jailing people for the possession of phosphate-containing soaps, they didn’t write the law to ban possession, importation, or even USE of these soaps – no, you just can’t sell them in our county.

My first reaction was “so what?” How important can phosphates really be in cleaning dishes, and if it helps the river to be more healthy, that is great! Apparently, to answer my first question, they are very important. My dishes were coming out of the dishwasher with a sickening film of yuck all over them due to the new, phosphate free soap (of which there was only one option for the first year of the law).

So, what does every citizen who cares about clean dishes in Spokane County now do? Drive 10 minutes across the border into Idaho and Kootenai County to buy stocks of dish soap and “smuggle” it back across the border. The government rule has accomplished nothing but the unintended consequence of driving the tax revenue for dish soap sales not only into an adjacent county, but into a completely different state! The rule, itself, would likely have accomplished very little, as the river in question flows through several counties in Montana, Idaho, and Washington, all of which still allow phosphate soaps to be used. Taking one county out of the equation was never going to accomplish much, anyway.

Now, we have a black market in phosphate soaps in Spokane County - black markets being the biggest unintended consequence of all. I think it was Winston Churchill who opined that a black market is the inevitable result of a governmental decision to ban a wanted or needed product.

So, I guess my point, along with the point of Churchill and Mr. Porretto is this: governmental employees, electees, and designees are not any brighter than your typical, average, everyday American. Do not give them any more control over you, your decisions, and your life than you would willingly give to your beer-swilling, engine-revving-at-all-hours-of-the-night neighbor.

(Post-script – The technology, quality, and results of the phosphate free soap has greatly improved since retailers here have started importing European brands for use here after three or so years of using the only locally-produced brand available (that sucked serious kiester). Europe has been phosphate-free for a decade or more, so their soap people have had more time to get it right, and so we can now buy soaps that clean dishes acceptably well, although they still fog a clear glass after a couple of months from etching, and are not quite as good at cleaning as the old soaps are. As a result, my household has started buying phosphate free soap again and we are using it despite the disadvantages, since it really does help the river to get rid of all of those phosphates.)