The Power to Blog: Part II

In my previous post, I mentioned the importance of free speech. Here are some posts by other bloggers who talk about what happens when you don't have free speech.
While checking the site of one of my favorite bloggers, I found a graphic and horrifying account of what happens when those who wish to keep free speech to themselves use fear to suppress free speech for others. Trevor, the blogger on The Will to Exist, posted an account of the broadcast execution of a young female Muslim reporter by terrorists, and added an interesting commentary of his own.
Free speech is seen as a weapon by those who fear it. Tyrannical governments will suppress free speech to protect themselves. One such government is that of Egypt, where it is illegal to criticize the government or to criticize religions. "Religion" includes jihadism. Another favorite blogger, Egyptian Sandmonkey, has been using his blog to report the recent arrest and imprisonment of bloggers in Egypt, and has been organizing and reporting protests and demonstrations for the freedom of these prisoners. There is also Free Alaa (The Blog)
which includes the petition and other news on the status of the arrested bloggers.
Please take a look at these sites, for they contain some very important news and information, if you value your freedom. It was the belief of the founders of the United States of America, as well as my own, that freedom comes from Nature, not any government.

Highly recommended reading: the Sandmonkey Bio

The Power To Blog

My good friend Drunkenrantz and I were having one of our usual and interesting conversations the other night, and we were discussing the joys of blogging. On the question of why we blog, Rantz declared, "I blog because my opinion is right, everyone else is wrong, and I am the only one who can express it correctly," or something to that effect. That statement is true for all of us in the Blogosphere; we all have our passions, and we all want to express our feelings about our passions, whether it's about politics,religion, economics, birding, reading, music, NASCAR racing, or anything.The Internet has given us all the opportunity to express ourselves on anything we wish.
Drunkenrantz and I usually agree on things when it comes to music; often, on the subject of economics; always, when it comes to singing ability on karaoke night; almost never when it comes to politics. We never argue, we don't even come close to debate--our discussions usually amount to trading ideas and listening to one another. We respect one another's opinion, even when we are certain the other is wrong.
What is missing from this type of discussion is the ability to drive our point home. This is where blogging comes in--we can write, to the best of our ability, until we are sure we have gotten our point across to somebody. We can support our arguments with links to evidence, illustrations, or to the fellow blogger we happen to agree or disagree with. Blogging has created a community, in which we all can truly express and celebrate our Freedom of Speech.
When we feel we have a novel idea, blogging seems to be the best way to publicize it. Somehow, we feel, our ideas will be read by someone. Before the Internet, the publication of thoughts and opinion was limited to the elite few who worked for news outlets and publishers. Now we can all have the power to publish our thoughts and opinions. The Blogosphere has raised our political awareness, and, as evidenced during the political campaigns of 2004, has involved us in the political process as we have never been before.
I make it a practice to read as much as I can on a subject. More often than not, I enjoy reading the opinions of those with whom I disagree, because, I feel there is always room for learning, and this is, I feel, the best way to learn about how others come about their opinions.
I appreciate and encourage public discussion of my own ideas, and the opinions of others, which is why I have included a link to a forum discussion board, on which you can openly discuss my opinions, your opinions, the opinions of others, or just shoot the breeze. It is a public forum, so anyone may post or reply to messages without registering. But I would encourage registration on that site--it is free, and spam free, as far as I can tell, and registration will allow you to use html and participate in the polls which may be posted on that site.
I enjoy the blogging experience, and I know most of the others I have been in contact with enjoy it. It all comes down to this: Freedom of Speech is "da' Bomb."

Rethinking my Rethinking

I am, by trade, an electronic technician. After I left the Air Force, I got a job in New Mexico, where I eventually earned about $17 an hour as a bench technician and Engineer’s assistant. That job, which held for eleven years, looked as if it would be a career in which I had a comfortable living and a fairly nice retirement package. However, the company I worked for had been involved in building ships for the US Navy, during WWII, and had built those ships with materials and specifications required by the US Department of Defense. Because the government required the use of asbestos in the construction of its ships, the company I worked for succumbed to a combination of NAFTA and asbestos litigation in 1992, and ended my career, with my lucrative retirement package lining the pockets of trial attorneys. And it wasn’t even my fault.
Because the field of electronics in which I worked at Eagle-Picher was very specialized, and because, thinking that I had a life-long career, I failed to keep my electronic qualifications updated--which was my fault--I found that I could not get a job in my chosen field. Most electronics companies have outsourced their bench technician jobs to other countries, where the labor is cheaper.
So, now I am working in a job in which I make $6.50 an hour, which is fine, since I don’t have family to support. I still have a roof over my head, and I can still eat pretty well, and I can afford somewhat of a social life, but basically it is a frugal life. This is the kind of job for which the President, business leaders, economists, and many Congressional politicians say we need illegal immigrants, because Americans won’t take it. Heck, I don’t think illegal immigrants will take this one. Not when they can make $8 to $10 an hour picking fruit, or $10 to $12 an hour working construction.
I was shocked upon hearing these figures quoted by several television news commentaters. It had been my thought that the reason some employers were hiring illegal immigrants was to avoid documentation and, therefore, avoid paying minimum wage or payroll taxes. Therefore, I thought, the US agricultural industry could keep its costs down, staying competitive with foreign agricultural industries. The philosophical Libertarian in me thought that this would be okay, considering the state of world economics these days.
But these employers are paying payroll taxes and well over minimum wage in these cases. So why don’t they forego hiring the illegals and hire Americans? Are American workers too greedy to settle for a $10 an hour job? If that is the case, then wouldn’t these seasonal jobs be good for young adults who wish to earn money for their education? I don’t have any answers for these questions. It just doesn’t make sense to me.
The pragmatic Libertarian in me is appalled at the cost in tax dollars in education and health care for those who do not contribute all that much to the American economy. So I had to rethink my stance on the proposed “guest worker” program. I had been leaning toward approval for the proposal, keeping in mind that it would help prevent inflation. However, I see that there is really no point in employing a foreign worker when there are American workers available. To me, it seems as though the entire immigrant worker issue was raised just to create a point of debate during the campaigns for the upcoming elections. I don’t see the issue being resolved in a reasonable and useful manner until after the November elections, if at all.
What it comes down to is personal responsibility on both the part of the consumer and the employer. Boycotts work. It doesn’t have to be a widespread boycott, just enough to catch the attention of the employer. A publicized announcement of a boycott is often enough to catch the attention of those who illegally hire undocumented workers. And it is easy enough to figure which brand names to boycott--those whose plants and operations were shut down on May 1rst, such as Tyson Foods. The decision to boycott requires personal responsibility on the part of the consumer, while the decision to avoid losing money, or favorable public image, by curtailing illegal employment practices, becomes the responsibility of the employers. The consumers must realize that what we chose to buy or not to buy can be as important a vote as that which we cast on election day.

How to Defend Treason

It is apparently okay to aid the enemy and divulge classified information as long as it is the truth. This is according to Senator John Kerry, several members of Congress, and several members of the news media. “It is wrong. very wrong. to leak classified information. I abhor leaking,” said Kerry, Sunday morning, on the ABC News program This Week, “But if it is the truth, and it uncovers something wrong, then Americans should look at it as mitigating in dealing with the leak.”
God forbid we leak false classified information to mislead the enemy, that is wrong. But if the leak divulges information that may insinuate civil rights violations by the administration or the military, then the leaker should be protected under “whistle blower” legislation. That is what Kerry and the others seem to be saying.
I say bullshit.
First of all, I don’t recall anything in the Constitution that protects foreign nationals who are not dressed in military uniform and who want to destroy the United States. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights apply to the citizens of the United States and the government of the United States.
Secondly, any disclosure of classified information, by a person who is entrusted with that information, which could cause harm to military operations, or soldiers or agents involved in those operations, is a crime no less than High Treason. Treason is the only crime specifically mentioned in the Constitution as being punishable by death.
Thirdly, the role in the U.S. government of determining the constitutionality of a statute or act belongs to the Judicial Branch, not the Legislative Branch. Those Members of Congress who are accusing the military of Constitutional abuse are stepping outside of their roles as legislators.
Mary McCarthy, the CIA official who was fired for allegedly leaking classified information to the press, is neither a whistle blower nor a protector of the Constitution. She allegedly confessed, after failing a polygraph test, to speaking about classified information to reporters on several occasions.
At the 9/11 commission hearings, in 2003, McCarthy testified that she was concerned that the CIA was unable to effectively pass accurate information to those who needed it. Her own alledged leaks were instumental in weakening that ability.
McCarthy deserves a fair trial--I am a strong believer in “innocent until proven guilty.” But, if she is inclined to talk about classified information in public, information for which she had the highest clearance, she is indeed a danger to national security, and, if not imprisoned, should be kept under close surveillance and supervision.
As usual, blogger Pamela, aka "Atlas Shrugs" posted thorough blogosphere coverage on this subject.

Why I am a Libertarian, Reason # 9,489

And why I see the Republican party as the lesser of two evils, reason number 1,042

Let’s say you own a small business, say a neighborhood bar. Another neighborhood bar down the street has decided to declare itself a “non-smoking” establishment, which is the decision and the right of the owner of that establishment. Your decision and right is to continue to allow smoking at your own establishment. Your business booms--90% of your clientele smokes while drinking. To allay fears of second hand smoke, you even install a high-tech ventilation system. Meanwhile, the non-smoking establishment is losing business. The proprietor of that business has been a generous contributor to the local state representative, whom he contacts and asks if there is any legal way to even things out. The representative promptly introduces a state-wide indoor smoking ban affecting all liquor establishments. Subsequently, your clientele realizes they can smoke and drink at home.90% of your customer base is gone, and you can’t afford to keep your business open. Competition has been forced onto an even keel.
This is exactly what is happening in the State of Colorado. It couldn’t have been done while the Republican Party held the majority in both the State House and Senate, it had been tried, but was voted down, several times. Republicans, you see, are generally more conscious of property rights than are Democrats. Now that the Democrats have control of the Colorado State Legislature, the bill passed easily. It was signed by two-faced Governor Bill Owens, who commented that he regretted that the issue couldn’t be resolved by the individual communities. Ironically, the measure won’t stop people from smoking, it will only stop people from smoking in bars. There are currently no plans on how the state will make up for revenues lost due to liquor establishments going out of business.
This isn’t a complaint about smokers’ rights, it’s about property rights. Such interference by the government in the running of one’s enterprise, for the purposes of leveling the field, amounts to socialism and eminent domain abuse. Control of private enterprise by the government has historically resulted in economic ruin. But Democrats generally ignore history and don’t plan for the future.

Consider the issue of Social Security reform. Democrats stiffly rejected President Bush’s proposed Social Security reform, while refusing to offer any plan of their own. They would rather wait until there are no Social Security funds, before taking action, and they demonstrated their pride in their inaction by giving themselves a standing ovation during the 2006 State of the Union address.
Of course, that shouldn’t be surprising, considering that John Kerry, Charles “Chucky Shoe” Schumer, Howard Dean, and others who have opposed the war in Iraq, have argued that the United States should have waited until Al Qaeda actually used chemical or biological weapons provided by Saddam against America before taking military action against the tyrant.
Believe me, it wouldn’t have been like the Cuban Missile Crisis, where we knew what was happening before-hand.
Of course, another issue the Democrats want to press is the price of oil. They have rejected plans by the President which would ease U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Now they casually point the finger of blame at the President, for not taking the very actions they rejected.
It’s just politics as usual for the Democrat Party.
The debate over the illegal immigrants reminds me of the gun fight scene between Doc Holiday and Johnny Ringo in the movie Tombstone. Fearful of losing “the Hispanic vote” over the issue, they circle each other warily, each waiting for the other to make a move. The Republicans draw first, firing a blank--a House bill which would make illegal activity illegal. The Dems and the moderate Republicans fire back with another blank--what amounts to amnesty for those illegal immigrants who have been in the United States for more than five years. At this point, I’m doubting that either side will fire an effective and deadly head shot such as the one Doc Holiday delivered in the movie. So, last Wednesday, Homeland Security Czar Michael Chertoff announced an operation which netted over 1100 arrests of illegal immigrant workers and the employers who smuggled them into the United States and hired them, tax free, for less than minimum wage. Though wounded, and it was only a flesh wound, the Democrats are now dancing in triumph, because they feel that the Republicans wounded themselves worse, driving away their “Hispanic” voter base. Personally, this attitude smacks of racism. Do they really think that Americans descended from Mexican or South American immigrants would be adverse to action which would make their own employment secure?
The latest shot from the Democrats is that, “before we take action against immigrant workers, we should study the effect on the economy.”
So have the Democrats suddenly become free market Libertarians? I seriously doubt it, but it does spark my interest as a Libertarian. As long as we are decriminalizing human smuggling, why not go ahead and decriminalize marijuana, until we fully study the effects on the economy? Or how about traffic speeding, running red lights, or failure to stop at a stop sign?
More reasonably, we should just put a hold on banning cigarette smoking in bars, until the effects on the economy are fully studied. That is something the Democrats cannot bring themselves to do.

Welcome New Blogger DrunkenRantz

Let’s welcome to the Blogosphere a good personal friend of mine, we’ll identify only as "DrunkenRantz".
He disagrees with me on everything, but is the source of many interesting and entertaining discussions I have had with him. He is intelligent, and a lot of fun to be around, and hopefully will be fun to read. I will add a link to his site, titled,"Mixing Politics with Alcohol," on my sidebar. Remember, though, he disagrees with me on everything.

Immigration Reform Poll

To participate in a poll on Immigration Reform, please go to this link. You may be redirected to a registration or sign-in page. I tried to make the poll public, but you may still have to register. Noonhost apparantly doesn't like ballot stuffing.