Archives for February 2004

I’ve been in the Orlando, FL area since last Saturday for a little R&R. Returning next Saturday (2/21).

I recently got wind of a new Blog via Billy Beck.

Well, turns out that I also know Bruce McQain from way back, ’95 or ’96. Bruce and I once teamed up on Usenet in thread called “Taxation is Theft.” It was us against a slew of lawyers and tax professionals. Their claim: that taxation is not theft because it’s a “lawful taking” (fancy words that mean it’s Ok, because Uncle Sam says so).

Ok, fine, that’s what the law says. But is that what morality provides? Are not laws [supposed to be, at least] a mere imperfect reflection of our moral sense about things? And, did we need laws hundreds and thousands of years ago to tell us that theft and robbery were wrong? And, was not one of America’s founding moral principle that the government is subject to the same morals as individuals are?

Believe it or not, the lawyers maintained against all reason that the concept of theft exists only because it’s a codified legal principle—as if primitives in caves didn’t understand that it was wrong for the next guy to take their stuff. Bruce has a good grasp of anthropology, and that certainly didn’t hurt.

Needless to say, it was very easy to make them look stupid.

Here’s his Blog.

By the time you read this, the news will probably already be out in the major networks regarding Kerry’s alleged [recent] dalliances with an intern.

Drudge scoops again.

Dear Mr. Schwarzenegger:

I just heard your spot on the radio drumming up support for your program to solve California’s fiscal problems.

A word of advice; stop using phrases such as: “after all, it’s your money.” This kind of talk just won’t fly politically. Have you any idea at all of the implications of that phrase, and what sort of a moral condemnation it represents for the government and “constitution” you have sworn to uphold? I shudder.

Let’s get this straight. When the government collects less revenue, it is an expense to the government, which is why politicians and the news media always refer to tax cuts as too expensive. Got that? As you have been so successful at everything you’ve ever set out to do (bodybuilding, acting, investing, business entrepreneurship), I assume you want to be a successful politician too. So, here’s how. First, heed the above. Next, you’ll need to adopt the Hillaryesque demeanor that we are all your little children and need your guidance in every aspect of our lives. Everything accrues to you and your government. You need to begin saying things like our homes, our jobs, our paychecks, our children, etc. Use the word we a lot.

That should get you started.

In my last entry, here, I proposed an inelegant choice: fraud on the part of Republicans or dishonesty on the part of Democrats. I’ve received some curious input from several sources, so I’m motivated to elaborate.

The main thrust of that post was to express my stern disapproval over the very real lack of a sound and concise moral foundation amongst Republican politicians. The result is that they are continually waving in the wind, standing up for nothing—except in times when the moral justification to engage in war is saleable to the public. It seems they can only stand for something when it comes to a menacing USSR, international terrorism, or the next perceived national threat to come along. But when it comes to how the founding moral principles of this country (strange notions such as the moral right to own and dispose of one’s life and property as one sees fit) should dictate political actions in domestic issues, they are either silent, or worse, violate those principles while giving lip-service to those yearning for a small sign of moral fortitude from their politicians.

Equally frustrating is the tendency of the many good, value-upholding people who call themselves Republicans to simply refuse to admit that the orgy of socialism that has become the U.S.A. is never going to change unless, at least, they completely withdraw their support and demand moral accountability from their politicians. Don’t they know that participation in the political process, as configured, only hastens the impending slide into utter socialist mediocrity, if not outright practical destruction of everything America was about? But, alas, hoping for a grassroots change is probably just a silly and naïve dream on my part. Too many Republicans now are not good people; that is, they too have become seduced by the cult of: “what will you do for me, Mr. Politician?” Of course, whatever Mr. Politician will do is not the real point of the question. The underlying point of the question is: “at someone else’s expense.”

Which brings me to the Democrats. While the Republicans perpetrate a fraud by continually—year after year and decade after decade—wooing their base of support with the same small-&-limited government rhetoric, only to do just the opposite, the Democrats embrace a core political philosophy that, once clearly understood, is difficult to characterize in any way other than evil. The Democrats push this political philosophy relentlessly until it permeates society like an out-of-control virus. The Republicans, in response, run scared like a hen-pecked male who has just been asked when he stopped beating his wife. The political philosophy of which I speak is embodied in the dual doctrines of envy and hate.

Usually when we hear references to “hate” in everyday political discourse, it is targeted at Republicans. Everyone knows that Republicans hate racial minorities, women, gays, small and large animals, the poor…oh, and, lest we forget, they want to first poison and then starve your children. Though that is the sort of “hate” we get all up-in-arms about, it’s not the sort of hate I’m talking about.

I’m talking about when children are taught to disrespect and hate their dad’s and mom’s employers. I’m talking about scorn for the great industrialists (“robber barons”) of the past; loathing for those perceived as “greedy;” envy of the most successful to the point of wishing for their doom and destruction—as Ayn Rand put it: “hatred of the good for being the good.”

Now, It is indeed a shame when a black man is hated, or treated as less of a man because of the color of his skin. But that brand of hatred is patently ignorant, and has been on the decline for centuries. Yet, you would think that the whole of western civilization hangs on the issue of a relative handful of ignoramuses who hate minorities and gays. It’s an issue, but it’s not the issue.

At the same time, civilization as we know it does hang on the fortunes of the most productive, resourceful, talented, intelligent, disciplined and successful businesspeople. You know, the ones whom the Democrats teach us to, at worst, hate and envy, and at best, to view with extreme suspicion.

This is evil. It is evil because it is unjust—and there is hardly anything more evil than injustice. But that’s only the beginning. Democrats in power are certainly not ignorant enough to believe such utter and contemptible nonsense. What they do understand is the power of ideas and the power of guilt. Together, used skillfully, they perpetuate a series of “good-sounding” myths designed to influence those who lack the knowledge to know that they are being utterly duped and used. Who takes the time anymore to bother with the intricacies of history, philosophy, economics, and so on, in order to reach conclusions about things that, at least, have some connection to reality? Nope, everyone just believes what they are fed by the local and national news, newspapers, periodicals, and yes, talk radio.

While there is plenty in this world that is open to honest disagreement amongst people of good will, the moral foundations of America, the capitalism that those moral principles necessarily gave rise to, and the effect it has made on our lives and the lives of millions all over the world is undeniable.

In plain English: America was born of a moral foundation of individuality and freedom, the direct and unavoidable consequence of which was capitalism, and the direct and unavoidable consequence of which was wealth—an uplifting of the average man to heights utterly undreamed of in all of his history. “Democracy” had not one thing to do with it. Democracy is the antithesis of capitalism, and serves only as a looting mechanism, whereby clever Democrat politicians stir up hate and envy against the hands that feed in order to extort an unearned livelihood. Business-people are by nature bottom-line thinkers, so rather than fight, they find it easier to just pay off the muggers and get back to work, just as many a local mom-&-pop used to do back in "the neighborhood." The leeches are happy with such as an arrangement, as it means they can make their rounds again and again, like an ATM machine.

The Democrats attack America at its core foundational morals and values of individuality and freedom, and that is why they are evil.

I must admit to being somewhat seduced by the Revolution of 1994. Oh I’m sure you remember it, don’t you? The election of that year marked the exact moment in time of our great Republican rescue—the moment when the scope, influence, and cost of government began its sharp decline owing to the power shift in Washington after decades of a Democrat stranglehold.

After all, that was the whole point of it, wasn’t it? Had not the republicans campaigned on the promise of finally delivering a whole cornucopia of government-limiting delights—things like accountability, term limits, tax cuts, welfare reform, balanced-budget amendments, cutting and even eliminating bureaucracies, and so on? They even wrote it up in a nice little Contract with America.

In 1994, the year prior to the republicans storming in to clean up the place, the federal budget was already an astounding $1.2 trillion. In 2004, 10 years later, the budget is $2.4 trillion, a 100% increase. They doubled the already bloated federal government in the mere space of 10 years. In that same 10-year period, the U.S. population grew by 30 million people, from 260 million to 290 million, an 11% increase.

I’ve had enough. I don’t need to know a single thing more. Why I ever expected anything different though is an introspective mystery and quite thoroughly beyond my comprehension. In an article titled The Culture: The Nanny State, Nicholas Provenzo comments on a Time Magazine article, The Nanny in Chief, by Andrew Sullivan, and points out that perhaps the Republicans have never really been about limited government as they have so long claimed. To support this notion, he excerpts a section from Ayn Rand’s essay, Conservatism: An Obituary. It reads:

It is generally understood that those who support the "conservatives," expect them to uphold the system which has been camouflaged by the loose term of "the American way of life." The moral treason of the "conservative" leaders lies in the fact that they are hiding behind that camouflage: they do not have the courage to admit that the American way of life was capitalism, that that was the politico-economic system born and established in the United States, the system which, in one brief century, achieved a level of freedom, of progress, of prosperity, of human happiness, unmatched in all the other systems and centuries combined—and that that is the system which they are now allowing to perish by silent default.

If the "conservatives" do not stand for capitalism, they stand for and are nothing; they have no goal, no direction, no political principles, no social ideals, no intellectual values, no leadership to offer anyone.

Yet capitalism is what the "conservatives" dare not advocate or defend. They are paralyzed by the profound conflict between capitalism and the moral code which dominates our culture: the morality of altruism. Altruism holds that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue, and value. Capitalism and altruism are incompatible; they are philosophical opposites; they cannot co-exist in the same man or in the same society. The conflict between capitalism and altruism has been undercutting America from her start and, today, has reached its climax.

As Mr. Provenzo also points out, Rand wrote this in 1966.

So what conclusions can we possibly draw? The notion of Republicans being for small and limited government is simply untrue and unfounded. In fact, since the time of Nixon, the federal government has grown most rapidly when the White House has been in the hands of Republicans. G.W. Bush has not vetoed a single bill put before him so far in his term. But in his most recent State of the Union Address, he did raise the withering threat of a veto:

In January of 2006, seniors can get prescription drug coverage under Medicare. For a monthly premium of about $35, most seniors who do not have that coverage today can expect to see their drug bills cut roughly in half. Under this reform, senior citizens will be able to keep their Medicare just as it is, or they can choose a Medicare plan that fits them best—just as you, as members of Congress, can choose an insurance plan that meets your needs. And starting this year, millions of Americans will be able to save money tax-free for their medical expenses, in a health savings account.

I signed this measure proudly, and any attempt to limit the choices of our seniors, or to take away their prescription drug coverage under Medicare, will meet my veto.

So, he’s only willing to use his veto for something that threatens to decrease the size and scope of the federal government. Such conservatism.

Toward the end of a 1996 article, The Revolution That Never Was, C. Bradley Thompson gets to the crux of the matter:

There will never be a genuine political revolution in this country until there is a moral revolution. That means that the American people must be willing to renounce the ethics of altruism—that is, the moral philosophy that requires from you a moral obligation to support the less fortunate whether you want to or not. And yet this is precisely the moral principle that Republicans and conservative intellectuals seem unwilling to renounce. In fact, they seem more frightened by the idea of having to defend the true principles of the American Revolution than in attacking altruism. Republicans are constitutionally incapable of defending the notion that individuals have an inalienable right to their own lives—which means, that each and every individual owns his or her own life and all the fruits of one’s labor.

In any political battle between two camps that share the same moral principle, it will always be the more consistent advocate who wins. Until Americans stop feeling guilty about redistributing wealth and eliminating the handouts given to the "needy," socialist ideology will continue to govern America regardless of which party is in power.

What else is there to conclude but that the Republicans have perpetuated a big fraud? They have never really stood for what they have claimed to stand for. And it’s not that they simply lack the political will, it is that they lack the necessary and imperative moral convictions entirely, but go about fraudulently promising to do what cannot be done within the framework of the premises they do hold.

They deserve no one’s support.

At least the Democrats are “trustworthy.” They promise to increase the size, scope, and cost of government, and they deliver on that promise consistently and unabashedly. Their problem is one of simple dishonesty in demonizing the virtuous while canonizing scoundrels—within an overall framework of foisting guilt upon the most productive and cultivating an esprit of entitlement and victimhood on the moochers.

So, take your pick, the fraud of the Republicans or the manipulative dishonesty of the Democrats. There is a third, principled option, which is to not participate at all and just jeer from the stands. That’s where you’ll find me.

(Some links above via Improved Clinch. Additional inspiration provided by Billy Beck.)

Those who know me best know that in spite of my market-anarchist leanings, I have a soft spot for labor, of the downtrodden, the exploited at the hands of greedy capitalists {uncontrollable grin}.

So, here’s a rhetorical question. Suppose a company locates overseas in your typical third-world cesspool, with the obvious reason for doing so being that they can buy labor at a cheaper price there than here, just like you can buy a pair of shoes cheaper at Payless than Saks. So, what should they pay the workers in this third-world country? Is it sufficient to pay them about what they already get on average (after all, jobs are being created that did not otherwise exist, so that in itself is a benefit, right?)? Or, do you believe they are obligated to pay more? If so, how much more? Should they pay a 10% premium, 20%, 30%?

…

Ok, now that you have your answer firmly in place, read this. And, in case the link goes away at some point in the future, U.S. firms pay between 40% and 100% more than workers earn on average in the domestic economy.

So, who doesn’t win? The foreign “exploited” worker wins. The “dirty-rotten-exploiting” U.S. firm wins. The U.S. consumer wins because goods cost less. And, for the incurably shortsighted, U.S. Labor wins too. Why? Because they evolve and move on to more productive endeavors.

This is a brand new rigid-wing hang-glider designed and manufactured by Aeros, of, of all places, the Ukraine. Apparently, after the fall of the USSR, some ex-aeronautical engineers became entrepreneurs. In both the flex and rigid wing categories, it is quite well known the world over that Aeros delivers the best in performance for the money. Their wings are always near the top of the stack in all national and international X-C competitions, and they significantly under price the other 3 top manufacturers of the world (Wills Wing of the US; Moyes of Australia; Icaro of Italy).

To see a small side show of this beauty, christened the Phantom, go here.

Now, what’s different about this rigid wing from the one I fly, and the other brands is that it has ailerons instead of spoilerons. Ailerons, basically, modify the twist of each wing in roughly opposite quantities (remember how the Wright Brothers controlled roll–through physically twisting the wings). This makes the wing roll one direction or another and is how a turn is typically initiated. With spoilerons, you simply have a panel on the top surface of each wing, and you cause the panel to be raised on the wing in the direction you wish to roll. This spoils the lift over that section, the wing drops, and you have initiated a roll.

But, here’s the problem. Adverse yaw. This is a condition where your airplane wants to yaw away from the direction of your roll/turn. The reason is because when you modify the twist of your wing with the ailerons, you are decreasing lift on the inboard wing and increasing it on the outboard wing. More lift, more drag. Less lift, less drag. So, by using your ailerons, you set up disequilibrium in drag on the wings, and it happens to be exactly the opposite disequilibrium that you want. Now, when you have 3-axis control, like most airplanes have, you lead with a little rudder in the direction of your roll/turn, and this counters the adverse yaw. Of course, hang gliders are flying wings. They have no rudder, so adverse yaw is a major concern.

And so back to spoilerons. The reason all the other rigid-wing hang-gliders use them is because they create drag only on the inboard wing, so you get a beneficial yawing of the wing into the direction of your roll/turn.

If you look closely at the slide show of the Phantom, above, you’ll notice three separate sections of controllable surface on the wings. Most inboard are the flaps. Then you have the ailerons, and then a small section Aeros has dubbed the “spad.” This little gizmo actuates on the inboard wing a bit ahead of and more severely than the aileron in order to minimize the effect of adverse yaw. From what I hear, they have not eliminated it completely, but have reduced it a lot.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.