Monday, April 15, 2013

Issue 55 Freedom of the Press April 15,2013


What is the freedom of the press to you? Does it mean a reporter can just spout any form of nonsense when ever they choose? The Freedom of the Press is part of free speech, but in this case plays an important function, keeping government in check.

As free speech: The freedom of the press is a form of speech that is published for all to see. It is no longer just a simple news paper story, but television, and electronic media. It is a news station, a work of satirical literature (both in print and visual), a television show, a documentary and so on. There really is no limit to what today can be considered part of the freedom of the press. Even this blog counts as part of that freedom.

Limits: As always, there are limitations. A reporter cannot say something that is not true about an individual. That would be considered lying. Due to this, a reporter in a court of law may be sued in court (at least here in the U.S. they can) as any lie can potentially ruin someone’s life. In the U.S. however, there is a double standard as celebrities and people in highly visible public positions must prove malice (intentional destruction of ones reputation in this instance) in order to defend themselves from a false truth. The double standard here was established to protect all reporters as a single celebrity or public official suing can ruin the life of a reporter and create fear in the minds of other reporters and commentators to the point they can no longer report a story accurately.

They can be used: If any one has grown up in a totalitarian society, or a society that values something more than freedom, then they know that a news agency can be censored. What is censorship? It is the manipulation of what is written or viewed by the general public, usually by a government. In America, there used to be wide spread censorship, restricting the types of characters portrayed on the television or written into books. They could even limit what news reporters said. In countries run by dictators, the news media is a mouth piece for government, squawking like a parrot when the government so desirers. There is also self censorship. Some agencies do it out of decency, as there viewers watch them because they expect a certain level of decorum. Others however have an agenda. Unfortunately, more so today than in the past I would think, that a news agency would manipulate its stories to better support their ideological agenda. Some may even use it to destroy there opposition by telling how biased a particular group is to discredit them and ultimately cause them to lose enough money to shut down. Then there is others still that would manipulate the story so as to inflate it (which I generally see on a slow news day when I watch the news), but is sometimes used to give attention to a particular person or group.

Thank Goodness for the Internet: With the internet being so pervasive in today’s society it has become that much harder to lie to the public. Every blogger, writer, film maker, and artist has the potential to be a reporter and/or commentator. Information cannot be hidden anymore as once that information has spread, that’s it, it can no longer be covered up and the victim of that leak is now on damage control duty. But there is one negative, the truth can be overwhelmed by lies. If people hear a lie long enough, they think it is true and thus when presented with the actual truth, they think it a lie.

Information and truth are now a battlefield. Reporters have a very rough road ahead as the established media like the New York Times, CNN, The Wall Street Journal, and Fox News must adapt or die out. Every person has a preferred media source. Some in my generation prefer John Stewart (a comedian) over the likes of Anderson Cooper and Bill O'rielly. But it is up to us to try and take the time to sort out the truth from the lies otherwise; we become lambs to the slaughter. It is up to the new generation of reporters to establish a moral high ground so as to not manipulate the news and maintain an air of professionalism. Truth must be what we seek from the press; otherwise we disgrace the freedom of the press and turn it softly into a tool of tyranny.

Friday, April 12, 2013

Issue 54 President Obama and CPI April 12,2013


The President has proposed a new budget (again). And he has put out an olive branch to the Republicans that even they have not considered, reforming how inflation is measured so that it is more accurate.

Inflation: This term is used to describe when money loses value. It occurs when there is more money in the system, or other special circumstances occur to cause this financial hardship. Why does inflation occur you ask? Well, the value of money works on the same principles as supply and demand, the more money you have equals less demand and thus less value. The less money there is equals more demand and thus a higher value. Governments typically prefer higher inflation as people get more money even though it is worth less than it really is which in turn allows them to pay off debt easier. However, the negative of this is that the prices of all goods and services skyrocket.

CPI: CPI stands for Consumer Price Index. It is one of many ways to measure for inflation. In this case, CPI is used by the federal government of the United States to determine, based on inflation, how much welfare money is given out, how much government assistance you get with health care and other services, and even how much a senior gets in Social Security and Medicare. Depending on how it is adjusted it can decrease or even increase benefits for those individuals who need aid. For the case of President Obama, he wants the CPI to measure inflation more accurately and thus causing benefits to increase for mostly poorer individuals, and decrease benefits for richer individuals. There for it is a step in the right direction for reforming welfare and other handouts, while saving the government lots of money.

Opposition Response: Republicans were astonished by this olive branch. Every interview I saw had them wondering what the President was thinking. Prior to the Presidents proposal the Republicans supported the Ryan Budget that also changed CPI, but not for anyone over the age of 50. Thus in their budget, only my generation would actually be affected. Republicans only wanted my generation affected out of concern seniors could not cushion themselves from the change in payments as many seniors today need to work even in their 80s to make ends meat.

Political risk: President Obama is putting himself out on a limb politically here. Then again, he does not need to be re-elected, but his fellow Democrats do as well as Republicans. Let’s face it; America’s senior citizens vote the most.

I applaud President Obama for this, even if I do not care for the rest of his budget as it increases taxes again, and even places America in more debt. But it does show he wants a legacy to be remembered. So in this case, I hope he actually does work with Republicans rather than demeaning his opposition into place. However, this proposal still might go no where as the Republicans and Democrats must still agree to the rest of the budget, though I think that is unlikely. Perhaps some actual smart person in D.C. will propose to do one-for-one trades the President getting Republicans and Democrats to reduce tax credits and deductions for the rich in exchange for an altered and more accurate CPI. Republicans will never give on raising taxes, but would be willing to lower them if it is for the middle class and lower. There is wriggle room; it’s just that both sides have to find it first.

Thursday, April 11, 2013

Issue 53 Gay Marrige April 11, 2013


Gay Marriage is probably one of the most major issues of our life time, when it comes to religion that is. For those who are of faith, this for most is not an issue of questioning the love of the couple, but an infringement of government onto ones faith.

Marriage is a religious sacrament: Last I checked marriage belonged to religion. Government, due to the separation between Church and state is not allowed to touch it. But, government does because it makes them lots of money. Originally, even in the United States, countries had established State religions. In the U.S. the Quakers had Pennsylvania, Mormons Utah, and the list continues. It allowed the States not the Federal Government to decide who could be married. Also, before and after the Civil War in America, the States ability to marry individuals was abused to prevent couples with different skin colors, races, ethnicities and faiths from marrying. However, the State is no longer allowed to have an established religion today. There is a wall between what the Church may do and what the government may do. And thus I argue that the government cannot say who can and who cannot get married.

Yes they will get married: Some may be thinking that if they let the churches decide then it locks out gays from getting married and even atheists for that matter. That is wrong. There are churches in the protestant faith, and other "dissident" churches that will marry gay couples. Let us also not forget that groups of non-believers may still be married, they just have to due a ceremony, and they do not need a church. Basically, everyone is already free to marry. Government just has to get out of the way.

Polygamy: Multi person marriages will also probably happen. Laws against it are entirely unenforceable as they will just call the other partner their boy friend or girlfriend. It is an inevitable result after the gay marriage issue and again, this is a sacrament, not a government institution. The government has no place telling anyone who can marry.

OK, I lied a little: There is one area that government does have a say on this issue and that is age. We don't want 9 year olds being married to 40 year olds. Age is the only exception for it is protecting children from perverts and despicable adults. This issue is entirely separate from the gay marriage issue and any other form of marriage for that matter. Laws protecting children from sexual acts are already on the books so there is really no fear here in the United States of that happening (legally), and if it does occur we arrest a bunch of people. Even libertarians will not stand for a child being sexually assaulted.

Conclusion: Gay marriage is going to happen. It harms no one at all, and in fact just legitimizes the love of the two individuals involved. Multi person marriages are also going to happen at some point as well as it is unenforceable. But remember, these marriage groups have nothing to do with under age sexual acts, tying them together is simply wrong.

Marriage is an act of faith. Most laws if marriage is finally kicked out of government will remain in place (though they may be renamed). We have nothing to fear at all from gay marriage, or even multi person marriages. Children will be protected from that select minority. I am strait, and intend to marry a girl and have a very nice and happy family, but I am not going to interfere in someone else's faith or love and neither should government.

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Issue 52 Let them Gamble April 10, 2013


Yes that is correct, I say let anyone and everyone gamble unhindered. I speak out to you all as a libertarian who believes in the freedom of choice, and in this case about gambling.

We should not be arrested for betting: In some parts of the United States gambling is 100% illegal. And thus, people are subject to police raids. These raids are entirely uncalled for as most of the time the gamblers are just friends getting together for a game. Is it so wrong to gamble amongst friends?

The Cheats: I do understand that in some instances Gambling in the basement of ones home or in the back room of a basement can become a decent business. Also, I understand that the draw of money can cause some owners of these unlicensed gambling halls to rig their gaming systems. But, that is when we actually should be calling the cops to check the legitimacy of those claims as, then and only then that would be theft. We should not make common people criminals over a non criminal act such as running a small business. Sure, there are issues with taxation, but maybe it's time to start rethinking a tax system that punishes people for trying to make a living. Maybe we are just doing too much harm.

It's not income: Well the winning of the gambler is not real income. The gambling house, when people loose and buy stuff, that is income. However, gambling is un-earned money and thus should not be taxed. Government has become very greedy as they try to balance their books and has looked to take from every profitable person and business. So who do they turn to first, the businesses that they deem disreputable like gambling? People spending money to gamble is something adults should be allowed to do unhindered. It is their money and they should be able to spend it how they please, even if that is to risk said money to gain some more. The lotto is also a form of gambling, but people’s lucky win should not be punished by stealing most of it via taxation. It makes no sense for me.

The Fear: The main fear is that people will become addicted to gambling. This small segment of the population who would shall be cared for regardless, but it is not enough to hold back an entire population from their freedoms. People think that by limiting how often people gamble and where they can gamble will solve the problem. Well it never has, and it never will. The addicted gambler will always be an addicted gambler. We can help them after the fact, but it is useless to try and stop them. Society itself punishes the act, by descending into poverty, and their family leaving them. It becomes our duty as people to help them, but limiting and suppressing the freedom of association, to make a better life; to take a chance will not ever solve the problem.

In the United States, Internet gambling is illegal because it is felt that the gambling addicts will destroy themselves. Though, these victims are used as an excuse to protect the established gambling halls like in Nevada and New Jersey. It is corrupt capitalism that prevents private individuals from being able to have a game of chance, while fearing the cops. Can we stop making people victims of our own naïveté? I do not gamble, but I am not someone who is going to shut a good business down that provides jobs to people. I just want to stop making people into criminals. So let them gamble if they choose.

Tuesday, April 9, 2013

Issue 51 Measure Everything April 9, 2013


Have you ever wondered how effect a government program is? Is it really worth the cost? Well there is only one way to figure that out. The way to do it is to measure how successful it is.

How it works: The idea is simple, set up some criteria that would judge success of a given program or programs. Then follow that with a system to measure each program such as how many people on a welfare program get out of poverty. From there you are set. By using the information gathered, the politicians and the public can see how well a particular program functions.

The Criteria: When establishing the criteria of success, you have to ensure that it measures the intended goal like people getting out of welfare, or if a law enforcement program is effective in maintaining order. Without these criteria the measurement system fails. In addition, each program must be subject to the same measurement system if they fall into the same categories, such as welfare with welfare programs, job program with job programs and so on and so forth. This would establish a basis from which the politicians can compare and contrast the varying programs accurately. Why compare and contrast them? Simple, comparing and contrasting allows for us all to see how effective a program is in comparison to another. If the other program is more successful at doing the same job, then you would keep the good more effective program and terminate the bad one. Of course, those in the bad program would be funneled into the effective program.

Conclusion: A simple change such as this can change a how an entire government works. It would aid in reducing redundancies and insuring that only the worthy programs work. We, the people do not want or need programs that waste our tax dollars, nor do we want a failing program to possibly compound a given problem (some forms of welfare create even more poor). It is time we implement in government a system that measures every aspect of a government programs and agencies success and failure rate for with it, we can surly be one step closer to stopping, and reducing government waste.

I take this concept from Jim Manzi, The head of Applied Predictive Technologies, contributing editor to the "National Review", member of the Manhattan Institute (a conservative think tank, and the place where I met him), and a corporate strategy consultant with Strategic Planning Associates and a staff member at AT&T Laboratories as well as a number of corporate non-profits.

I also take from his book:

Manzi, Jim. Uncontrolled: The Surprising Payoff of Trial-and-Error for Business, Politics and Society Basic books, United States, 2012

 

Monday, April 8, 2013

Issue 50 Free Association April 8, 2013


The Freedom of Association is a freedom that we take for granted regularly. It is our ability to associate with anyone and everyone of our own choosing. For the people of the United States, this right is guaranteed in the first Amendment of the Constitution through the peaceable assemble clause of the first Amendment. But, what does the freedom of association entail?

To associate with People: For this freedom, you can associate with any person you like whether they are the richest or the poorest. You may be a Republican, but through this freedom, you are allowed to have a drink with a Communist. It allows people of different races, color and creeds to interact unhindered by society (or the very least government).

To associate with groups and businesses: This freedom governs our interactions with other people, but because a group and/ or a business are made up of people we are allowed to associate with them as well. We can associate with banks of our choosing, religious organizations of our choosing, and doctors of our choosing and so on. The freedom of association does not limit us to one single option, but grants us the ability to give our support or business to anyone we choose. Think about it. When you give money to a charitable organization such as the Catholic Church you are associating with them. If you join a group like Green Peace, you are associating with them. Giving money to buy your groceries to the cashier is associating with that grocery store. We perform this act every day, this freedom every second without even realizing it.

It gives us the ability to discriminate: Like with every positive, there are negatives. However, the ability to discriminate is not exactly a negative. Through our own judgment, people are allowed to say no, I will not associate with that person. People can say no I will not hang out with that group. They can say no, I refuse to shop at that store. We all have our reasons to not want to hang out with a particular person, group or business; however the only time this becomes a negative is if hatred is involved such as racism. Otherwise, discrimination is a positive which allows us to disassociate with say a communist who intends on committing a terrorist act. We do not have to join a group like the white supremacists. There is no need to shop at a business if we feel they are unfair to their workers or even for just having prices that are too high. This freedom gives us choice, the choice to be with, or not be with who we wish.

Should Government order us to associate with someone: For us Americans, the freedoms we have are sacred. But we typically don't know they are slipping through our fingers till they have been eroded. One such instance is the Affordable Care Act which is better known as Obama Care. In its pages the American people are ordered to associate with insurance companies, which is a clear violation of our freedom of association. While, yes, Americans do want to be able to have access to health care, it does not mean we should be forced to buy from any body we either do not agree with, or simply cannot afford. However, we are no forced to be with insurance companies that most of us think of as either crooks or just a plain waste of money. And even then, we are still trapped, because health insurers are controlled by the State Governments and thus prevent other health care providers from entering. This unfortunately creates a monopoly (on a limited basis); while States force price controls and coverage on individuals they do not actually need (like hang nail coverage). This is government limiting people’s options and thus our freedom of association. Thus for Americans and people everywhere that have their rights protected by law, our freedoms are actually being suppressed.

Do we have the right to associate with a Government: The Freedom of association does give us the right to associate with a government of our choosing. But unlike traditional ways of associating and disassociating, we would have to actually leave the country and settle in a new one that better suits our values and interest. In other words, to escape a government that is not going away anytime soon, you have to move to another country that you would find acceptable, but remember, you are now subject to their laws and restrictions.

To be free to associate or disassociate is a wonderful freedom. We may choose who we marry, who are friends are, and even where we shop. It allows us to come together in times of struggle and separate when we no longer see eye to eye. With this freedom we may go on strike at our work place if we feel we are treated unfairly or seek out new employment. Through this right we can due marches, boycotts and protests, but also we can come together in Churches, Temples and Mosques. Never take this freedom for granted, for once it is suppressed it will be a hard struggle to get it back.

Friday, April 5, 2013

Issue 49 Free Speech April 5, 2013


What is free speech exactly? Is it the privilege to say anything you want? Are there limits? Well if you're a person like me, then it is the ability to say whatever you want, but you are responsible for the results of what you say.

It is a right: As we all know, the freedom of speech is a "natural right." We can express our opinions in almost any way we deem appropriate. However, like most rights, while it is something that cannot be given to another person it can be suppressed. Governments like China, and Saudi Arabia, limit speech to protect themselves from a popular uprising. They limit the exposure of their people’s voice by restricting Internet access and censoring what is said in news papers and magazines. North Korea has complete control over the media and controls everything that is said. Here in America, we take our freedom of speech for granted. There are people who will try and shout people down from the podium because they do not agree with their views. Is it selfish, yes. But it is done because some people don't want to have a conversation and develop the issue to the point where it can be resolved, they rather it is their way, or no way at all. So the only tyranny we face in America is the masses, both large and small, trying to drown out other points of view.

For me the definition of the freedom of speech (a libertarian definition at that) is: the ability to express your thoughts and ideas in any way you so choose, so long the other persons rights are not violated in the process. With the sole exception being a liar (also known as libel) in which case the subject who is lied about has the ability to sue for any damages that result. So long story short, you are responsible to what you say or in some cases due. By the way harming someone is not speech, and I know some of you were thinking that this definition included the physical harm of someone else or the even the destruction of another persons property. They are not speech.  That is violating someone’s right to life, there ability to live without fear, and their personal property rights.

Limits: Some of you have heard that you cannot say fire in a movie theater even though it is speech. Truth is you actually can. The example here was actually rhetorical that was put into the final decision of a United States Supreme Court case. You can actually say fire, if there is one, if the audience in the theater thinks this is part of an act etc. But say it causes a panic, and people are harmed. This is why people simply say "you can't say fire in a movie theater" because of the possible consequences of that action. In truth, you will not be arrested for the actual speech, but the results of that speech.

Similarly, you cannot instigate a riot with your speech. A person can say things that will make people want to harm those around them, or even harm the speaker themselves. But due to how the crowd may act, the police will unfortunately arrest you. Our societies have not evolved to the point where we can just ignore and even isolate the individuals we truly don't agree with because of there backwards views i.e. racism, slavery and the like. Essentially, when it comes to something you don't want to hear or see, as part of your freedom of speech you may advert your eyes and even shut your ears.

Obviously, as stated earlier, you cannot steal, or destroy another’s property for the sake of speech as you are violating their rights. You cannot harm or kill someone for the sake of speech, for again you are violating someone’s rights. Does this actually need to be explained? Well it does because protesters will sometimes abuse their freedom and harm other people purposefully as in the case of the occupy movement where some of their cohorts purposely destroyed and ransacked peoples businesses and homes. The moment when you start violating another person’s right's with your freedom of speech and expression, it stops being a freedom.

Are products Speech?: I ask this because the U.S. Supreme Court has at one point ruled that child pornography is speech. Do I agree with this decision, HELL NO. But at least the court ruled it as an exception to protect children. However, if even child porn counts as speech, what other items count as speech. All photographs, movies, books, artwork and all other forms of art, architecture (think Statue of Liberty) and literature count as a form of speech. Then, does an I Phone count? Does a television count? I know they count as property, but can property count as speech? I guess in certain circumstances they can, depending on how they are used. In this instance I would site flag burning as an example. A person is destroying an item they own to make a point. You can also decorate an item a certain way to make a statement about your self. This would even encompass fashion. Thus, your right to own property and the freedom of speech overlap.

The freedom of speech is something often taken for granted until it is taken from you. Just remember, it is your responsibility to use your freedoms wisely. If you don't like what is being said or done for the sake of another person’s freedom of speech, as per your freedom of speech, you may advert your eyes and clap your ears shut. You are responsible for maintaining your own freedoms and protecting your rights, always keep that in mind.