The Z Spot

First of all, hope everyone had or is having a wonderful Thanksgiving.

Now, for the good stuff. This article talks about just a few examples of mistakes on the recovery.gov listing of where bailout funds went.

I understand that we are all human, and that any document, especially one of this size, is prone to mistakes. I’m just not sure that we can forgive this many mistakes in a document whose entire stated goal was accountability and transparency.

The Pfizer plant in New London, CT is about to close. What, might you ask, does that matter to a Libertarian in Las Vegas?

Well, the Pfizer plant was a key factor in New London’s decision to use Eminent Domain to condemn the property of Susan Kelo. This was a historic expansion of Eminent Domain because it was the first time it was used to seize property not for government use, but for private development. This issue went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The development intended for (but still not completed on) the sight of Kelo’s home was part of a commercial redevelopment largely focused on the now-closing Pfizer plant.

What lessons can be learned here? First, New London was right about one thing. The private sector is capable of spurring growth and economic development in ways that the government cannot.

Where they went wrong was to try to lend the private development a hand. If the market was demanding this development, they would have made an offer the Kelo family could not refuse. The market was obviously not that eager for the development, and we now know why.

What government politicians don’t realize is that these are real people whose lives are affected by their mistakes. It is not just growth and development numbers. Pfizer says it will still keep the same number of jobs in Connecticut, and that they will just be moved. That looks great on paper. But what does it do to the thousands of people who won’t move with the jobs? And what about the people who saw their land and homes taken from them, only to sit empty?

Some people may think that this is good news. I disagree.

Yes, the tea parties have made national news and created quite a buzz. And yes, I think that part of what holds back the two well known third parties (Libertarian and Green) is that they are associated with the fringe.

Starting another fiscally conservative party, however, is a mistake. If we want to see fiscal and social conservatism succeed, we need to reform the GOP, and elect real conservatives.

If we are socially liberal and fiscally conservative, we need to support the Libertarian Party.

We do not need more parties splitting conservative votes.

Also, the choice of a “Tea Party” specifically is absurd. While catchy, using puns in the name of a political party is hardly a way to get noticed.

Finally, the party does not have a real platform. Between the name and its associated conservative protests, and its founder, chairman, and only known member being Frederic O’Neal, we can assume that it will be a right-leaning party. Even now, over a week after the party was officially recognized, their website has not one policy goal or statement.

The closest thing is a few quotes saying that people are fed up with the government and a two party system. True enough. But a) being fed up is not a platform. How do we want to change our system, more specifically than electing third party and independent candidates, pleas. And b) Isn’t the best way to eliminate the two party system to support electable third party candidates? It seems to me that these tea partisans should be throwing their weight behind Green and Libertarian candidates, rather than setting up a new “third” party. To topple a two party system we need one or two more viable parties. A three or four party system is realistic. We don’t need 15 small parties with no platforms.

Rehashing an article that was all the Twitter buzz about 3 weeks ago, but still worth commenting on.

I am absolutely shocked that the fully grown, very well paid people we pay to represent us would act this way. It is absolutely absurd. And to say that the locks were changed because Republicans “don’t know how to behave?” If they are breaking some kind of procedural rule, punish them. If not, who are you to decide if they are behaving? Are you going to put them on time out in the corner? Moreover, wanting information on the financial practices of companies propped up by tax payers is not bad behavior, it is accountability.

Shame on you Edolphus Towns. Hopefully the voters of New York remember this in 2010, 2012 or 2014.

This was a very interesting article, and I couldn’t agree more.

In addition to my misgivings about excessive government intrusion in any way or for any reason in the market, this gives me more reason for concern. It is a simple reality that in today’s financial system, saving and borrowing are intricately linked. The same base interest rate affects the cost/reward structure of saving and borrowing.

When the Fed and Treasury work to lower interest rates, they help borrowers and hurt savers. That’s right. Those wit the foresight and responsibility to save money are punished in order to help those living beyond their means on various forms of credit.

A few weeks old, but an interesting article.

Wisconsin could soon join several other states with laws specifically banning texting behind the wheel. While this may seem like a great idea, I actually think it is bad for several reasons.

First off, practically speaking, how will an officer know someone was texting? If I pick up my phone and look at it, or dial a number, could I be cited for texting while driving? One obvious solution would be to allow police officers to look at the driver’s recent text activity. This, however, is a huge invasion of privacy. Would it be like a DUI, where someone who refuses to show their text inbox and sent box to an officer would be presumed guilty?

Next, as a matter of principal, the government should not be micromanaging our lives. Does texting while driving, in and of itself, pose a danger to other drivers? Not if the driver manages to follow all other laws, observing the speed limit, yielding when appropriate, staying in one lane, providing adequate space, and slowing or stopping at an appropriate time. Drivers should be punished for the behaviors which directly lead to an accident or injury, not for their actions leading up to the incident.

Finally, Wisconsin already has distracted driving laws. The texting ban will actually carry the same range of penalties. First, can a driver now be double-cited, once for texting and once for being distracted by their texting? Second, by passing laws which specifically address one potential distraction, the legislature is actually sending an unintentional message. According to that message, texting while driving (even while following all other traffic laws) is worse than, say, turning around to yell at a child, putting make up on, or looking for a dropped credit card while driving. Again, all of these activities could have the same potential negative affect. Why is the government prioritizing some as separate offenses and leaving others under the broad title of “distracted driving?”

I found this article interesting. Apparently Obama is not only Celebrity in Chief, but Prophet in Chief too.

How can anyone fairly evaluate Obama with Catholic bishops holding him on this high of a pedestal. News flash. Obama is a human, and a politician. He is not a hero, he is not a myth, and he certainly is not the Savior.

This story is almost two months old, but definitely worth a read, especially for those of us who think that the shift away from gold and silver based currencies is a factor in the current economic situation.

The man was convicted of several (57) tax and real estate fraud related charges. The main “fraud” he orchestrated was paying his and his clients’ wages in gold and silver coins, and reported them at their face value, not at their market value.

Why, exactly, do we print values on gold and silver coins if we cannot use those values, even with the government that mints the coins?

Better yet, especially if we are going to print dollar values on gold and silver, is our currency’s value in no way tied to those commodities? Thank you Mr. Kahre for bringing this issue to light.

This is a great article about what sounds like a Second Amendment battle, but is really about a different Amendment, the Tenth.

Montana is trying to assert that federal gun control laws are only valid where they pertain to interstate trade. If successful, Montanans will be able to ignore federal laws about registration, licensing, etc. when buying a gun in Montana which was made in Montana, and will stay in Montana.

I’m very curious to see how this one turns out!

This is an oldie, but a goody. Republican senators asked for answers on this one, with good reason. I can’t believe this is going on and not getting more attention. The National Endowment for the Arts is encouraging artists to produce art in support of Obamacare and other programs supported by the Administration. This is not art. It is propaganda, just like when I receive e-mails from the White House.

We spent the last 100 years fighting against totalitarian socialist and fascist nations. One key tool in these parties’ rise to total control was the use of propaganda. After both World Wars, and the Cold War, how can we support propagandizing our own population through a sector which is often praised for being independent from, and even critical of, the government?

By the way, does anyone know if they ever got any answers?