Modern Libertarian

Truth: The only true form of “progressivism”

2012-03-09T00:23:00.000-08:00

Words are powerful. So much so that war, peace, relationships, and the fate of our daily lives seem to hang in the balance.

We've all heard the old adage “actions speak louder than words.” However, words are usually the jumping-off point for subsequent action. Actually, words are the foundation for our actions and the actions of others.

Words propagate knowledge (in addition to action). Knowledge, derived from the spoken or written word can either be based on truth, half-truths, and of course, lies.

What is dishonesty? What is the purpose of it? In short, dishonesty is a shortcut; a means to effect a desired result, based off outright lies, deception, or willful non-disclosure of information needed to gain a full perspective. Dishonesty is a means of control. Dishonesty is also a means to avoid an undesirable consequence, or to hide motives. Dishonesty, then, gives way to ignorance.

All elementary, right? Apart from being an elementary, honesty and dishonesty are fundamental parts of our lives. Logic is a tool that helps us differentiate between the two, if we choose to use it. Both dishonesty and honesty can cause two brothers to fight, or to draw them closer together. A mother can use honesty or dishonesty to comfort or “protect” a young child, or cause the child to be frightful. The problem with dishonesty, though, is that the truth usually surfaces at some point, causing inevitable issues between the two parties or desired goal. We, as ego-filled individuals, hate to be proven wrong due to our ignorance of a particular topic or situation. If we are lucky enough to realize our ignorance, thanks to our little friend called logic, we come to a crossroads; do we change course on a particular stance or action when proven wrong/inaccurate, or do we shun truth to “protect” our own selfish and egotistical selves? Those who choose the latter will go to great lengths to keep up the appearance of being “right” or justified in their position. They will compromise their personal ideals to “protect” the narrative, if not ultimately themselves. Godwin's law usually prevails if we aren't flexible enough for the mental gymnastics needed to “prove” our ignorant position.

Perpetual ignorance, born from dishonesty, is equivalent to dealing with a crappy building foundation that was never based on quality design or materials. The problems related to the foundation will materialize in the building- costing much more to maintain or repair the building than it would if the foundation was constructed correctly in the first place.

Upon reading the title of this article, you probably expected a negative rant about the “progressive” brand name of politics that emerged in our country over one hundred years ago. Make no mistake! The label “progressive” is in fact a brand name. It might be safe to say that almost all of us want to “progress” in our daily lives and want to see the rest of the world “progress” on the micro/macro level. One's definition of “progress” will be different than another's. In spirit of that fact, the specific goals and needs will be different to achieve said progress, which may or may not align with that of the “progressive” political party. The same could be said with the term “conservative.”

Both “progressive” and “conservative” terms in today's political context are based on dishonesty, designed to divide and compartmentalize potential constituents.

Instead of relying on the core definitions of what “progressive” or “conservative” means, we allow dishonest, agenda-driven media outlets and politicians (that are anything but) tell us what these terms mean. Not only that, the proponents also tell us why we should slap ourselves/neighbors with these unspecific and skewed buzzword bumper-stickers.

In our carnal nature, whether you believe we're “fallen sinful creatures” in a biblical sense, or not-very-evolved primate derivatives that walked out of the jungle, we have a thirst for conflict. I truly believe conflict and competition is catnip for humans. Doesn't matter if we're referring to sports or gaining the attention of the opposite sex (or same sex, of course). In the same manner, the political arena has been relegated (or designed) to be a made-for-TV sports game. A never-ending “us against them” bout, where the players and spectators incessantly one-up each other for a perceived level of “gain.”

Unfortunately for the American people, the political “game” has real consequences attached to it, and for many....it gets pretty personal. This is where truth goes out the window. This is where people will perform the above mentioned mental gymnastics to remain “right” at all costs. This is where Godwin's law prevails......... This is where every logical fallacy defined in the dictionary will get traded between the players, commentators and crowd. This is where the “referees” get hanged.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Want to be a true “progressive” in your life and in the lives of others? Only you can define personal or widescale “progress.” However, whatever your goals may be, make sure they're rooted firmly on the bedrock of truth. You'll thank yourself later, and so will your neighbors. Unless, of course, you've already called them a Nazi, fascist, troglodyte, rethuglican, democrap, or any other hollow blanket term you saw on a chat board.

Newt calling shots at Fox Iowa Debate?

2011-12-16T20:42:00.000-08:00

Preceding his bid for the Republican nomination, Newt Gingrich enjoyed a lucrative and beneficial relationship with our nation's largest right-wing propaganda outlet. As a FOX News contributor, Newt appeared on several segments as a commentator or panel member.

It wouldn't be of any surprise if Newt still maintains a strong working relationship with Fox, considering the fact that the news organization appears to be less critical of the former speaker. Neither is it of any surprise that Fox continues to beat the war drum, while misrepresenting the facts concerning Iran.

One of the most interesting aspects of the Fox News debate in Iowa was the curious manner in which Newt appeared to signal the moderators to silence his competitors.

Beginning at 30:43 and happening at precisely 30:47 in the debate video, Newt appears to give a strong look to the Fox News Debate moderators, which resulted in the camera focusing in on Michelle Bachmann, and her subsequent “dinging,” while criticizing the presidential front-runner. It is important to note that none of the moderators “dinged” any other candidate during the Fannie and Freddie exchange.

Between 1:36:53 and 1:37:01, Newt appears to look intently to the side of the stage, with Bachmann being “dinged” shortly after, and Gingrich giving a slight nod, aimed at the same corner of the stage.

Since the debate, Fox has worked in a diligent manner to promote Newt as the winner, while being critical of Bachmann and even less flattering toward Ron Paul.

Is Welfare Drug Testing Legal?

2011-12-11T13:30:00.000-08:00

By now, most Americans are aware of the controversial Florida legislation that would require welfare recipients to submit to drug testing as a condition of receiving benefits.

Detractors, such as the ACLU and Navy veteran, Luis Lebron, filed suit against the state of Florida. Lebron and the ACLU pose the argument that “pissing” welfare recipients constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment – more specifically-- the issue of “unlawful search and seizure.”

Shortly after filing suit, U.S. Federal District Judge Mary Scriven imposed a temporary injunction against the practice.

From a constitutional aspect, Welfare assistance is not a constitutional right, but rather a collection of voluntary programs, regulated by Federal and state authorities. Despite a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court (Dandridge v. Williams), Judge Scriven appears to question the already affirmed – the state and Federal authorities are granted the latitude to impose regulations concerning such programs.

This latitude is expressed each and every time a welfare recipient or applicant is asked to provide private banking statements, job history reports, pay stubs, utility bills, proof of assets, etc.

What is purpose of collecting all of this personal information?

Certainly the government doesn't collect your personal documents and history for recreational light reading purposes, or to “abuse,” let alone “discriminate” against you.

Understandably, this common type of “intrusion” is designed to prevent dishonest persons from abusing the system. The government, as well as the taxpayers, want the funds to be used effectively and properly.

Based on principle, which is worse? Having the government know your shopping habits, via banking statements, or letting them examine a cup of pee?

Neither sound like a palatable proposition in this writer's opinion.

However, these are the consequences associated with trading your liberty for a sense of security. When it comes to seeking extended or temporary help from big government, or even a family member, persons on the receiving end are subject to some level of vetting and/or conditions.

Why is that?

Because Grandma wants to help; not enable bad behavior—with the bad behavior being you using the received help for things that it wasn't intended for.

In keeping with Grandma's wisdom, a growing number of tax payers desire more layers of accountability from welfare recipients.

Because welfare programs are voluntary, recipients have the right not to take a urine test or provide such personal information on demand at the request of the government.

The catch is -- you will have to rely on the well-meaning and direct help from your family, as well as those in your community, that will hold you to a higher and more personal standard of accountability; instead of being subjected to government rules and regulation.

The bright side is that Grandma knows that you're basically a good person that's just going through a hard time. I'm sure she won't ask you to tally the value of the contents in your apartment, or ask you submit bodily waste samples to prove what she personally already knows.

However, the tax payers, like Grandma, are understandably a little more skeptical of persons they are not able to meet or know face-to-face.

Check out this informative video that describes the inefficiencies of the welfare state we currently support.

Groping-Guns-Granny Panties: The 'Best' of the TSA

2011-12-06T22:32:00.000-08:00

Since the inception of the Transportation Security Administration, the Federal government has been working overtime to give commuters an added risk of developing cancer, with a side of sexual harassment.

In this post, we will outline a few of the most notable stories involving government sponsored tyranny, via the arm of the TSA.

Lenore Zimmerman, an 84-year-old grandmother, was stripped-searched by JFK's boys in blue. Due to the woman's need for a back brace, officials thought it necessary to give Lenore a “private screening,” yet deny that any strip-search occurred.

In addition to Zimmerman, two other elderly women came forward to expose the practices at JFK Airport. Ruth Sherman, 88, and Linda Kallish, had their colostomy bags, defibrillators and insulin pumps checked – not to mention their panties dropped by the hands of the TSA.

Despite getting their jollies from gang-groping old ladies, they are at least proving to be as equally ridiculous with 17-year-olds that exhibit a personal sense of fashion-

Vanessa Gibbs,17, was detained in Virginia due to the design of her purse; a western-style purse with a fake looking design casting of an old six-shooter. Apparently, after telling the young woman “it was a Federal offense” to have such a purse design. It took the TSA several hours and a missed flight before the airport's finest determined the purse..... was in fact a purse.

Although public outcry against groping children is on the forefront of most criticisms, the TSA perpetrates this disgusting practice.

For 75 Billion dollars worth of taxpayer money, it sure seems the TSA and the Federal government gets off screwing over the American people, without even having the god damned common courtesy to give us a "reach-around."

Should the government force the Milton Hershey School to accept a child with HIV?

2011-12-02T20:37:00.000-08:00

One of the hot topics brewing today concerns that of a 13-year old HIV-positive boy and the prestigious Milton Hershey school, based in Pennsylvania. The institution caters to less-fortunate children in the Pre-K through twelfth grades. Despite the child being on a regular course of HIV treatments that are said to reduce the risk of transmission significantly, the school administration decided to deny the child's admittance.

According to the amended American Disabilities Act, the school may not discriminate against those with HIV:

III.  Public Accommodations

1.   Q:  What is a public accommodation?

     A:  A public accommodation is a private entity that owns,
operates, leases, or leases to a place of public accommodation. 
Places of public accommodation include a wide range of entities,
such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, doctors  offices,
dentists  offices, hospitals, retail stores, health clubs,
museums, libraries, private schools, and day care centers. 
Private clubs and places run by religious organizations are not
considered places of public accommodation.

Anyone see a problem here?

Combating institutional discrimination with regard to actual “public,” or rather government controlled entities, doesn't seem unreasonable. However, imposing such guidelines on privately ran companies and/or schools represents a serious overreach by the Federal government.

Despite the relatively low chances of another child contracting HIV from the applicant, thanks in part to medicinal advances, either by sexual contact or from sharing a shaving razor, bloody fist fights, accidents, etc.--what would the Milton Hershey School's liabilities be if the child did in fact infect one or several children?

What would stop the parent(s) from suing? How many parents would pull their child out of the school, through legitimate concerns or fears born from ignorance?

While the Milton Hershey School is non-profit, it's success is dependent on having a good image and producing results; like any other private business or organization.

The court of public opinion, with a dose of free-market principles, may negatively impact the school, regardless if the “direct threat” loophole cited by the institution ends up being a viable defense. For the Milton Hershey School, the whole ordeal will turn into a lose/lose situation.

The question isn't whether the Milton Hershey School should admit the child; the question is if the Federal government has the right to force private entities into taking risk, no matter how significant, or to dictate who they should accept.

For more details on the restrictions, check out the ADA Questions and Answers page concerning HIV discrimination.

GMO Food May Cause Sterility

2011-11-28T18:35:00.001-08:00

Since the introduction of genetically modified crops in 1996, America's farmers have increasingly strayed from planting all-natural crops in favor for high-yield chemical resistant GMO strains. Although the benefits of such crops are often touted as being one of the greatest inventions to date in the farming industry, the “side-effects” of tampering with nature in such a way may be rearing its ugly head.

With over 90% of all soybeans grown in the United States being genetically modified, a Russian study on the effect of GMO soybeans on hamsters has caught the attention of several environmental watchdogs.

The study comprised of four groups of hamsters (five pairs for each group); the first group was fed high concentrations of GMO soybean based food, non-GMO soy for the second, the third group was fed a regular diet with GMO soy and the last group ingested a regular diet with no soy products.

The control group averaged a 5% mortality rate for newborn pups, while 25% of the pups died in the group that ate a normal diet of GMO soy. Even more shocking are the results of the group that ate high concentrations of GMO soy.

Only one female pup in the high concentration group was able to reproduce. Of those 16 pups that were born, 20% died.

The buck doesn't stop there. Subsequent hamsters in the GMO groups suffered from infertility and a smaller stature. Some formed incredible mutations such as hair growing in the mouth and altered cells in the testicles of males.

Farmers across the globe are also complaining of livestock infertility, in addition to mass die-offs associated with GMO crops.

What does all this have to do with the Libertarian agenda? Corporatism, government subsidies that encourage GMOs and the tyrannical foot soldiers of large Agriculture companies such as Monsanto all have a part to play.

Farmers are being continually harassed by government-backed conglomerates. In addition to new FDA regulations barring run-of-the-mill gardeners and "all-natural" farmers from selling unprocessed raw foods, local law enforcement agencies are going so far as to break up lemonade stands and conduct raids on organic farmer's markets.