Colin archive at Zeal For Truth

Loading Newer »

Less

Author Archive for Colin

Links: A Few for the Fourth

Published by Colin July 4, 2008 in General. 0 Comments

Every week, our users put together the news, interviews, articles, videos and media that they have found important, interesting and informative. We post it every Friday. Here are the links for this week:

Believe Me, It’s Torture - Writer Christopher Hitchens undergoes waterboarding.

Rights commission dismisses complaint against Maclean’s

GAFCON Final Statement. In their own words This is what it is. The Wikipedia article on it is useful and is HERE.

Evangelical movement touts ‘Jesus for president‘

Thank You For Sharing: For women, blogs are becoming as essential as lipstick

The Death of Left and Right

Published by Colin July 2, 2008 in Essays and Politics. 5 Comments

It has been a tough thing this election cycle, especially with the beacon of light which was the Ron Paul movement, to admit defeat. Argument after argument I have engaged, especially with “conservatives” has been predicated on the hope that the new statist conservative movement is a fad, and that there is still a remnant of “old school” conservatives in the mainstream GOP. I think it is time to admit defeat. The Left died some time ago in this country, and now the Right has joined them in the grave.

It was once said that Left and Right in America looked something like this:

Right - Social and fiscal conservatives. Philosophically opposed to collectivism, big government and taxes. Fiscally responsible, favouring balanced budgets and looking to cut taxes and spending. Supporting civil rights. Promoting a moral society. Supporting private and family education. Seeing the family as the foundation of a moral society. Strong on defence but sceptical of empire and conflicts that could damage trade. Supporting immigration and freer borders.

Left - Social and Fiscal liberals. Generally favour collectivism to individualism. Bigger government but restrained by laws and free and fair elections. Fiscal investments in welfare, infrastructure and military. Supporting civil rights, especially privacy. Sceptical of police and military for uses other than peacekeeping and defence. Generally more states-rights.

In name, the major parties still would claim to hold to these principles. But when Mitt Romney argues that government-mandated healthcare is a “market solution” and Mike Huckabee claims that we need to “stop spending,” but should support increased NASA funding, farm subsidies and federal education spending - we clearly have double-speak of Orwellian proportions.

Bob Barr, former conservative congressman, currently running for president as a Libertarian, explains exactly when it was that conservatism died:

I remember the precise moment. I was elected to Congress in 1994 with the Republican Revolution, and four years later we were in one of the House Republican caucuses, just before the ‘98 election, and the leadership came in and said very clearly, “We’ve got an election coming up. Anybody here who has a problem in their district, sit down with Representative Kasich or Armey and tell them what you need to have in this year’s budget to win your election.” And they might as well have had a sign flashing in the background that said “business as usual.” We were no longer serious about reining in government. And now McCain goes out and talks about doing away with earmarks, and the public applauds. But in one year, you could simply freeze spending and save ten times as much. They want to give the appearance of tackling the issue, but not really. It’s part of the same shell game they use cycle after cycle.

The left and right as a valid barometer of political spectrum has now vanished. There is now little that distinguishes someone like John McCain from Barack Obama. Both are for continuing the war in Iraq. Both are gung-ho about possible expansion. Neither would fix the PATRIOT act. Neither would fix NCLB. Both seem to want increased border restrictions. Neither will cut spending. Both want statist solutions to global warming. Both are opposed to free markets. Neither of them support individual liberty. And it seems neither have read the constitution in a while.

Again, Barr speaks eloquently to the topic:

[The presidency is] the same establishment, the same power-hungry entity, whether it’s a Republican or a Democrat… Every administration that comes in takes the powers that it inherits from its predecessor as a floor, not a ceiling. So whether it’s McCain or Obama, they’ll inherit the powers of the Bush administration.

I propose that there is now only one spectrum that matters - it’s vertical rather than horizontal. Power and authority are on the top; freedom and liberty are on the bottom. The question is no longer whether an official considers himself left or right, but authoritarian or libertarian. Moderates should start ignoring the typical labels and buzzwords of each side and look at the substance of proposals to see whether they contribute to an authoritarian society, or a free and open one.

With today’s conservatives supporting all manners of interventions, from universal healthcare to military empire building, it’s time to face the facts. Stop appealing to Republicans with the old conservative arguments - you are arguing with a party of corpses.

Links: Bush Administration Screw-Up, Google Space-Race, More Laws = Less Safe Driving

Published by Colin June 27, 2008 in Current Events. 1 Comment

Another Bush administration screw-up:

So far, U.S. taxpayers have spent nearly $500 million to fund those broadcasts. The television station, called Alhurra, and the radio network, Sawa, were meant to provide an American perspective on world events and counter the wave of global criticism that had been building against the Bush administration since the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Instead, Alhurra’s four years of operation have been marked by a string of broadcast disasters that government officials believe are as negative as anything aired by Al Jazeera, the widely watched Qatar-based station that aired unedited speeches of Osama bin Laden.

Google is funding a private space-race:

We believe that space should be open to anyone and everyone, especially those people who want to go… The government has accomplished amazing things … but we think that we can do it less expensively.

There are 16 million people on the membership rolls of Southern Baptist churches, but only 6 million show up to church. The Southern Baptist Convention has adopted a resolution on church membership. Local churches are urged to “exercise church discipline” and to “maintain a regenerate membership by acknowledging the necessity of spiritual regeneration and Christ’s lordship for all members.” Small Victories are Still Victories

According to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life: 57 percent of evangelical church attendees said they believe many religions can lead to eternal life. Another interesting part of the survey (link) is that 21% of atheists believe in God (see page 3 of the summary). Apparently, atheists are not so sure what that word is supposed to entail.

More Links
Why stop signs and speed limits endanger Americans

Is it inherent that Mom’s and Dad’s have unequal roles? Some researchers say, “yes.”

‘Pro-Life’ Drugstores Market Beliefs

Whistle at construction workers in England and you risk being put on the sex offenders register.

GOP Flip-Flop on Financing

Published by Colin June 23, 2008 in Politics. 24 Comments

One of the major party candidates wants to see the Federal Government spending hundreds of millions of dollars on presidential campaigns. This candidate also wants restrictions on donations, especially from businesses and wealthy people. This includes restrictions on the speech of religious groups as well.

The second major party candidate has decided to save taxpayers millions of dollars, by not taking this money in what is basically welfare for politicians. By this same token, free speech is no longer put into boxes based on timing, nor is money now channelled into rule-laden 527 Groups.

As I am sure the reader knows, the big-government position is being advocated by Republican John McCain, while, ironically, Democrat Barack Obama has forgone spending taxpayer money.

While this is already an almost comical commentary on the lack of distinction between Republicans and Democrats, the Republican National Committee has made themselves look even more foolish by criticizing Obama for his conservative position.

RNC Chairman Mike Duncan said the following:

In his decision to break his promise and forgo our nation’s public financing system, Barack Obama failed to demonstrate the kind of principled leadership that Americans are looking for in our next President. Obama’s decision is what we’ve come to expect from a candidate whose rhetoric is nothing like his record, and it undermines his own claims to represent a ‘new’ kind of politics. Clearly, Barack Obama is just another politician who is willing to do whatever benefits his own personal agenda.

While Obama is “flip-flopping” - it is the good kind - moving from a bad policy to a good one. Whereas McCain and the GOP’s steadfast adherence to their own hypocrisy is deplorable. The correct thing to do, is for the GOP to issue an apology for supporting a candidate like John McCain who claims to want to “reduce wasteful government spending” and subsequently supports federally-funded elections and free-speech restrictions.

What I suspect is the biggest problem with Obama’s move is that it is a break from the typical bipartisan agreements that the Dems and GOP have made to keep unfriendly elements (third parties and independents) from using wealth or grassroots support to crash their two party fiesta. That is the reason McCain-Feingold is in place - to enforce the duopoly currently in control of Washington.

Perhaps Obama really does represent change, and maybe his decision will have a positive impact on the future viability of non-traditional candidates. Either way, in this instance, it’s clear that public financing is not a viable program.

Links: Japanese Healthcare Solutions and Gitmo Outa’ Here

Published by Colin June 20, 2008 in Current Events. 2 Comments

Politics
Japan has enacted a law in an effort to rein in ballooning health care costs. Local governments are measuring the waist size of citizens.

British man pepper sprayed while watching TV. See what happens when you won’t open up your door and prove you aren’t being a bad boy? I love police.

Is Obama an enlightened being? His answer/opinion is at the bottom.

Senate Votes To Privatize Its Failing Restaurants. Alternatively: Mark Cuban wouldn’t hire politicians to manage a Diary Queen.

‘Deadly flooding keeps Iowans from homes’ and/or ‘Man gets pulled from truck at gunpoint for trying to go around a barrier’

Women’s hands, feet, hacked off, then throw into firebombed house in Zimbabwe election violence

From the New York Times:

The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered its third consecutive rebuff to the Bush administration’s handling of the detainees at Guantánamo Bay, ruling 5 to 4 that the prisoners there have a constitutional right to go to federal court to challenge their continued detention.

Religion
President Bush considering conversion?

Anglican Church In Meltdown

Misc.
10 Minute Radio interview with Canadian Industry Minister Jim Prentice on Canadian DMCA. This is an excellent interview where the Minister shows that he either has NO idea what he’s talking about or he’s outright LYING…and then hangs up. Seriously, this is unbelievable. Oh, and Canadian Music Artists do not like this bill.

Wine snobbery: “When wine drinkers tell me they taste notes of cherries, tobacco and rose petals, usually all I can detect is a whole lot of jackass.”

Scientists find bugs that eat waste and excrete petrol

Links: Energy Emergencies, DC Demagoguery, Campaign Cessation

Published by Colin June 13, 2008 in Current Events. 0 Comments

Congress failed to give the president more executive powers in an “energy emergency.”

With the average price of gas in the United States now above $4, Senate Republicans today rejected a plan by Democrats to give the president the authority to declare an “energy emergency” and sue OPEC nations, prosecute price gouging, assess a “windfall profits tax” on oil companies and cut down on speculation in the energy markets.

This goes back to points that I have made before that the American Federal Government and many politicians and leaders are essentially advocating a brand of neo-fascism. Notice that the details of this case, where it was Democrats wanting to give a Republican president state-super-powers to basically control the major aspects of energy policy. NO doubt the Democrats were thinking about the possibility of wielding that power sometime in the future. But either way, this shows that both parities are now more interested in expanding the powers of government as a means to achieve their ideals, rather than a small government solution.

Ironically, usually the most fickle in this kind of “emergency” - the general public actually seems to have a memory that reaches father back than last nights reality TV show. Polls show that Americans are more afraid of gas rationing and shortages than of high prices.

I don’t suspect that Americans have any idea why shortages happen when prices are controlled, but they at least seem to remember the last time prices were held down (by republicans that time).

More Links
Washington DC now has blocked off neighbourhoods with military checkpoints.

Russia And Racism

An Update On The Mark Steyn Case

More parents would prefer a private school education for their children in the UK.

Notorious neo-Nazi to Defend Mother of Seized Children

Alleged neo-Nazi to regain custody of her children

Ron Paul to host “Parallel Convention.” Also suspends campaign (more next week).

A Few Bold Predictions for Our Economy

Published by Colin June 9, 2008 in Essays and Politics. 11 Comments

The first thing anyone who studies human history will notice first is that, despite varying times, places and cultures, societies and individuals fall into predictable repeated patterns. So when I say that I am going to make predictions, I want it to be understood that I am merely looking at two things: 1) what has empirically happened in the past, and 2) what logically follows from economic theory.

The Housing Market
I have already mentioned that I think buying a house right now, on the whole, is an especially dumb financial move. There are always exceptions based on local markets and circumstances, but the market has not bottomed out yet by any means. The biggest indicator of this is the fact that the Federal Funds Rate has not yet been raised to deal with inflation.

The current housing problems are due to a shifting of various financial bubbles and the fallout of malinvestment from the last fed-created bubbles. The biggest factor in housing prices is the supply and demand of debt. All of this uncertainty in housing has been caused without the price of debt rising significantly. If the Fed feels that it needs to stave off inflation (as Ben Bernanke has been inflating the dollar like mad) then the first thing they are trained to do is raise interest rates. Remember, it was only a drop in interest rates of about 5% that created the housing bubble. Imagine what a raise of 5-10% will do!

In fact, this housing slowdown is in spite of declining interest rates. This signals that the market is literally perched on the edge of a cliff, and as soon as inflation becomes a bigger priority, housing will be one of the first casualties.

There is no question that if the Fed decided to fight inflation the way that their models tell them to: by raising rates, we will see a significant drop in the real value of homes. If the economy is still sour when this happens, then this fall will be augmented by struggling families looking to sell the house that has become a noose around their necks.

Inflation and Increased Economic Controls
Food and energy prices (ironically not considered at all as part of the inflation equations by state economists) have been shooting up. The value of the dollar has been plumetting. Gold is hovering around $900 and ounce. These are all demonstrating that inflation is here. This is Bernake’s philosophy of inflation:

Like gold, U.S. dollars have value only to the extent that they are strictly limited in supply. But the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost. By increasing the number of U.S. dollars in circulation, or even by credibly threatening to do so, the U.S. government can also reduce the value of a dollar in terms of goods and services, which is equivalent to raising the prices in dollars of those goods and services. We conclude that, under a paper-money system, a determined government can always generate higher spending and hence positive inflation.

In other words, we may see an amazing amount of inflation in the coming decade because this is the philosophy that is now behind the printing presses. This means your gas, food and energy costs are only going to go up and up and up and up.

In every period of high inflation, even the most recent one in the US, governments always try to then control the economy through wage and price controls. From Richard Nixon to Diocletian 1700 years ago, governments, after destroying their currency, will blame “greedy capitalists” for raising prices and prescribe that it is essential for them to take control over the price system and legislate prices from on high.

Rather than bring stability, this move shifts the chaos from the economy to real life. Massive shortages ensue as goods will not be produced and sold at a loss to businessmen. Large companies will begin to fold (the small companies already went bust from the inflation) and basics like gas and food, which were originally just expensive, now are unavailable. Crime increases as men get more desperate to feed their families. Depending on how long the government controls prices, and how effective they prosecute, society begins to degenerate.

Unfortunately, the framework is in place for these kind of controls with state and federal “anti-gouging” laws and public sentiment currently whipped up against corporations and businessmen.

Wars and Rumours of Wars
Growing discontent in the population either requires war on the population itself or war on an external entity. In my church last week, I was appalled to be treated to, instead of a sermon or bible study (normally what we go to church for), a 40 minute political video on the “Islamic Threat” and how these evil towel-heads are going to run all over truth, justice and the American way. The other racial group this “threat” was tied to was Mexicans, who are “invading” our country and “sympathize” with the violent extremism of “all” Muslims.

If the government decided not to war on us when the effects of price controls are felt, then these groups are definitely easy targets. They also have the benefit of being a different culture and race - which is a historic enemy of governments going down this path.

Even with gas prices rising almost solely because of inflation from our government, the anti-Arab emails are flying around with pictures of the wealth in Dubai. We are setting ourselves up as a nation of looters, who may justify wars of booty-sacking the Arabs who practice that evil capitalism and are threatening our freedom with their greed. Again, governments tend to augment this racism by encouraging these wars - as wars provide the best justification for economic control, and temporarily provide the public unity to go along with a centrally planned economy.

I am not saying the US is going to turn into 1930’s Germany. What I am saying is that as government looks to gain more and more control of the economy (even for benevolent reasons) the unintended (but easily predictable) consequences tend to compound. Most people realize that we are moving in the wrong direction, but most people are also afraid to conclude that “the wrong direction” doesn’t lead to infinity - that eventually we arrive at the wrong place.

Right now we just have the beginnings of inflation and a housing market teetering on the brink. But depending on how the government decides to “solve” these problems, we may find ourselves in deeper and deeper trouble as history repeats itself once again.

Links: Newt, Drugs and Frenchy

Published by Colin June 6, 2008 in Current Events. 3 Comments

A notable quote from Newt Gingrich this week:

This is … one of the great tragedies of the Bush administration. The more successful they’ve been at intercepting and stopping bad guys, the less proof there is that we’re in danger. And therefore, the better they’ve done at making sure there isn’t an attack, the easier it is to say, ‘Well, there never was going to be an attack anyway.’ And it’s almost like they should every once in a while have allowed an attack to get through just to remind us.

Orson Scott Card makes the case against legalizing drugs.

Laws against drugs are like stoplights put up at dangerous intersections. They don’t go up until somebody has died. And then people get irritated because they have to stop at the light all the time “even when there’s no cross traffic.” Yeah, well, the light is there because we know what happens when there isn’t a stoplight.

Outcry after French court rules on virginity

Marine removed from duty for evangelism.

Why Ron Paul Won in 2008

Published by Colin June 5, 2008 in Essays, Politics and Current Events. 40 Comments

With a headline like this, it must be first mentioned that this is not a paranoid conspiratorial piece on how delegates were STOLEN (all caps), votes weren’t counted or the major media somehow sabotaged the Ron Paul campaign. Rather, it is important to take a realistic look at the goals that Ron Paul’s campaign set out to accomplish, and examine how he fared.

First of all, did Ron Paul actually enter this election to win? Before we start getting our competitive juices flowing, just think about what Ron Paul stands for and what a realistic assessment of this kind of “victory” would have meant. He would have gone to the Oval Office with a congress that absolutely hated and loathed him, departments that feared him and would fight him as though their jobs were at stake (which they would be) and a public (after fickle popular support had waned) which was bewildered with the kind of radical policies and actions that were coming from the president. A Ron Paul presidency may have destroyed the best fruits of his candidacy.

Ron Paul’s campaign has always been a bottom-up phenomenon. Secondly, it is a more purely philosophical and ideological agenda - rather than a pragmatic political one. While many have criticized that this is a bad thing - is it not more beneficial in the long-term to sacrifice an election in order to generate hundreds of thousands of individual awakenings to liberty?

Rather than being humble, Paul was being very honest when he said countless times that the campaign wasn’t about him, but about the people who supported him. Paul’s campaign jarred the intellectually lazy and cynical over a few months (which may have been all they needed), and made them take a moment to consider what freedom, consitutionalism and liberty really mean. He showed us what a free society should look like.

This is key, because rather than end up in a politically neutered position of central power, Ron Paul has lit the spark of changed hearts and minds. And for those that have not changed, especially many conservatives, they have had to reconsider what kind of GOP they now support. Paul’s campaign was in the spotlight for enough time to act as a mirror against the new GOP - and show conservatives just how long it’s been since they took a good look at themselves - many of them no longer recognizing their own faces.

Ron Paul’s expectations have been wildly exceeded by his campaign. For the first time in decades, there is an active block of people who are learning about the evils of central banking, empire-building and welfarism. These aren’t the crazies and kooks who were in the cracks of society, burying guns in Idaho - these are regular folks, who work regular jobs and have become evangelical about the message of freedom.

This movement, which has been scattered and divided across the spectrum: libertarians, constitutionalists, republicans, democrats, independents, anarchists and even some former socialists have been united under Paul’s big tent platform. And while it may be easy to ridicule the conspiracy theorists, it is a testimony to the movement that they now join with college professors, intellectuals and businessmen. Or the atheists, homosexual activists and objectivists now aligning with radical Christians and New Agers. These people now realize that they have more in common than they once thought - and while disagreements remain, there is now more than a undefined dissatisfaction with what has happened in America, but a visible way out.

John McCain or Barack Obama will go to the White House in 2008. But their policies, which favour a continuation of America’s slow decline into the also-rans of history, will prove Ron Paul right again. People like BJ Lawson, Murray Sabrin and Carl Bunce are setting themselves up as future advocates. Many of these would have never thought to seek political office, but have been inspired by the optimism and hope that Ron Paul exampled.

Ron Paul won in 2008, by taking the exact opposite approach of most politicians. Instead of coalition building, compromising, pandering and standing for nothing and everything at the same time, Paul explicitly denounced the problems we have created and boldly proclaimed the solutions found in freedom and liberty. Ron Paul has mobilized many in the coming generation to build a better future. This long-term investment may not have resulted in an immediate gratification, but over time, compounded with interest, this movement may very well pay off.

Mike Huckabee: Right-Wing Socialist

Published by Colin June 2, 2008 in Politics. 113 Comments

Mike Huckabee took the high road in an interview last week, calling libertarian-leaning republicans who don’t support government healthcare and public schools “heartless, callous, soulless” and of course unamerican. Yes kids, advocating an idea of the federal government consistent with the US Constitution is unamerican. This is just further nonesense from a man who has been appropriately dubbed by Reason “America’s Life Coach.”

Republicans need to be Republicans. The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it’s this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it’s a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says “look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don’t get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it.” Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it’s not an American message. It doesn’t fly. People aren’t going to buy that, because that’s not the way we are as a people. That’s not historic Republicanism. Historic Republicanism does not hate government; it’s just there to be as little of it as there can be. But they also recognize that government has to be paid for.

Huckabee tries to rewrite history and declare that libertarianism is “new” (and has not been historically a part of the Republican Party). In 1975 Ronald Reagan embraced the libertarian movement, and while he acknowledged that he was opposed to the “no government” shade of the philosophy, he said:

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.

Huckabee, on the other hand argues that historic republicanism is, well, his right-wing socialism. Really? Historic republicans supported public education and government healthcare? Cutting taxes and eliminating government is “not historic Republicanism?”

Again, Reagan made it quite clear, saying “I don’t believe in a government that protects us from ourselves.” Yet Huckabee’s view of Government as the prime shaper of social values, habits and benevolence completely contradicts this idea.

Even though I no longer consider myself a republican in any way - I have some nostalgic love for the party that birthed my understanding of economic conservatism. Despite the complete takeover of the party by the Neo-Conservative exiles from the FDR left, there was once some good in them. Sometimes I feel like Luke Skywalker pleading with Darth Vader to acknowledge the sliver of good still lingering after years of evil.
Continue reading ‘Mike Huckabee: Right-Wing Socialist’

Zeal For Truth