The Present in Plain Text

This November 5th is Ron Paul Day

Casey Khan at the LRC Blog asked for an update to the doggerel that accompanies the remembrance of Guy Fawkes failed attempt to blow up the Houses of Parliament.  I obliged him, right after I signed myself up for the big event planned by these guys.  He posted it to the LRC Blog this morning (enjambment all wrong, but hey, I'm not complaining.):

Remember, Remember the 5^th of November,
the pledges for reason and gold.
I can think of no treason
like pledging for reason
Worthy of men free and bold.

 

This fund-raising idea got me thinking this past weekend and after ignoring my wife for a couple of hours, I put together an article and submitted it to Lew Rockwell for publication (still pending).  In that first draft I decided to complete the work begun above to mirror the entire song sung on 11/5 each year. So, while Lew can't publish direct appeals for fund-raising on his site, I have no such restrictions here:

Remember, Remember the 5^th of November,
the pledges for reason and gold.
I can think of no treason
like pledging for reason
Worthy of men free and bold.

In Ron Paul did we entrust
to stop the booms as well as busts;
and the wars of endless time, the punishment
without a crime,
The taxes of which rob and fleece,
Both the living and deceased.

Come on Boys, Come on Girls, Join the Revolution!
Come on Women, Come on Men, Remember the Constitution!

We're at 6100 people and climbing.  The goal is 100,000 people on November 5th.  Even reaching 20% of this goal would be quite the achievement, if only a tactical nuke as opposed to a MIRV, to extend the money bomb analogy.  In my mind we can do this peacefully or not.  The choice is ours, and it's before us two weeks from today..

Ta,

Romney Needs a Bong Hit

Speaking before the Conservative Leadership Conference, Mitt Romney called marijuana a "plague to our country."

"I believe marijuana is the gateway to drug use that is a plague to our children and a plague to our country," he said. "Medical marijuana is a Trojan horse for getting marijuana legalized. That is the last thing America needs. We do not need more drugs in our school [sic] and homes."

I'm just taking a shot in the dark here, but I'd guess that people like Clayton Holton actually need more drugs in their homes, especially when the one that would help him best cope with continuous pain is the one Romney and the current administration are the most hell-bent against legalizing. Anything to retain control over the rest of us, though, right?

It's sad that so many people buy into Romney's banal rhetoric and sensationalism, especially given that he speaks in complete abstractions. Does Romney really believe that drug quality is secondary to quantity? What if a cure for AIDS, heart disease, or lung cancer were to hit the market tomorrow? According to Romney, you ought not take these new drugs because that would mean you'd have "more" in your medicine cabinet tomorrow than you do today.

What a complete buffoon. The biggest problem plaguing the country today is hardly marijuana or any other drug; it's power-hungry politicians who believe they have any right at all to tell peaceful Americans how to live their lives.

CNN's Cafferty: Should We be Listening to Ron Paul?

Hit tip to the LRC Blog for this and the e-mail address:

CNN's Jack Cafferty just gave a wonderful report on Ron Paul, and has asked for his question of the day:

"Should more people be listening to what Ron Paul has to say?"

Tell him: [email protected]

I did just that.  Here's the e-mail I sent, please do something similar:

Mr. Cafferty,

Absolutely.  We ignore him at our own peril.  Dr. Paul is the only presidential candidate willing to speak truth to power and the only one with the answers to most of our problems.  With humility, dignity and keen analytic skills he's the embodiment of what we should seek out in a public servant.

If we want to see Ron meet his fund-raising target of $12 million for the 4th quarter, it'll only happen if we build on the momentum created by the last $5 million.   

Ta,

5 Million? The Ron Paul Revolution wants $100 million!

So, the 3rd quarter fundraising numbers are in and the Ron Paul Campaign took in just under $5.1 million.  That's an eye-popping number that has the MSM all a-flutter as to how something like that could conceivably happen. 

I mean, they didn't donate to his campaign after all, which, in my mind, is a very good thing.  Personally, most all of them aren't invited to the R-EVOL-ution, notably Chris "Oh God!" Matthews, who got whacked by John Stewart recently,and this Nora O'Donnell at BSNBC, who couldn't look less thrilled if she'd just found out her daughter was a stripper. 

In response to the very successful end of the quarter fund-raising campaign which drew in $1.2 million in 7 days, the Paul Campaign has raised the bar again, to $4 million per month for 3 months, so they can have a solid war chest on hand for the early primary states. 

Personally, I gave $100 of that $1.2 million last week, and am prepared to donate more during this next quarter as funds make themselves available.  But, on top of that I have signed this pledge to raise $100 million by January 1st.  The pledge is simple...

"I will donate $100 but only if 1,000,000 other people will do the same."

As of this writing the number of pledges stands at 967, but that rate is beginning to increase.  If the response from the news of his 3rd quarter totals is anything like the response from the 2nd quarter, I think the campaign will reach their fund-raising goals with ease.  If this pledge drive is successful, well, it would seem to me that the MSM and their masters will be the only ones not participating in the revolution.

Ta,

How many Republicans Reject War/Socialism?

From the NRO blog linked to at the LRC Blog this morning:

"Raising the question of how many Ron Paul supporters are truly
Republicans... How many lifelong Republicans look at a field of ten
other candidates (if you include Thompson) and say, "I reject all of
them"?"

Let's see how many ways I can answer this question:

1) Those who voted for Reagan and, possibly, Goldwater?
2) Those who are tired of voting against false Boogey-(Wo)men Democrats?
3) Those who quote: "Held their nose and voted for Bush?"
4) Those who've read the Constitution?
5) Those whose image of the Republican Party started with Taft and not Lincoln?

and most importantly...

6) Apparently a whole lot more than he thought.

and those are just the ones I can come up with in 5 minutes at work.  I'm sure if we worked at it we could add to my meager list and then send them all to Mr. Geraghty.

Ta,

McCain Seals His Fate

It's not like you need me to tell you John McCain's got about as much shot of becoming president as I do, but he pretty much killed any chance he had left when he recently pledged to continue to arrest medical marijuana users. According to today's Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana press release:

[Last] week, Sen. McCain reaffirmed that he will continue raiding the sick and dying who use medical marijuana with doctor and state approval. At an August 9 town hall meeting in Merrimack, N.H., GSMM volunteer Chris McKenney asked the senator, "Seventy percent of New Hampshire voters and 74% of doctors believe the federal government should stop raiding and arresting the seriously ill who use medical marijuana with their doctor's approval. Do you disagree with 70% of New Hampshire voters and 74% of doctors?"

Sen. McCain attempted to deflect the question, first turning to a local sheriff in attendance at the meeting and asking, "What do you say, sheriff?"

McCain later said that he does not support the use of marijuana for medical purposes, citing his belief that it's a "gateway drug" and that there are plenty of other ways to relieve pain and suffering.

Where to begin? First of all, Senator, the sheriff isn't running for president. And secondly, there indeed are numerous pain relievers that are legal -- Percocet and Oxycontin, even Codeine and alcohol -- that are potentially much more dangerous than marijuana. Not to mention, marijuana isn't addictive and didn't even garner "gateway drug" status until it was made illegal, meaning that drug users were essentially compelled by the government to turn to other drugs. 

You know, John, lots of people are against recreational drug use. But there's a big difference between personally opposing it and compounding the suffering of the sick by using government force to track them down and throw them in jail simply for trying to ease their pain.

Good luck in the primaries, you heartless prick.

Honest Thieves

Back in January, I wrote an article urging Maryland lawmakers to pass legislation that would establish a Web-based tool allowing taxpayers to readily track state spending, providing more transparency and accountability in government. Needless to say, most of the state's politicians were in no mood to subject themselves to increased scrutiny and hastily squashed a bill introduced to create a paper trail between them and our money.

Today, Jacob Sullum writes an interesting piece explaining why more publicity and openness may be overrated. Simply put, too many politicians are proud of their earmarks even if they shouldn't be, and it's not as if the public tends to complain too loudly about handouts.

Although honesty and openness are surely preferable to dishonesty and secrecy (in politics, at least), they're not an adequate solution to a government that does too much and is therefore a magnet for people seeking gifts and favors. If a pickpocket becomes a mugger, he becomes more open and honest, but that doesn't make him more admirable.

Touché.

Thanks, but No Thanks

Ever notice how politicians never seem to act on the problems facing their constituents until it's too late? I'm not talking about social or corporate welfare here, or even about handouts to special interests in the form of grants and earmarks. Politicians always seem to find enough money to subsidize popular "victim" groups or big-time donors to their campaigns.

No, I'm talking about managing the projects that the vast majority of taxpayers would actually benefit from. Like building and maintaining bridges and roads. Or maybe there's a dangerous intersection in your community that's needed a traffic light for years. You know the drill -- you'll probably never see it until someone actually dies.

Take for instance the Interstate 35W bridge collapse in Minnesota a couple weeks ago. Politicians nationwide were falling all over themselves trying to see who could throw the most money at new safety inspections to prevent another catastrophe. Thanks, but no thanks.

Why, I wonder, was money not already allocated to these types of programs? Could it be that instead of using our tax dollars to fund a transportation bill that actually addressed transportation and infrastructure, congressional Democrats and Republicans were too busy stuffing the bill with billions and billions of dollars worth of earmarks for special interests instead?

According to the Washington Examiner, Congress is proposing a new 5-cents per gallon federal gas tax to pay for "spending increases of at least $250 million for safety inspections on the estimated 75,000 bridges rated 'structurally deficient.'" I'm hardly the best mathematician around, but you don't need to be to realize that this $250 million has already been paid for dozens of times over in unauthorized transportation bill earmarks alone. (And here I thought it was only the oil companies that were gouging us!)

But that's how things work in Washington when we're so indifferent to this waste and abuse. And guess what? It's never going to change until people like you and me demand that politicians actually use our tax dollars for our benefit instead of theirs. Until such demands are made, our intrepid representatives will simply continue to "solve" these problems by funding new programs with new taxes instead of money that has already been allocated for such use, but nevertheless spent immorally and improperly by politicians looking out for their own interests instead of ours.

None of this is to suggest that I actually endorse federal funding of transportation and infrastructure, by the way. I'm merely reacting to reality as it currently exists. If the federal government insists on spending our money to subsidize the states and to fund its own transportation spending programs, the least it could do is use our money for this and this alone. The arrogance that must be required for any politician to believe that our tax dollars should be used for his or her personal gain is staggering. One would think that even the most die-hard big-government apologist would have to admit at least this much.

Here's 5 Minutes of MSM TV that even a Libertarian Could Love

I almost have to wonder if the outrage expressed by ol' Cafferty is real or just another "false-flag op." Broader wipe-tapping powers are a clear violation of the 4th amendment, but who cares about that. All that matters is getting re-elected and selling soap and mutual funds. Either way, it's nice to see some real commentary on CNN that is not wholeheartedly pro-state. Ending the segment with the phrase "... more afraid... of my own government," is exactly what we need a ton more of. Moments like this create a synergy with the Ron Paul Revolution, further embedding seeds of doubt in the undecided 30% of the electorate. That's the fertile ground that has to be tilled over the next few months, awakening the previously politically inactive to action. Thanks Jack, that was 5 minutes of CNN that didn't make my stomach turn. But, really, we'll need a lot more than that to turn this de facto police state around. Ta,

Interstate 35W Bridge Collapse is a Harbinger for Southern Marylanders

In the wake of Wednesday's deadly bridge collapse in Minnesota, many people spent their time praying for the dead and injured. Others waited anxiously for word on loved ones who were involved in the catastrophe. Sill others took part in rescue efforts. President Bush predictably promised federal aid to rebuild the bridge. And Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley? Well, he pretty much exploited the tragedy as an excuse to siphon even more money from Maryland taxpayers to maintain the state's roads, bridges, and tunnels.

"We need to do a much better job of making more timely investments in order to safeguard our infrastructure," O'Malley said.

The governor, a Democrat, pointed out that Maryland has about $40 billion in unmet needs to upgrade and improve infrastructure like roads, bridges and tunnels in Maryland. O'Malley said "our parents and grandparents built that infrastructure, and we have a responsibility to maintain it."

Actually, Governor, I have no responsibility to maintain any state-owned-and-operated road or bridge I don't use, so let's set the platitudes to the side for a moment, shall we? I'd actually like to focus on another comment the governor made yesterday, namely that all Maryland bridges are safe. In fact, according to the Washington Examiner, Maryland Transportation Secretary John Porcari called the state's network of highways and bridges "sound and safe," adding that "No Marylander should be concerned about the safety of our bridges."

Clearly Mr. Porcari hasn't had the pleasure of visiting Southern Maryland lately and seeing the Gov. Thomas Johnson Bridge (also known colloquially as the Solomons Bridge) for himself. Poorly constructed from the get-go in the late '70s, this span crossing the Patuxent River and connecting Calvert County to St. Mary's County literally has been falling apart for years.

The bridge was closed for months in the late '80s as a result of structural deficiencies, specifically stress cracks that developed in the support beams. It isn't hard to find chunks of concrete lying on the ground beneath the bridge, and if you look up at the bridge as you pass beneath it by boat, you'll notice that the beams have more braces than a junior high dance. And the pilings that support the beams from the river bottom have been rotting away for years.

In short, the Thomas Johnson Bridge is in dangerously bad shape, a point that hasn't been lost on commuters or on state Sen. Roy Dyson (D-St. Mary's, Calvert, Charles), who argues in favor of adding another span to the bridge. Dyson stated in 2006, "I don’t think it's safe and I travel over that bridge two, sometimes three times almost every day," and noted that "Some people have a real fear that bridge is going to fall into the Patuxent."

I don't think it's a stretch to say that the bridge will inevitably fall into the river. However, I have a much greater fear of being involved in a fatal head-on collision on the bridge, which is a two-way road with little room for error and which was never intended to handle the amount of traffic it does today. Southern Maryland has grown rapidly and consistently since the '70s, and according to Sen. Gloria Lawlah (D-Prince George’s), the Thomas Johnson Bridge "has three times as much traffic [as it should]." 

Not only does the bridge withstand more traffic than intended, but I can't drive across it without passing at least two or three tractor trailers or dump trucks each time. As a resident of Calvert County who works in St. Mary's, I cross the bridge twice a day during the week and literally wince as these big boys barrel past, knowing that a slight jerk of the steering wheel on either end could be catastrophic. And the potential for accidents notwithstanding, the sheer volume of traffic causes inconvenient, irritating backups for miles virtually every day because you basically have thousands of cars leaving the Pax River navy base in St. Mary's County via a one-lane road over to Calvert.

There's virtually no denying that construction of an additional span to the Solomons Bridge should have begun yesterday. A new span would immediately ease traffic congestion, as it would allow for two one-way lanes going both north and south instead of one two-way road. And in the event of an accident -- we rarely go even a few weeks without one -- you could shut down one span and convert the other to a two-way road (the way it is every day today) so traffic would at least continue to move north and south instead of grinding to a halt for hours on end.

But the almighty government is in charge of this (ostensible) construction project, which is still years from fruition. If Gov. O'Malley and others are so concerned about safety, they should turn the Solomons Bridge into a toll road and farm ownership out to a private contractor, who would undoubtedly be able to plan and conduct the project in far less time than politicians consumed by legal wrangling and bureaucracy. This would also prevent people who never even use the bridge from having to pay for it. Commuters would pay a toll, and that would be that.

Of course, this might just give voters the impression that private enterprise is more efficient than government bumbling, not to mention eliminate one more excuse for the governor and county commissioners to come begging for more and more of our hard-earned tax dollars. And we just can't have that.

Maryland's bridges are "safe and sound," all right. Safe and sound in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats who decide when the money they steal from us will actually be used for us. One would think bridges and roads would be tax revenue put to good use (if there were such a thing), but apparently not when there are much, much more important things to spend money on, like social and corportate welfare subsidies, baseball stadiums, environmental grants, paternalistic seat belt laws, tyrannical sobriety checkpoints, and handouts to special interests.