SPONSOR:Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)

CO-SPONSORS:

• Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA)
• Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
• Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK)
• Sen. George LeMieux (R-FL)
• Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT)
• Sen. Jefferson Sessions (R-AL)
• Sen. John Thune (R-SD)
• Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)
• Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS)

The “Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010,” introduced by Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman on Thursday with little fanfare, “sets out a comprehensive policy for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected enemy belligerents who are believed to have engaged in hostilities against the United States by requiring these individuals to be held in military custody, interrogated for their intelligence value and not provided with a Miranda warning,”

The bill does not distinguish between U.S. citizens and non-citizens, and states that “suspected belligerents” who are “considered a “high-value detainee” shall not be provided with a Miranda warning.”

People: vote in someone with principles or don’t vote for anyone at all.

Just like Pan Am, who was the favoured corporation by the US government and was almost given a monopoly, the government-owned motor companies are no longer having to compete with Toyota the old fashioned (honest) way. The American auto industry, due to the incentives created by state-ownership and protection, now wages its battles just like politics.

The fact that major media corporations are participating in the mud slinging against Toyota should make anyone question their independence. One man with one claim where no one was hurt should not be national news and should definitely not be the cause of Federal probes into an industry. The headline shows the lunacy: “Runaway Prius Tale Prompts New Probe.” A tale is prompting a) Federal involvement and b) front page news.  This is insane!

Peter Roff of US News and World report, had this wisdom:

Whatever the reality concerning the performance of the Toyota vehicles, the investigations are themselves riddled with conflicts of interest. Thanks to President Barack Obama’s multibillion-dollar bailout of General Motors and Chrysler, the agencies looking into the safety of the Toyota fleet are part of the same U.S. government that owns large chucks of the same GM and Chrysler that have been losing market share to Toyota and the other Japanese automakers for decades.

…In sum, the U.S. government’s ownership stake in GM and Chrysler makes it nearly impossible for it to act impartially in its investigation of Toyota, whose current difficulties have given U.S. manufacturers a temporary image boost. It’s an aspect of the story that is at least as worthy of investigation as anything anyone is saying these days about the Camry.

But I hope that people will think beyond Toyota and consider the underlying principles here. When the state and corporations get in bed, it’s inevitable that the battle moves from the economic into the political. It is also wise to note that from the political, the next step is often to the military (as the arm of force for the political establishment).

Also learn this (if you haven’t already): you cannot trust a word the media says.

In the words of Borat, “wowie wow wow!”

We’ve come a long way from this (2003), this (2004) or even this (2006). For the functionality of the site, the fact that it works and doesn’t look like a complete mess, I extend my gratitude and thanks to Chris Roussel, who has done epically more for this site then the pittance of an storage fee he charges me.

But yes, this site is radically different then what we started with in 2003. My friend Matt Smucker (now in his fourth year of missionary work in Taiwan) and I were chatting around in our first couple of years of college about starting an apologetics site. We just threw together the name and put a couple of bits of info online.

Now, thanks to the ideas and contributions of many, we’ve got a blog that is still regularly updated, a forum and a decent readership.

For the most part, I generally treat this site as I would any site online - that is, I don’t think of it as my site. I’m not sure how to qualify that. I consume this site. Occasionally I remember that I am actually a “founder”here and that its technically mine, and then I get freaked out and have a little identity crises: “why in the world do I still run this site?”

I have this identity crisis because I really don’t have an answer. Sometimes, I’m off the site for weeks, sometimes I am interacting with it often. But I realise that I like the site because it is. That may be circular - but there may be something to that. I like the idea that I can communicate or listen to a certain group of people if I want to. It’s like a little web-cache which people report back to every once in a while (or more often).

I’ve realised that other then that, I have no ambitions for the site. I am not pushing towards anything anymore. I think at one point - I had this idea that maybe this was a vehicle which would really “be something” for God or libertarianism or whatever. But now I am not sure what the point of that would be.

There are plenty of places much better then this site where people can go to get their Christian and/or libertarian fix. I go to plenty of them. But I just like that this place is here - it feels a little like home to me. Perhaps that change is reflected in the fact that I have voluntarily moved 5,000 miles from my geographical “home.” Part of that means alienation - I am effectively cut off from my home in Oregon but never fully integrated into my new home in England. Alienation is an incredible experience of solitude, but it’s also a powerful reminder of the reality of the Christian worldview - where we are sojourners in Christ, foreigners and aliens in this world.

Despite the fact that ZFT is a nice cozy place, and not really an object of ambition, I hope it has been noticed that I am personally still very dedicated to this site and the ideal of seeking out rational, reliable truth. In fact, probably much, much more then when I started this site at age twenty.

Normally, I like to also talk about plans for the future. I have a few, albeit, loosly held.

It is still my intention to divide this frontpage up into a featured, longer, less time-sensitive article (one per week or so) and then a rolling blog of links, light commentary and little bits and pieces. If that happens, I’ll probably think about permanently archiving the forum (unless by way of divine intervention it begins to be useful again). But until then, I think the forum serves a purpose (albeit, a diminished one) so it will stay around in it’s current form.

I have also given a little thought to the idea of diversity of content. I am trying to figure out how, in a thematic sense, to tie together the very different kinds of posts we have. Some are almost entirely political - some are exclusively Christian/theological. Is this working? How might it work better? Can it work at all?

And also, there are the incentives. For example, some here have written some really intelligent, detailed proposals, analyses or investigations - yet these don’t have a lot of buzzwords or keywords which get people to read them. However, write a one paragraph blog about Ron Paul and suddenly three hundred people read it (<— see how I did that there). I want these articles and series which explore deep, fundamental issues to get the billing/readership they deserve, but I am not sure how to go about it. We made some headway with Digg for a time, but I wonder if there are new ways to promote articles that can stand on their own feet without referencing whatever is currently in the news/church. One thing I have noticed is that we are getting some airplay on some of the grassroots/activists sites like the Daily Paul- and that not self-promoted. People on those sites are reading the blog and then posting to those sites.

I also like the idea of these videos. I did one. It was pretty crap, but I think it can be done and with relatively little input time. Others of course are welcome to do similar things. Contact me and I’ll figure out how to prove the intro and outro.

Also, I hope contributors can all post to the blog. Some have already taken advantage of being able to just post articles, but I want to encourage more do do this - even with short blurbs. For example, sometimes people give little commentary on their weekly links posts - perhaps next time give a try writing it up as a paragraph-long blog and just posting it.

But most of all I just want to express my gratitude for all that people have written, said and shared here. It’s been a great seven years - here’s to the next!

Debra Medina will not be governor of Texas.

However while it is easy to focus on what is immediately in front of us, we must remember the bigger picture here. As Medina said in a sort-of concession speech:

We are winning across this state the hearts and minds of fellow Texans.

There is no question that with just under 20% of the vote she has shown her ideas to be popular enough to effect an election.

That was all Ron Paul needed, less then that in fact, in order to catapult himself to amazing opportunities over these past couple of years. Yes, Ron Paul lost the 2008 election, but his popularity (and the popularity of his ideas) signalled a pottential sea-change. He may have lost the election, but he is still winning the battle for hearts and minds.

That is what I call the “Ron Paul Effect” which is the seeming paradox of influence and power that comes when a grassroots candidate loses an election. I believe this happens if the candidate awakes a substantial philosophical change in voters, not merely convincing them to vote for them in the short-term, but convincing them to adopt a set of principles and beliefs for the long-term.

Medina is likely to benefit from this effect, as her issues, like Paul’s, are philosophical. She is not an austro-libertarian like Paul, but her brand of conservatism is still a set of time honoured traditions and principles.

Debra Medina has stood up and made herself the leader of a bloc of people in Texas who support less taxes, less spending, nullifying federal mandates, constitutionalism and principled gun ownership. That is no small task - and it represents a furthering shift of some of these more “radical” ideas from the fringes of politics into a cohesive force to affect change in a meaningful way.

The great deception in American politics is that pragmatic voting is all that matters - the polls, the media all say that X candidate “can’t win” so better to vote the lesser of two evils. I’m sorry - but this isn’t really about the political process. Elections are a sideshow in the great festival of ideas. Characters like Medina and Paul, while losing elections, are winning over masses of people with ideas.

Sustainable, long-lasting, fundamental change is not won in elections. Certainly not in one election. Advocates of principled libertarianism must continue to see the forest through the trees. Yes, we put a lot of work in on elections. We donate a lot of money. But the electoral process is a means, not an end.

Ron Paul, often ridiculed, mocked and ignored - obtained a majority of cosponsors on a bill to audit the Federal Reserve. Think about that for a moment. That single act is more significant then having Ron Paul in an office where no one understands, supports or believes him.

Medina, from the haggard look in this video, is understandably disappointed in the election result. I am as well. But now is not the time for mourning over things that didn’t really matter. The election served it’s purpose - Medina’s ideas are now more well known and understood then they ever were. Time to shake off the dust, get back up, and win more hearts and minds.

The quiz, if you haven’t taken it, is right here.

Glenn Beck boosted his libertarian cred once again - dedicating an entire show to the Nolan Chart and arguing the libertarian case for most of the answers to each question.

Beck also added that he believes most Americans are libertarians. I would disagree. I think most Americans would like to be left alone themselves, but many amazingly conflate this with a crusader-like sense of moral self-righteousness to tell people what they ought to do, even to force them to do it. Living among Europeans for nearly two years has already given me some anecdotal lessons in just how arrogant and opinionated Americans are compared to other parts of the world.

If there was a period where basic products such as gas, food and construction supplies were either scarce or even rationed, many Americans were out of work and it was even so bad that the auto industry was basically unable to churn out cars - you might consider that a depressed economy, yes? What if during that same period, I told you that GDP was going up by leaps and bounds.  You think I am making it up? That is exactly what happened during World War II.

In fact, most of the Great Depression saw GDP above 5%.

Think about that when you see reports like this one today which says that GDP is up almost 6% and therefore “is another sign that the U.S. economy has pulled out of the deepest downturn since the Great Depression.”

GDP is not meaningless, but it can be. The reason GDP looked so good in WWII is because government was spending boatloads of money on completely useless things like tanks, planes and dressing up grown men in camo pyjamas and shipping them all over the world. The prices for these kinds of things are not market prices and they are also not market demands. They actually detract from the economic well-being of a country - yet the GDP includes them as positives.

That 6% figure from last quarter should scare the crap out of you. It means that in spite of the massive amount of money being thrown at corporations, welfare, job programs and military spending - the GDP only grew by 6%. Projecting how much the real (market-based) economy actually shrank this past quarter is not easy with all of these conflated statistics. But it is highly doubtful that the economy is growing. And it is most assuredly the case that the recession is far from over.

…someone who intentionally targets civilians to advance an objective or agenda.

Is this a reasonable definition. If so, what are the implications and applications?

I love the Oregon Ducks - I stayed up all night over here in GMT-land to watch every single football game this year. Over the last few weeks, there has been a high number of incidents with football players, many of them requiring legal action. But the sheer number of incidents is no doubt troubling:

• Theft and breaking and entering: QB Jeremiah Masoli and WR Garrett Embry
• Assault - DE Matt Simms
• Assault - K Rob Beard
• Domestic Abuse - RB LaMichael james
• DUI - LB Kiko Alonso
• Insubordination - Jamere Holland

Some of these have had team discipline applied where there was clear evidence of guilt or admittance of guilt by a player, regardless of the legal process.  However one case, the most severe, has yielded almost no comment and no reaction thus far from the football program. Star running back James is accused of assault and domestic abuse, having allegedly strangled his girlfriend.

The media and fans are calling for James to be disciplined but the coach has done nothing yet, but wryly indicated on ESPN that he knows a lot more about the case then what has thus far been reported.

Guess what everyone: people are innocent until proven guilty! Coaches can’t run around kicking people off a team because someone has levied accusations against them. James, whom right now no one can know his guilt or innocence, has a right to due process and to defend himself against these accusation. More importantly, his accuser needs to prove that he’s committed a crime.

For a country that has one of the greatest legal traditions in the history of the world, one would think that citizens would be grateful for due process. But it seems that the urge for blood and an opportunity to tear down a young, talented, rising star is too great.

If James is guilty, he should most definitely be punished and kicked off the team. But until that is proven, then the calls for his head and the head of Chip Kelly, need to stop.

Just as in a free-market, eventually a branch of the philosophy wins out and begins to effect real political power: see Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign and the emergence of Austrian Economics as the current big things going on the libertarian movement. For a while, a lot of differences are set aside and the movement unites in a push to gain political traction. However, like any political movement, it begins to be plagued with confusion over what to do with this new found power, and the competition for how/what/who to wield it erodes its base and plunges it back into radicalism.

I fear we may be seeing this now with the current libertarian surge. At the very least it is being set up by the emergence of several “under-leaders” who have already began to quibble:

• Rand Paul: Ron Paul’s son has ticked off many of his father’s supporters by embracing some standard conservative foreign policy, including support for Gitmo and more socially conservative values.
• Alex Jones: I think Jones’s ideas are nutty, but he is in the libertarian movement, albeit on the fringes (yes, he’s on the fringes of an often fringe movement). However, he recently lambasted Debra Medina who has spent the last week rabidly denying that she thinks 9/11 was any kind of inside job. Jones evidentially believes her and is withdrawing his support for her.
• Debra Medina: Assuming she doesn’t win the Texas governorship, I wholly expect that she can win a senatorial or congressional election. But her deep philosophical convictions about questioning government have muddled her answers to the 9/11 truth question and alienated her from some supporters.
• Glenn Beck: A rift exists between Beck and Medina, and Beck and Jones. In fact, all three do not like each other. beck has made a lot of friends in the libertarian movement, but he has also made enemies with what has happened with Medina and his occasional ideas about killing terrorists rile up the more anti-war in the libertarian movement.
• Reason Magazine: They just came out with this piece absolutely slamming Ron Paul as having “half-baked crusades” and “silly books.” Reason has had a veiled acceptance of Ron Paul over the past few years, but this seems to be wearing off. The same article offers praise for the CATO Institute as a “serious” libertarian organisation.
• CATO: Cato has also begrudgingly accented to Ron Paul for the sake of unity. But their decades old spat with the Mises Institute and Austrian Economics eventually puts them at odds with Pauland more ideological libertarians.
• Mises Institute: They represent the most ideological libertarians, often embracing anarchism. With Ron Paul emerging and promoting Austrian Economics like crazy, they have seen a surge in readership and interest. However, they despise monetarist and Chicago School libertarians and have very little tolerance for the political process.

All of these groups and leaders have began to see alliances forming for control over this well of power created by Ron Paul. I believe they are starting to look as follows:

1. The rEVOLution Purists. People who will defend the more radical ideology and philosophy of libertarianism:
   Ron Paul, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Mises Institute, Tom Woods
2. The Pragmatic Club. People who will promote a “bread and butter” libertarianism in the media, academia and journalism:
   Reason, John Stossel, Rand Paul, CATO, Peter Schiff, Libertarian Party
3. The Republitarians. People who will promote some degree of a watered down version in politics/punditry
   Debra Medina, Glenn Beck, Rand Paul, Bob Barr
4. The Pet Projects. People who will use libertarianism as a means to advocate conspiracy theories, unsubstantiated hypotheses or untenable:
   Alex Jones, Ayn Rand Institute, Jesse Ventura

Currently, people in these wings would still unite around Paul. I could pull Alex Jones, Glenn Beck, Peter Schiff and Judge Napolitano out of each group, and all of them love Paul. But without Paul’s leadership, these groups suddenly have more overpowering differences then they do similarities. It’s like a wedding where all kinds of friends and family of the bride and groom come together for a time - but without the marriage, these people suddenly have much less reason to be together.

A valid political movement needs a big tent, but also a unified vision and goals. Ron Paul has provided that and called a lot of disparate elements into a common group. But that unified front may be fracturing again as Ron Paul ages. As an ideology and philosophy, this process is what makes libertarianism so strong and vibrant. As a political movement, it is the seed of destruction.

UPDATE: Tom Woods has now issued a counter-attack against Reason here.

One commonly mentioned observation about health care in the United States is that we pay a large amount for the care we receive compared to what is paid in other nations. While people for other countries will come here for the best surgeons and specialized care available, the average person in the United States does indeed pay FAR more for health care than in other developed countries. In fact, some estimates suggest that $1.2 trillion of the $2.2 trillion we spend on health care is unnecessary spending. The primary causes of overspending listed are up to $210 billion on unnecessary testing and $210 billion on claim processing. Add in ignoring doctor’s orders and inefficient technology for another $188 billion combined, and we have a lot of inefficiencies that should be easy to address by a unified health care provider like the United States government (allowing them to provide more efficient health care).

In fact, assuming the savings are equal between government programs and private programs, you could double the benefit of government health care purely by addressing inefficiencies. Throw in fraud and other problems with the government program, and we should be able to greatly reduce national health care costs with no changes to existing law. I wouldn’t even think you’d need to make a law to spread these initiatives into the private sector. A first step here would be working with insurance companies to derive a generic, simple, and efficient claims processing standard that provides the information needed by each company to process claims. If the major companies were in agreement, doctors would simply drop any insurer who didn’t adopt the standard. Developing clear guidelines for testing would also seem like something that could be achieved cooperatively. Cash for testing should, of course, always be available as a safeguard.

To  summarize: we already have socialized health care, and inefficient socialized health care at that. If the government wants to convince me that they should become a single payer, they need to start by getting their own house in order. Once Medicare is so good people want to buy in and so efficient we can afford to let them, we can talk about making a public option available to everyone.