The #MOSEN Daily

My blog post, Really, Claire!!! has been picked up and highlighted on the frontpage of the #MOSEN Daily.  It's a Twitter paper assembled from linked blogs on Twitter.

Check it out by clicking -  The #MOSEN Daily

How to lose friends while coddling enemies - #23 (Updated)

The UK Telegraph is reporting that in order to persuade Russia to sign the new arm control agreement (new START), the U.S. agreed to supply the serial numbers of every Trident missile supplied to the British.

It's reported that Washington lobbied for permission to release sensitive information regarding British missiles, but that they had refused.  Britain has long maintained a policy of refusing to confirm the exact size and number of its nuclear arsenal.  Allowing the identifiers to be shared would undermine this policy.  The Telegraph stated:

The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called “special relationship”, which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic communications obtained by the WikiLeaks website.

Details of the behind-the-scenes talks are contained in more than 1,400 US embassy cables published to date by the Telegraph, including almost 800 sent from the London Embassy, which are published online today

It's not clear where the American press is on this story.  While all eyes are on Egypt, the White House may be able to keep this story off the front pages.  President Obama has had a rocky first two years in his relationship with Great Britain.  This could further erode the "special relationship" that exists between the two nations.

Update:  There is a report stating the US State Department responds that this is simply a continuation from the earlier START agreement and does not constitute any change.  There is some backing from the UK regarding the certain aspects of the US agreement to report information regarding missiles for 3rd parties.  But the divulging of serial numbers appears to be a change and something the UK had apparently rejected.

A case for the "How in the name of God am I supposed to read this" file.

In case you weren't aware by just looking around, I am colorblind.

I might have been able to pull off the harsh black monotone motif of my blog if I was trying to pull off some deconstructionist realm, posing that the absence of color was in and of itself a statement that I don't need to live by your rules, man.  But, I'm not.  The presence of the color red in the titles has no deeper meaning than I think red goes with black, which I'm really not too sure about.  I thought everything went with black, then I had daughters who are quite vocal in letting me know in no uncertain terms that I'm a dweeb for wearing a chocolate brown shirt with black shoes.  Oh, the humanity.

For the record, I normally try to stick with black most of the time with one exception - orange.  I see orange really well for some reason. (at least I think I do - after all perception is all in the head anyway)  But due to not wanting to look like I'm ready for Halloween year round I don't overdo it with the orange.

I'm going on too long, but I just wanted to let you know that I have my design team working on the page and there should be a nicer, softer look coming soon.  Thanks for reading (or at least attempting to read).

Reflections: A Ronald Reagan Rundown (updated)

Amidst the Super Bowl hoopla this weekend, the interweb will also be running over with various tributes, memorials, anecdotes and other such musings on our 40th president to celebrate what would have been his centennial birthday.  Born on February 6th, 1911 he lived a life that not only saw the events of the 20th century, but he without a doubt, played the largest part in steering them over the last quarter century.  The Soviet Union was born in 1917 while he was still a boy.  When he ascended to the Presidency, America seemed to be a weakening nation, unable to stand in opposition to this menace.  Eight short years later, the Evil Empire was in its death throes and would soon collapse as liberty spread across eastern Europe.  Americans came to the realization that the specter of nuclear war had passed into the night with each ping of the hammer that fell the Berlin Wall.  The Soviet Empire ultimately, could not outlive Ronald Wilson Reagan.  Thank you Mr. President.

Here's a rundown on some of the various Reagan tributes I thought you might like.

John Yoo at NRO's Corner Blog

Steven Hayward at NRO

The Washington Times

Ed Rollins, CNNOpinion

Daniel Flynn, Frontpage

Lou Cannon, Politics Daily

Mark Joseph, Investors Business Daily

Deroy Murdock, National Review - Reagan Revealed 

John Heubusch, Pajama's Media 

Edmund Morris, Washington Post

Senator Orrin Hatch, on the Senate floor 
Too often, I've heard the compaint from friends that the Republicans are all about saying, "No" and don't want to do anything.  Sen. Hatch reminds us of something Reagan said that gives encouragement to those who say, "NO".  Hatch writes,

Ronald Reagan succeeded as president because he knew what he was about. In his farewell address from the Oval Office, he said, ‘I went into politics in part to put up my hand and say, Stop. I was a citizen politician, and it seemed the right thing for a citizen to do. I think we have stopped a lot of what needed stopping. And I hope we have once again reminded the people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.’

I attempt to end the perception that Reagan was not conservative enough to be a Republican today in Want some Tea with that birthday cake, Mr. President?

As I have an opportunity to read more this weekend, I will update this page so check back.

Finally, I offer this - the speech by President Reagan on June 12, 1987 that he gave outside the Berlin Wall.  Despite what has been written about him this week, this was no quiet or soft diplomacy.  With the world watching and with the greatest symbol of the east-west divide framed behind him, he called out Mr. Gorbachev by name and told him, not asked, but told him to "Tear down this wall!"  Today, we have leaders fearful of printing cartoons, but the Gipper would not back down.  This epitomized his "peace through strength" diplomacy.  He said to the Soviet Premier, "Hey, I'm here.  I'm not going anywhere.  I'm not here to fight, unless you want to fight.  But I got a better idea.  What we got over here is pretty good and we want you to have it too.  Come down, open the door and shake my hand.  This whole thing has gone on too long.  It's time for it to end.  Now open the door."  Firm, but fair. 

Want some Tea with that birthday cake, Mr. President?

This Sunday would have been Ronald Reagan's 100 birthday.  The press will be full of stories and coverage of this.  Most will be reverent and celebratory of the man,  his life and his presidency.  This is a surprising turn, since he was condemned and belittled on a daily basis while serving as our 40th president.

I was still a teenager during Reagan's presidency, so some may say I was too young too know what I am talking about.  But I remember all to well how he was thought of at the time.  He was a heartless, evil, senile old racist who was too stupid to understand diplomacy, too stubborn to change and too air-headed to run the country.  The press' treatment of him was eerily similar to that of George W. Bush. 

This is a bit from Saturday Night Live during the Iran-Contra affair (notably not a high point).  It shows that the perceived notion of Reagan in the press and the White House's use of that image to disguise the "truth".  And it's really funny.

Following my post, Reagan/Obama 1984, I received comments that today's GOP is too far right of Reagan.  But that couldn't be more wrong.  Let's try taking a look at the big picture.  During the Great Depression, the country began a lurch to the left.  Reagan, who was once a Roosevelt Democrat, was famous for declaring, "I didn't leave the Democratic party.  The party left me".  Presidents Eisenhower and Nixon were a fixture in that leftward tilt.  President Kennedy's tax plan was more conservative than anything Nixon did in office.

Just One Thing

In Missouri, as in what seems to be 80% of the nation, we've had a lot of snowfall.  Here in Sainte Genevieve we had a few storms that gave us a powdering to an inch or two.  But this week, we had enough snow to head for the in-laws and do some sledding.  The sun was shining and the snow had a real glaze on top; perfect for sledding. 

Two of our three children had spent the night at Nana and Papa's, so they were already out back when my wife and I arrived.  Out the back door, I walked to the top of the hill.  I saw Anna and Nate at the bottom of the hill with Finn, the little boy next door who's friends with Nate.  Papa Gary gave me the layout of the route.  Their hill slopes from two directions into a corner of their yard, fenced on one side with untamed mother nature on the other.  This can make for some odd approaches and close calls with the fence and the trees.  Papa said it was slick and fast and they had moved the disc sleds out of the rotation since they were harder to steer.   Whether because I was brave and foolhardy or I just felt my girth needed it, I grabbed a disc and said we'd see about that.  He pointed out the different paths they had taken, I picked what I thought would be the fastest and off I went.

Really, Claire!!!

As some of you may know, the US House of Representatives voted to repeal the healthcare law passed a year ago (Obamacare).  Repeal passed by a larger margin than the vote to pass it last year and it came without all the drama and games that surrounded that vote.  Despite efforts to avoid it, the Senate voted yesterday on an Obamacare repeal measure which failed by a vote of 47 - 51.

Both then and today, more Americans oppose Obamacare and feel it should be repealed.  26 states have taken the Federal government to court over it.  In my state of Missouri, a ballot measure was passed in August last year to deny the Federal government authority to enforce the individual mandate contained in the law.  The individual mandate had previously been declared unconstitutional by a judge in Virginia.  Now this week, the entire law was thrown out as unconstitutional in a lower court ruling in Florida by Judge Roger Vinson.  Despite all this, not one single Senate Democrat voted to repeal yesterday.  My Senator, Claire McCaskill went against 71% of her constituents to vote against repeal. 


So with our best Seth Meyer impersonation, SAMSTOC brings you:

REALLY!!! with Sam Ritter

Really, Claire!
You have now voted twice for a healthcare law that Americans don't want.

Really, Claire!!
With unemployment sky high, you voted to keep this new healthcare law that is so bad for businesses that over 700 waivers have been issued exempting them from its provisions.

Really, Claire!!!
Despite two court rulings, you felt it best to represent the people of Missouri by voting a second time for this unconstitutional law.

Really, Claire!!!!
When 71% of your fellow Missourian voted against this healthcare law in August last year, you decided that they just "don't realize" how great it is and disregarded their wishes by voting for it again.

Really, Claire!!!!!
And still, even though you now disapprove of the individual mandate, you couldn't find the backbone to vote against your party and side with the voters of Missouri by voting to repeal this unconstitutional healthcare law.

REALLY, CLAIRE!!!  REALLY!!!

It's time for Claire to go.  Really.

It's Groundhog Day! (well, it was yesterday)

Yesterday, of course was Groundhog Day.  After working from 11pm on Tuesday to 3pm yesterday, I didn't feel much like blogging when I finally made it home.  What I did do, was what I do every Feb. 2nd.  I forced the beautiful Dawn to endure another screening of "Groundhog Day".  Despite the many wonderful aspects of this movie, she has failed to see its glory.  Over at National Review, Jonah Goldberg each year links to his 2005 review of the movie  which is also on National Review's Top Conservative Movies of the last 25 years.  

As I sat watching the movie with my wife, she said that Groundhog Day was being repeated as a marathon all day and she had already seen most of it earlier.  First, I would like to say that back-to-back-to-back repeated viewings of Groundhog Day is quite apropos.  This movie is really the only one for which a marathon is an actual statement about the content of the film.

But it also led me to realize that we have a true dearth of good groundhog or Groundhog Day based movies.  I used twitter to raise awareness of Hollywood's failure last night, but I'm not sure that Hollywood is listening.  So in the meantime I thought I would see if anyone knows of any other groundhog themed movies.  (Caddyshack? - that's a gopher)  So if you know of any, the beautiful Dawn would really like to hear about it, because she's really tired of living the same day over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over......

1st person to comment will win the opportunity to watch "Groundhog Day" with us next year!

#snOMG! Snow Day Civics Test

Take this quick test.

1)      The USA has what type of government?

2)      Prior to passage of the 17^th amendment, who elected Senators?

3)      Who elects your United States Representative?

4)      Who elects the President?

5)      Are you willing to brave the ice and snow to meet your mail carrier at the street?  How much is too much to even consider it?

As events in the Middle East develop, you will hear some disputes regarding democracy in Egypt.  Recently, I heard Chris Matthews say that because of Bush’s freedom agenda, the right should be embracing what is taking place.  But it’s not necessarily as easy as Chris makes it sound.  Democracy without the proper safeguards is a bit like welding without a face shield.  It's a quick way to put something together, but it may blow up in your face.

Our founders were fearful of (direct) democracy.  Democracy in action can be a powder keg because the passion of the masses burns hot.  Have you ever found yourself in a large crowd doing something you would never do in a small group such as yelling, dancing, singing, and booing or maybe even, while under the influence you found yourself becoming violent.  In those moments, we lose ourselves and refrain from using our impulse control.  Our individuality is sacrificed to the group.

As our government was discussed and formed, the founders sought to add buffers and protections to balance the various groups. A democratic republic (answer 1) would be the form, loosely based on the British system which was composed of a King, a House of Lords and a House of Commons.  The “king” in our government would be the president who would be elected by a group of chosen electors, the Electoral College (answer 3).  The House of Lords would become our Senate, whose members would be chosen by the state legislatures (answer 2) and represent the individual states in the Federal Government.  The House of Commons would become our House of Representatives, which would be each citizen’s most direct line to the Federal Government since they were directly elected by the voters (answer 4).

The founders chose to create a government with three branches.  The two houses would form the legislative branch; the president would lead the executive branch, with a judiciary comprising the third branch.  This three branched government with a bi-cameral legislature formed from out of so many states, a structured set of checks and balances was provided in order to maintain the ability to govern in an orderly and peaceful manner.

The checks and balances were a necessary component to prevent tyranny on one hand and anarchy on the other.  Unfortunately, the 17^th amendment to the US Constitution in 1913 ended the election of Senators by the legislatures and they are now directly elected by the voters in each state.  This has removed the individual states participation in the federal government and allowed the Federal Government to run roughshod over the states.

By the way, here are your answers in case you missed them earlier.

1)      Democratic Republic

2)      The state legislatures

3)      The constituents of each House district

4)      The Electoral College

5)      Please post your response to this question in the comments section below.

So now we come back to Egypt and the call for democracy.  The fear among many is that Egypt does not have the proper liberal cultural base for democracy and the people may be sacrificed to the masses.  How will democracy exist in the absence of any check on the leadership?  There are many democratic elections held all over the world where the people have no liberty.  Often the leaders, once elected and without restraint, wield that power mercilessly in suppressing opposition.  Even in Egypt, sham elections are held to give the false pretense of democracy.  Our diplomats spent many months and years helping Iraq form a government with its own checks and balances to better ensure the durability of their democracy.  In Iran and Cuba, we can see that massing together in revolt does not necessarily end in democracy.

As we see the masses in Cairo protesting for a new government, we must remember that without the virtues of our system, a democratic Egypt may provide liberty, but how long can they suppress its vices before the people find themselves under another tyranny?  It is not in the United State’s interest to see a friendly, secular tyrant replaced with an un-friendly, Islamist tyrant.

How I changed the world.

I do not own an iPod.  I have no grudge against Apple or its products.  In fact, many years ago I did own an iPod mini.  But today I do not have one because of competition.  "How so?", you ask (if I may presume to know what you are about to say).

For all of you who possess an iPod, as soon as you got it, you went into iTunes and began to sync your music.  Where did this music come from?  It came, much like the music of my younger days, from albums or singles purchased and songs borrowed (copied) from your friends.  Perhaps some of the music was a present or was lifted with sticky fingers at the mall.  (Don't worry, no judgement here - I'm just sayin)  After syncing your music, that iPod was ready to go, insert earplugs, begin music and cue the dancing.

But for me, that state-of-the-art iPod left me stuck in the 80's.  Truth is, I don't buy CDs or mp3s.  At least, not unless absolutely necessary. As a teen, I spent every last dime on music.  Even in college, I was a habitual buyer. But as I began raising children and was forced to buy a seemingly infinite supply of diapers along with the (cutest) little shoes every other week with my CD money.  My once trendy music collection soon became classic oldies.  Then several years ago, the internet brought subscription services into my life.  I had never felt comfortable with the music sharing sites like Napster (before it went legit) where it seemed to be stealing (because it was).  But with the legal subscriptions I was able to start getting all the music I wanted, for a low set price.  It was a really great deal for someone like me.  In fact, now that I have teenagers of my own, it's an even better deal.

Which brings me to the iPod.  I could not sync my subscription songs to the iPod.  It sat there and mocked me with nearly 500 songs I didn't want to hear, pulled from old CDs lying around the house.  My children who were tweens at the time, would play with my new high-tech toy, then ask why my music was so lame-o.  The iPod was cool; their dad was most definitely not.

Mercifully, that particular iPod model had many problems and died a quick death.  So I then asked my subscription service (Rhapsody) what I could use that would allow me to use music from their service on a player without the need to purchase the actual music.  I went shopping online and soon had an mp3 player (Creative Zen:M) that worked with the service for only a few bucks more per month.  It worked so well, that my girls had their own mp3 players for Christmas filled with songs from the same plan.  Several upgrades later we now have 2 adults and 3 children jamming to unlimited music, all for the price of one CD each month.

A few weeks ago, as I was comparing phones before upgrading, I was happy to find that the new smartphones will now allow me to stream music from my plan.  Unexpectedly, I also found that my Rhapsody subscription could now be used with Apple's newer iPhones and iPod touch.  The great new gizmos from Apple could finally be allowed back into our world.  My little girl's dreams of an iPhone might yet come true.  Which (finally) leads me to the following conclusion.

I changed the world!

Again you say, "How so?"  By utilizing my purchasing power in such a manner within a competitive environment, I, along with others who made similar choices, coerced two large corporations to make a radical change to their infrastructure.  Let me restate this so you get the full effect.  A bunch of nobodies, with no coordination or communication amongst ourselves, by simply using the power of our consumption, so cowered the mighty Apple, giver of the cool Christmas gifts and Rhapsody, able provider of affordable music, that they have chosen to submit to our collective will.  If that doesn't fly in the face of the notion that big companies wield all the power, I don't know what does.  But why?

Apple's business plan was simple.  To make the iPod the must have tech toy that everyone would have, but then force the buyers into their iTunes interface where they would continue to profit as you bought music.  iTunes was as big a part of the success for Apple as the player itself.  So for them to allow another media provider into their environment is a BFD.  But that is competition.

So how did this work?  Competition works for several reasons.  One company may offer something not offered by the other or make it cheaper or better.  One company may offer better customer service while another has a better celebrity endorser.  The truth is that there is no limit to the ways that companies may compete.  Just ask 'Crazy Bob' what he's prepared to do to sell you a new stereo.

There are several things that can inhibit competition.  But contrary to what you may think, size isn't one of them.  Surely you've seen the commercials for Geico and its gekko.  With a unique business model and some catchy advertising, this insurance company has moved from near insolvency to become one of the major auto insurance companies in America. 

For two decades Apple held about 20% of the PC market when it developed the iMac, then the iPod, iPhone and now iPad.  Apple currently dominates the tech gadget category.  Microsoft on the other hand, dominated the PC world to the extent that under Clinton an anti-trust suit was brought against them.  But when they made their move into the music player arena, their Zune and music store were a failure.

Size can be an advantage, but having a good idea along with a leadership team agile enough to change directions to meet consumer demands is imperative in the open market place.  Imagine Reggie Bush trying to score a touchdown against a 300 lb lineman.  In the open field my money is on Reggie.  But if you close down the available field, the advantage tips to the big guy.  Which brings me to our most anti-competitive problem in America - regulations.

To carry our football analogy further, a football field is 360 feet by 160 feet as stated in the rules.  As such, there is a balance between the size, strength and speed of the players.  But if you begin to change the boundaries, you change that balance.  Close down on the dimensions and speed becomes less important.  Open them and the need for size takes a hit.  Even when both teams are playing by the same rules, changing the rules does not affect both teams equally.

That is where we have to be cautious in regulating our open markets.  While its thought we are implementing consumer protections, in truth we are changing the balance of competition on the field.  Every new rule that eliminates a patch of turf from the playing area gives more power to the big corporations and makes it that much harder for the small companies to compete.

Yes, we need a basic regulatory framework, just as a football field has a standard dimension.  And anti-trust laws work to make sure that we have at least two opposing teams on the field of play.  But licenses, taxes, wage laws and other startup burdens can keep teams off the field.  Fewer teams equals less competition.  Restrictions on how companies compete will often aid big corporations because their lobbyists may help write the regulations.

And have you wondered why there is no Geico-type company providing health insurance in new and different ways, helping bring the healthcare costs down?  Because each state has its own set of rules and regulations, a company would need to replicate Geico's success 50 times to have the same effect on the industry.  This is one area that needs to be deregulated so that a company can offer health insurance across state lines to all 50 states.

Finally, the worst thing we expect our congressman to do is fix a problem when someone breaks the law.  Anytime we seek a new law to prevent a criminal from breaking a current law, we need to re-evaluate what we're asking.  Yet I've seen it happen time and time again.  We yell that the Enron guys broke the law and stole our money, so congress should do something so it doesn't happen again.  Helloooo, if some business man wants to steal your money, a new law will not stop him.  He will just find another way to do it the next time.  If you want to keep people from stealing your money, make sure the last guy that did so is punished severely as an example to the next guy.  Enforcing the laws and rules we already have to their fullest extent is far superior to making new laws and rules. 

If someone steals your money without breaking the law, then perhaps we may need a new rule, law or a loophole closed, but even then we should tread carefully.  Once new rules are in place, they are rarely removed no matter how ineffective they are.  When a thief goes to jail, then the law has worked.  You may rightly say that this doesn't bring your money back.  I acknowledge that while noting that putting a murderer in jail doesn't bring the victim back either.  That's life.  No one said it's fair.  Most of us play by the rules but some will choose to lie, cheat, steal and kill.  Our most effective move to eliminate unfair play in commerce, is the one that adequately punishes those guilty of breaking the rules.

I didn't need a new rule to change the world.  I just needed $15 per month.

Reagan/Obama 1984

I wrote this a few days ago.  I was waiting for someone else to make this point, but no one did. 
It's a bit lengthy, but I think worth the read.

Reagan/Obama 1984

by

Sam Ritter

As I read and listened to the comments following President Obama’s recent State of the Union address, it became obvious that the concerted effort to seem more Reaganesque had succeeded.  Following news reports that he had put Reagan on his reading list and then submitted an editorial on Reagan to USA Today, it was expected that the President would try to hit the sunny side of America - Reagan style.  The commentators made this the central theme of the post speech discussion.  Time magazine photoshopped President Obama with an apparently, approving Reagan for its cover.  But was Barack Obama channeling Ronald Reagan or something very different?

            President Reagan often proclaimed an optimistic future for America. As he would say, it was morning in America.  His presidency, not unlike others, was heavily draped in patriotic colors.  But it has become clear that some Americans have misunderstood this patriotism.  In fact, functioning patriotism has come to be an elusive enigma that seems to leave some on the left groping in the dark.  They have proclaimed taxes patriotic, but decry the patriotic glory of everyday Americans taking pride in the accomplishments of their fellow citizens during the Olympics.  They disparage our founders and are ashamed of those espousing American exceptionalism.  They wish to educate our children of all the wrongs ever perpetuated by America, but seek to bypass all the good that has come to exist because of her.

            In the past I never understood why they seemed so inept at showing patriotism, but now it seems they’ve let their slip show.  They, along with our President, either have no idea what patriotism is or they do, and have absolutely no need for it.  The SOTU, protestations otherwise was not a patriotic address – it was a nationalistic address.  Therein lays the danger.

            The patriotism/nationalism dichotomy has always been difficult for some to comprehend.  For some, overt patriotism would lead to nationalism, it was feared.  But that shows a basic failure to understand the underlying nature of the concepts.  Perhaps some have been distracted by the principle of American exceptionalism, which holds that the nature of America’s founding and the documents and ideals that have formed our nation are unique, i.e. exceptional.  Many misunderstand and believe this to mean that some feel that Americans are a better, more exceptional people than those of other nations.  This is of course, far from the truth.

            While both patriotism and nationalism are centered on our attitude and feelings toward our nation, they are very different.  They represent two sides of the same coin as they relate the citizenry toward the state. Patriotism is about pride – pride in the nation, pride in our fellow citizens, pride in accomplishments without a loss of self, whereas nationalism is about submission – pieces in a cog working for the greater good, submitting their own desires toward the collective, marked by a self-less devotion.  Often there will be an overlap between the two, which can be seen most clearly during martial events.  During WWII, patriotic Americans heeded the national call for sacrifice, while the German people surely felt a sense of patriotic pride following military victories.  But at the core, they retain differences.

            At times, the left has revealed how they truly feel about America.  Remember when Michelle Obama said, “And let me tell you something -- for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.”  In the absence of pride, there is no patriotism.  Without a patriotic pride in America, there is no reverence for the nature and history of America.  When nothing of America’s past is sacred and honored, the only way forward is to remake America into what you want it to be.  During the 2008 campaign, we heard both Obamas talk about how the world “as it is just isn’t good enough” and fighting for the world “as it should be”.

            In his address, Obama called upon us to realize our Sputnik moment, and then proceeded to “launch” into a list of “investments” for the greater good.  Children must go to college because our nation needs them to have a college degree.  We must move forward as a nation to beat the Chinese in solar panels and win the green revolution.  We will lose the future without high speed rail.  It all sounded like the normal boilerplate we hear in these types of speeches, but was it?

            Sputnik put fear in Americans, not because it showed that we were behind technologically or commercially to the Soviets, but because we feared that it put us at a disadvantage militarily and thus mortally.  When JFK called on America to go boldly where no man has gone before, it wasn’t because he wanted to ride the technological wave of the future.  He, along with many Americans feared a militarization of space – armed satellites ready to rein destruction on us from above.  For the protection of America, he stated a goal and made it clear that America would accomplish what it set out to do.  Because this was a matter of national defense, it was a task for the federal government.

            Watch the movie “The Right Stuff” based on the novel by Tom Wolfe and you will see the rugged individuals who came to epitomize the early days of NASA.  Life and death were on the line for our first “space voyagers” much as it was on the line for America as we entered the Space Race with the Soviets.  To compare our perceived deficiency in solar panels or high speed rail to the Chinese with these events is beyond believability.

            Yet, there was our president telling us we need to “Win The Future™”, by circumventing our capitalist system and throwing our efforts to the state in order to succeed in the marketplace of the future.  By his reasoning, I’m amazed that America has survived to the present, unless my history is off and Eli Whitney worked for the Department of the Interior.  Or were John Fulton and Henry Ford working for the Federal Transportation Authority?  Is it too much to think that Samuel Colt was part of the ATF?  I’m not sure which area of the Federal government Steve Jobs worked in as he developed the iPOD.  To understand where Obama is wrong is to understand when and where the state should have primacy.  In matters of national defense, it should.  In matters of commerce, it should not.  It is understood that the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government directive to regulate, but it does not have primacy and should only interfere with the open marketplace as a last resort, whereas “provide for the common defence” is a stated federal obligation found in the preamble.

            In truth, America succeeds because of our open marketplace, where good ideas flourish and bad ideas are quickly and mercilessly destroyed.  Many can recall the state of fear that believed Japan’s lead in the electronic age was going to leave us behind?  Even when America does not lead the way, our open market allows American innovation to improve and market these ideas and succeed. If an idea is worthy, it will succeed in the market and if not, it will fail miserably as it should.  In the government bureaucracy an idea may continue to be pursued regardless of any future success.

Certainly some good ideas develop from government research, but often they are inadvertent successes.  The basic framework for the internet was developed as a defense project.  Many innovations have developed from NASA, but as side effects, so to speak.  Among these are freeze drying, solar energy, portable cordless vacuums, Light-emitting diodes (LED) and Tempur foam.  What this shows is that in any properly funded research and development department, good ideas will come, often in unexpected forms.  But this does not show that the state is the best place for research.  The government beast makes for a highly inefficient laboratory with no true mechanism for harvesting the good or ridding the bad.  At this point in time, NASA is a mess of a bureaucracy filled with red-tape, whose once tightly focused mission has become so scattershot that it is no longer able to complete its primary goal of sending Americans into space, but must pay to hitch a ride with the Russians.  By raising the specter of Sputnik, the irony of NASA’s current failures could not be made clearer.

            Yet despite what was made clear by his allusion, the President called for Americans to put more of our private sector and research under the control and direction of the state and asked the American people to rally together toward our common good as dictated by him.  Thus lays the heart of the leftists’ nationalism.  For those who think of Mussolini or Hitler, Obama’s is not a militant nationalism.  No, this movement flows from leftist, social justice thinkers who believe America needs to be liberated; liberated not from some external enemy, but from the enemy within – free market capitalism.  Obama seeks to accomplish this from the top down, but others seek the same from the bottom up.  We’ve seen this recently in the call by Francis Fox Piven for mass protests and riots among the working class.  Our open markets are the oppressor that must be vanquished.  This way forward is with the mass of nameless, faceless “oppressed” in open rebellion.  Both directions seek to suppress the will of the individual to the group.  This is a radical departure for a nation founded upon the virtues of the individual and the general will identified in liberal nationalism as originally espoused by Jean-Jacques Rousseau.  In his writings, Rousseau claimed that citizens constrained to obey the general will are free.  He emphasized that the general will exists to protect individuals against the mass, not to require them to be sacrificed to it

Taking their cue from him, the founders formed a nation of individuals called to a joined purpose of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; a general will that leaves them free to follow the path of their own choosing.  Obama now seeks to call us for joined goals through singular means – individuals need not apply, as we must sacrifice ourselves for the common good.  By invoking Reagan, Obama sought to put a happy, patriotic face on left-wing/Marxist nationalism and make it more palatable to the people.  By their reactions, this has worked with the mainstream press. Thus far it has failed with the people.  With the advent of the Tea Parties, there is a renewed interest in the founders and perhaps as the public becomes more aware of federal encroachment, it can be restrained or even pulled back.

But the leftist, like an expert chess player sees several steps ahead.  If you’ve ever wondered why the leftists seek out a crisis, it is because of this – the American people are willing to humble themselves for the public good and pull together during a crisis, whether war, disaster, terrorism attack, etc. because that is part of our nation’s social contract.  In that moment, our civic nationalism becomes exploitable and that is exactly where Barack Hussein Obama wants us.  Only in the Orwellian world found in the aptly titled “1984” would it be anything other than reprehensible that this man could ever be compared to Ronald Wilson Reagan.

*** Grand Opening & First Post ***

This is the first official post on Sam's Taste of Chaos.  At this point no one is actually paying attention, so I can pretty much say whatever I feel like.  It's the sort of freedom that allows you to run around the house in your underwear when nobody else is home.  Well except for the fact that items on the internet live forever.  So I guess that would make it like you're running around the house in your underwear and no one is there to see you, but there is camera recording you the entire time that anyone in the world can view with an internet connection.

With that, I suppose I will behave my self and continue onward.

This blog exists for a couple of reasons. 
1.  I like to write.
2.  I like for people to read what I write.

Simple enough, huh?  I was surviving with Facebook for a while, then Twitter, but finally realized that I often needed more than 140 characters to express myself properly.  As this venue is different from the social networks, I will attempt to refrain from any proliferated use of emoticons or such, but do not hold me to that should Mizzou win a national championship.

Much of what I write will be political and/or spiritual, but don't worry because I will still have a fair amount of gibberish and gobbledygook.  And no, Gibberish and Gobbledygook are not Scottish poets.  At least, not to my knowledge....