SPLC to get Sarah Palin treatment any day now.
A worthy point. The media’s silence on this shooting is absolutely amazing. Imagine what the reaction would be if someone went to the headquarters of a left-wing thinktank, shot at a bunch of people, admitted he was doing it entirely for political reasons, and then said “I knew that was the place to go because I saw it listed on Glenn Beck’s website.” Think they might cover that story?
… on the same show.
Good luck with that one buddy. There’s only one non-socialist national politician who has called for an immediate end to all of our foreign wars, and that would be Ron Paul, the same guy whom you proudly proclaim you never have and never will support.
But no, for real, I’m sure his good buddy Ted Cruz is working really hard on ending the wars. Yeah….
http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/02/05/glenn-end-the-war%E2%80%A6-now/
Ah, the Super Bowl. The closest thing we will ever have to a holiday celebrating capitalism and free markets. A day when the entire nation comes to a standstill to watch a bunch of large men slam into each other at high speeds for no productive purpose whatsoever. A mindless diversion that has managed to sell itself as a critical event of vast importance to millions of people around the world (many of whom aren’t even betting on the outcome).
Not a fan of football? Well, there’s no need for that to stop you from partaking in the “Super Bowl experience” of socializing and gorging on junk food. The market has created something for you too. Whether you’re a bored housewife or a self-important hipster, those who have no interest whatsoever in athletic competition can still receive some gratification from the broadcast in the form of Super Bowl commercials. Super Bowl commercials are widely acclaimed and discussed, and millions of Americans claim that the commercials are their primary, and in some cases only, reason for watching the broadcast at all.
As far as I can tell, there was no concerted effort by either the NFL or by advertising firms to create the phenomenon of Super Bowl commercials being granted some special significance in the minds of Americans. It was simply a product of natural market forces. The Super Bowl was an exceedingly popular event. As such, it could demand large premiums for advertising. As a result of having to pay so much money for an advertising spot, companies made extra efforts to produce the highest quality advertisements they possibly could. Much in the way that the owner of an expensive car is likely to care a great deal more for its appearance than the owner of a beat-up 1970s pickup truck, the purchaser of a Super Bowl advertising spot is much more likely to take great care in creating a quality advertisement than the purchaser of an advertising spot on a rerun of I Love Lucy playing on TV Land at 6 AM.
Eventually, people started to recognize this pattern. The masses appreciated the fact that the Super Bowl generally contained the highest quality advertisements – the very best that Madison Avenue has to offer. People began to anticipate these advertisements ahead of time, and discuss them afterwards. The advertisements themselves were designed to appeal to a wide audience, thus bringing in additional viewers, those who watch “just for the commercials.” And a phenomenon was born.
The delightful irony is that many of those who gladly watch the Super Bowl “for the commercials” are completely and totally antagonistic to advertising in every other possible instance. Advertising is one of the most despised industries on the planet. The range of opinions among the populace at large seems to range from considering it to be a minor annoyance of little value to a great societal evil that must be stamped out at all costs. Advertising is widely criticized as being a waste of resources. People claim that it serves only to mislead people into buying inferior products. It is often treated as a problem, which many firms have offered solutions to, which many Americans gladly accept. They change the radio station when advertisements start to play. They watch television shows on DVR, and gleefully skip past all the commercials. They install highly advanced software on their computers, designed to seek out and eliminate any and all forms of advertising that one might encounter on the Internet.
It occurs to me that there is a great deal of cognitive dissonance going on in our society when it comes to advertising. We greatly appreciate and do not hesitate to reap the benefits of advertising. Most of the television shows we watch, radio stations we listen to, and websites we visit on a regular basis depend on advertising as their primary source of revenue. Without the advertising, these products might very well cost more for us to purchase, or might not even exist at all. And one day a year, we all sit down and acknowledge that advertising can in fact be entertaining. Nobody ever thinks of changing the channel when a commercial starts to play… if the channel is currently tuned in to the Super Bowl broadcast, despite the fact that all of the traditional objections to advertising continue to apply. Nobody records the Super Bowl on DVR and then skips through all of the commercials.
For one glorious day each year, Americans forget their misguided anti-business prejudices and embrace their inner capitalist, even going as far as to shower praise and respect onto one of its greatest supposed evils, advertising. We spend loads of money, consuming junk food and watching a game that provides no material benefits to society whatsoever. We support a multi-billion dollar industry that requires an unbelievably complex and developed division of labor to even be remotely possible. Every aspect of the Super Bowl is a celebration of the wealth and prosperity that we enjoy in America today, and that we owe to brilliant minds operating in their own rational self-interest. It is a celebration of capitalism and consumerism that is truly without equal in modern society (although Christmas may come close in terms of result, much of the discussion regarding that holiday consists of griping and complaining about the commercial aspects of it).
Then, the next morning, society wakes up and forgets what it just celebrated and why it was possible. We go right back to biting the advertisers who feed us. Perhaps instead, we could learn a lesson from the success of the Super Bowl, and from its commercials, and we could appreciate all the benefits that capitalism in general, and advertising specifically, have brought us. Let’s pretend it’s the Super Bowl every day.
I think I’ve got a decent variety for today…
NFL cracks down on fake jerseys
This article says that the NFL has seized over $13 million in counterfeit merchandise. What makes this merchandise “counterfeit” you ask? The fact that the people who made it didn’t pay the NFL exorbitant merchandising fees, that’s what. Presumably, this seized merch will be destroyed. The article claims, “No good comes of counterfeiting American products — whether NFL jerseys, airbags, or pharmaceuticals.” I beg to differ. Plenty of good comes out of the fact that people have the ability to pay $30 for a reasonable approximation of a product that would normally cost them $150. By destroying the seized merchandise, the NFL is effectively making humanity $13 million poorer. Of course, I’m sure all of their managers are Keynesians who believe this counts as economic stimulus.
Rove: About That “Permanent Democratic Majority”
I’m no fan of Karl Rove, nor am I particularly concerned about the ultimate fate of the GOP, but he makes some salient points here, even if he ultimately falls into the same nonsensical trap of believing that the solution is to bribe Hispanics with amnesty. The GOP may be evil, incompetent wastes of life, but don’t for one second believe that the Democrats can’t be just as evil and just as incompetent! If all of these concerns about demographics were actually true, then the GOP should do worse and worse every year, but that doesn’t really seem to be the pattern at all.
Suicide Watch at CNN? Rupaul’s “Drag Race” Beats Piers Morgan
The headline sort of speaks for itself. Piers Morgan’s ratings aren’t just bad; they are laughably, historically, bad. Unfortunately, I agree with Glenn Beck’s analysis of this. CNN will wait a bit to dump Piers to allow him to save face. Ultimately, when they do dump him, he will become a heroic martyr among the far left who will claim he got fired solely because he had the character and moral courage to stand up to the NRA, and they just have so much power that they got him silenced because he was just about to succeed in rallying the public to finally ban guns forever. Being fired will only increase his credibility among the far-left wackos who care what he has to say.
Judge Napolitano went on Varney and Company this morning to address the upcoming amnesty compromise, and coherently made the case for the libertarian argument against immigration control. He also encouraged the Republicans to hop on board the amnesty bandwagon in order to potentially win the votes of the millions of illegals who would become citizens under this plan.
While I generally agree philosophically with the “natural rights argument” of open borders, I think the Judge’s political analysis of this issue is incredibly off-base, and that it would spell political suicide for the GOP to support such measures.
The first issue is the media. Far from being honest journalists whose main objective is to fairly report events, they are mainly propagandists who attempt to advance ideological goals. The Judge is hoping that if the GOP endorsed amnesty from a natural rights argument, they would be properly recognized as having done so. No. Freaking. Chance. The mainstream/leftist media would simply characterize the event as racist, ignorant Republicans attempting to buy off the Hispanic vote by supporting a policy they obviously don’t believe in. Chris Matthews would cry out: “This is a cheap stunt by the racists! Don’t be stupid enough to buy it, Hispanics!” and they would in fact, not buy it. Meanwhile, the neocon media outlets would decry the GOP as a bunch of spineless cowards, liars, and hypocrites, and the move would do nothing but further alienate a large chunk of the Republican base. Do we think that Sean Hannity understands the nuances behind natural rights? Not a chance. He will declare any Republicans who support this measure as traitors, and the Democrats will happily watch and attempt to encourage the infighting that would ensue. The only cable news program that might possibly report on the natural rights issue at hand is Stossel.
The second issue is the public itself. The reason the media doesn’t honestly report the truth is because the public isn’t particularly interested in an honest portrayal of the truth. They want their news to be spun in a politically partisan matter, and they aren’t particularly interested in having complex discussions about the role of government, the limitations of property rights, natural law, etc. The leftists want everyone to be equal, and the neocons want America to rule the world, and that’s about all they care about. Everything else is nuance which will be ignored.
The third issue is the complete incompetence of the various prominent members of the GOP itself. Let’s say, hypothetically, that the Republicans really do believe in natural law and property rights, and as a result, they get together and agree unanimously to pass an amnesty bill. How do you think they communicate this policy shift to the American people? Do they send out Rand Paul (probably the only prominent Republican who might understand the implications and nuances of the philosophy) to explain to the public that the GOP has decided to embrace natural law and private property rights? Or do they send out Mitch McConnell and John Boehner to engage in pathetic racial pandering and nonsense made-up economic statistics (like a baseless promise that more immigration will “create jobs”)? Which do you think is more likely?
Contrary to The Judge’s assertion that the GOP can create an environment more welcoming to illegals than the Democratic party, I assert that this is completely impossible. Regardless of what the GOP does, the media will work overtime to indoctrinate Hispanics into believing that Democrats love them and Republicans are racist, and it will continue to work. Embracing amnesty will simply alienate the social conservative voters and turn the GOP into an even more pathetic farce than it already is. Perhaps The Judge knows this, and is intentionally giving them bad advice in order to watch them destroy themselves more quickly, thus clearing the way for a true alternative, a political party that rejects the welfare/warfare state entirely, and stands for liberty and individual freedom.
This story amuses me greatly. For those who aren’t aware, Jonathan Coulton is a quite talented and entertaining singer/songwriter whose core audience would probably be best described as “nerds,” (not necessarily in a negative way, it is likely a label that most of them embrace). His songs are generally quirky and intellectual; many reference video games. If you recognize the song “Still Alive” from Portal, that was his work.
A few years ago, he produced a quite creative cover of the Sir Mix-A-Lot classic, “Baby Got Back,” the entire premise of which has now been shamelessly ripped off by the popular FOX television series “Glee.” His fans, many of whom have previously argued against intellectual property, are absolutely outraged. How dare Glee steal his idea! They should be made to pay for this! He should sue them! Coulton, who has used creative commons licensing (see my earlier post on the hypocrisies of CC) declares that it doesn’t apply, because his CC license specifies non-commercial use.
In other words, Coulton (and the vast majority of his fanbase) clearly support the right of an artist to decide exactly how their ideas (which are also known as “intellectual property”) are used. Presumably, if he has the right to forbid others from copying his music for commercial purposes, then other artists, if they so choose, have the right to forbid others from copying their music for any purpose.
Anyone who is truly against intellectual property should absolutely defend Glee’s right to re-purpose Coulton’s idea. Who does he think he is, selfishly hoarding ideas and preventing them from being distributed to a mass audience? How can he argue that this action by Glee harms him when we all know that ideas do not have scarcity, and that by copying his work, nothing was actually taken from him? Rather, he should thank Glee for improving on his work, and making it more well known to the general public. This is the only consistent position that someone against IP should take in regards to this matter.
In case you’re curious…
While I am admittedly a little late to the party when it comes to commenting on Lincoln, I just wanted to take a little time to point out a brief passage from his first inaugural address. This was his first opportunity to address the nation as President, and what was, in his mind, the most important thing to convey to the public?
| “Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. |
|
| Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.” |
The only thing to precede these remarks in his address was a brief introduction. The very first thing he said as President was that he did not have the desire, or the constitutional authority to interfere against southern slavery, and that he absolutely would not use military action to quash their sovereignty. Just a thought, for those on the left who are currently comparing Obama to Lincoln (as a compliment) and for those on the right who are saying the two aren’t anything alike (as an insult).
I should note that I became aware of this gem because I am currently enrolled in a course at Mises Academy taught by Tom DiLorenzo, author of The Real Lincoln. This class has taught me quite a bit, and I highly recommend the Mises Academy to anyone who is interested in learning more about economics, american history, or political philosophy from a libertarian perspective.
Some of them suck. Some are dishonest. Some are lazy. Some are corrupt. Some are psychotic.
Can I say that? Is that too controversial? Does stating this mean I hate America? Seriously, this military-worship has got to stop. It seems to me that Wal-Mart’s new policy of “We guarantee we will hire any honorably discharged veteran” is incredibly short-sighted, and likely to leave them with plenty of awful, less-qualified employees. Please don’t think I’m just some military-hating leftist here, I’m still on active duty myself, so I know what I’m talking about. I’ve seen it first-hand. I’ve worked with some complete and total losers who have been honorably discharged. The only way to get anything other than an honorable discharge is to fail a drug test or commit a serious (felony-level) offense.
This policy is, essentially, affirmative action for veterans, and with it will come the litany of problems that always accompany affirmative action, the most significant of which is that it demeans everyone who is a part of the group. The fact of the matter is that I don’t want any job unless I’m the most qualified applicant. I don’t want people to suspect that the only reason I was hired is because I’m a veteran. Quite frankly, there are plenty of veterans who aren’t fit to be a cashier at Wal-Mart. You can see them every day on the street corner holding up cardboard signs (fortunately, many of those people are lying about being veterans, but presumably some of them are not).
So the next time you’re at Wal-Mart and you receive exceptionally poor customer service, ask yourself whether this policy might have been a factor. Whether Wal-Mart hired an unqualified applicant solely because they used to be in the military. Once this policy goes into effect, I would recommend avoiding Wal-Mart at all costs.
I wanted to write about this on the front page rather than simply in the reading list in order to draw additional attention to it. I just finished reading Defending the Undefendable by Walter Block, and I was completely amazed.
This is by far one of the best non-fiction books I’ve ever read. The book is, essentially, a collection of case studies in how to think like a common-sense economist. I say common sense rather than Austrian economist, simply because many of the arguments boil down to fairly basic economic theory rather than specific distinctions unique to the Austrian school. Rather than present the material in a dry, top-down, foundational treatise form (such as Rothbard’s “Man, Economy and State”), Walter Block offers a series of short, real-life examples in how the principles of economics can show us that “conventional wisdom” often misses the greater point.
One of my favorite aspects of this book is the variety. Even though almost every one of the “villains” that Block seeks to defend could be justified by the simple argument of “humans only engage in voluntary trade for mutual benefit,” he doesn’t simply rely on that in every chapter. Rather, he comes up with unique (and still relevant) defenses to almost every case, meaning that by the time you are finished with the book, you’ve been exposed to a wide variety of economic concepts and seen them applied to real life situations. In my opinion, the application part is huge. The average layman with absolutely no knowledge of economics could read this book, easily understand the arguments, and walk away understanding basic economics better than Paul Krugman, without even knowing that he was just taught economics.
That’s not to say the book is absolutely perfect. Some of the language is a bit stuffy, some of the cultural references are a bit outdated (it was written in the 70s), and most of the illustrations are just…. weird. I don’t necessarily agree with all of the arguments either, sometimes he just goes too far out there and seem to be playing too much of a devil’s advocate (and coming from me, that’s saying something). The chapter on counterfeiting, for example, strikes me as a fairly weak argument where he was simply trying way too hard to justify something that really does not have any redeeming qualities.
Despite these minor flaws, this is still an excellent book. If I were teaching basic economics to a high-school or undergraduate class, I would prescribe this book as a text. I cannot think of any other book I have read that makes a clearer, more easily understood case for freedom and liberty, while at the same time training your brain to “think like an economist.” This is an all-time classic, and we all owe a debt of gratitude to Dr. Block for writing it.
Dude, Where's My Freedom? 
David Gregory: Hero
A journalist heroically violates an unjust law on national television
I meant to write about this several weeks ago when this “story” broke, but never got around to it. Supporters of the second amendment and the right to self-defense really need to shut the hell up about David Gregory waving an “illegal” magazine around on NBC news. This is not a winning argument for us. Rather, it is a completely transparent attempt to play the same sort of “gotcha” political games that we condemn the mainstream media for constantly engaging in.
1. Is it not our stated position that such magazine bans are both immoral and unconstitutional? If so, Gregory’s actions in open defiance of a law we oppose are heroic and worthy of praise, not an act to be condemned.
2. The arbitrary enforcement of silly rules is one of the chief libertarian complaints against large, oppressive government. Even if you support a ban on high-capacity magazines, it is quite clear that Gregory, although likely in violation of the letter of the law, did not violate the spirit of the law. Does anybody actually think this is his own personal magazine? That he did anything with it other than briefly show it to the camera? Please.
3. Two wrongs don’t make a right. The fact that someone else would likely have been charged for this is irrelevant. Object if and when they are, but do not demand tyranny for everyone. Pulling people down in the name of equality is an activity we should leave to the Commies.
Anyone who truly favors the second amendment should, rather than vilifying and demanding the arrest of Gregory, point to this case as an example of why firearms regulations are stupid. The vast majority of American gun owners are, like Gregory himself, of absolutely no danger to the public at large. The fact that David Gregory can handle a 30-round magazine without anyone nearby dying is proof that you and I could do so as well. I believe that Gregory is completely within his rights to hold such an item, and that I have every right to obtain a similar one. I refuse to demand the enforcement of an unjust law solely because someone I disagree with happens to have violated it.