Certainly if you’ve read any of the posts or information on this blog, you’ve already realized that I’m mostly of a libertarian, small government leaning perspective and wouldn’t typically advocate the use of government funding or manpower to enforce an environmental conservation effort. However, human technological advances and encroachment into the wild have caused possibly irreversible damage to thousands of species across hundreds of ecosystems worldwide and it’s time for us to get serious about making a real commitment to reversing the damage we’ve done. Unfortunately, people can’t be counted on to help my pet cause of their own accord, so at this time I’m calling for your help in securing government funding to save the natural habitat of the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus.

The Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus’s natural habitat lies west of the Ranier Mountain Range in Western Washington State, US. Their natural habitat is relatively small and because of their elusive nature, few people have heard of the Northwest Tree Octopus and even fewer have seen one in the wild. They’re actually amphibious creatures with specially adapted skin that allows them to live only a semi-aquatic life, which is unique among cephalopods. Although adult Northwest Tree Octopuses can occasionally be found nesting in trees, they prefer to spend much of their time in shallow pools and puddles, and are often confused for regular octopi by untrained laymen. Because of human pollution and the expansion of the Seattle/Tacoma metro area, the natural habitat of the Northwest Tree Octopus is becoming increasingly threatened.

Now is the time to join the fight to stop the spread of the Seattle/Tacoma metro area before it destroys the habitat of the Northwest Tree Octopus. Most humans have little awareness of the ways in which their very existence defies the laws of nature and threatens the survival of lower species which have failed to properly adapt to changing ecosystems. Now is the time to take action! Write letters to the editor, your congresspeople and senators, your governor and the EPA calling for an immediate halt to the spread of the human population in the Seattle/Tacoma area. Make it clear in your letters that you support the use of military intervention on the people of Washington State if they refuse to stop encroaching on the once pristine habitat of the Northwest Tree Octopus. We cannot, and will not, allow the decimation to continue. The time is now.

WAIT! You didn’t really believe that there was such thing as a Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus, did you? Well, there isn’t. The idea is actually a rather absurd (yet highly amusing) hoax. First, octopi don’t have any sort of skeletal system—in fact, the only hard part of their entire body is a little beak that they use for eating. You’ve seen pictures of octopuses in the water, right? Even under water their heads lay practically flat. How could they possibly cope with gravity (which is in no way caused by humans) on dry land in any manner effective enough to climb a tree? Second, just because a couple of websites showed you a picture of an octopus in a tree doesn’t mean there’s actually an octopus in a tree. Not only are there people out there who can photoshop anything to look real, but even somebody with no computer skills whatsoever could throw a dead octopus in a tree, take a picture of it and pretend it’s real. Third, if you actually bothered read the link I provided, you noticed that the site made a big deal of the Northwest Tree Octopus’s symbiotic relationship with sasquatches, didn’t you? Far be it from me to tell you that sasquatches don’t exist outside of photoshop and fiction (Mark), but seriously, sasquatches don’t exist outside of photoshop and fiction.

The moral of the story is that you should always question what’s coming at you from the internet and the media. It was recently reported that President Bush has ruled over us through the use of fear and propaganda (duh). Of course, the Bush administration says that the person making the allegations is just a disgruntled ex-employee—but in an administration ruled by propaganda, couldn’t the administration’s assault on the character of McClellan just be more propaganda? It’s also been reported that Katie Couric, who is currently a somewhat pivotal fixture in the national news scene, believes that there was too much pressure on the media from corporations that own the news companies at the beginning of the Iraq war which is further proof that propaganda is all around us and the mainstream media, which has its own political and social agenda, is not as unbiased or fair as it would like us to believe.

As you’re meandering the information superhighway, please remember to investigate everything before you buy into it. It really could save you a lot of trouble (and perhaps keep public opinion from destroying Seattle over a species of animal that doesn’t even exist).

As a side note, this is how satire should be done.

I recently came across a blog entry lambasting an op ed piece, supposedly satirical*** in nature, which upholds rape as an act so morally good and righteous that all of human society should give praise to our dear brethren the rapists. The entire “satirical” piece can be viewed at the Feministe blog, and although I’m not typically one to frequent blogs written by militant feminists, in this case I agree completely with them. Rape is defined as “any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person”. Any decent human being will agree with me that it is never ok to use force or threat of violence against another person to obtain that which you desire, and rape is such a disgusting and detrimental act that no person should make light of it as was done in this op ed piece.

The entire premise of rape only hurting when you fight it is so far off base as to make my head spin. No man, woman or child who has been raped would agree that laying back and taking it will make it ok. Perhaps, in some cases, it can prevent the obvious physical wounds. But rape presents such a deep violation of the human soul that it could never be said not to hurt. It doesn’t matter if the wounds aren’t physical in nature–they’re still wounds and they still destroy very real people’s very real lives.

Of course, this “rape only hurts if you fight it” nonsense directly parallels the “government only hurts if you fight it” nonsense that so many people believe in. A rapist is to the rape victim as government is to society. Just as the woman who doesn’t fight her rapist may come out of it somewhat physically unharmed but emotionally destroyed, the society that doesn’t fight its government appears to be serene and happy when in reality it’s being destroyed from the inside out through force and violence. Just as the rape victim is often victimized again by the legal system and the press if he or she should choose to press charges against the rapist, the citizens who stand up and fight against the government are also victimized again by the very government they’re standing up to.

The moral of the story is that government is equivalent to rape and that all forms of rape hurt, whether you fight against it or not. People often see those who choose to stand up to government being publicly tormented or disappeared in the night without realizing that they themselves have lost all freedom and rights as well, that they themselves are hurting because they haven’t the freedom to live their lives in the happiest way possible. Some people choose to poke fun at the very real harm done by rape, and others choose to look the other way when government comes calling. But if you’re going to be hurt either way, you might as well stand up for your rights.

***It should also be noted that the alleged satire wasn’t even very good and the author of said satire is in need of an editor with a grasp of the English language (and perhaps one of those new fangled spell checkers), as noted by the Feministe blogger. Mr. Petroski, if you’re reading this, I would like to offer my future services to you as an editor–not only will I ensure that your writing actually makes sense and looks like it was written in English, but I’ll also dutifully slap the crap out of you should you ever choose to write such abhorrent filth again.

So I have this friend–for the sake of privacy over the interwebs, we’ll call him “Scott”. Ok, so Scott is actually his real name. Whatever. Privacy be damned, we have none anyways. In any case, Scott is a musician. Specifically, he plays guitar player for the recently “discovered” band The Orchid Highway. Of course, I already knew about them therefore they haven’t really been “discovered” so much as finally signed. They come from the interesting and unique Vancouver Indie Rock scene and they truly are a hoot to listen to. I’m really enjoying seeing them bask in their newfound fame, and not because it’s the first time I’ve had a celebrity friend. They’re actually really talented musicians with a fun sound and they’re INCREDIBLE live. Anyways, this blog isn’t meant to be a music lovers paradise. I just wanted to share because when something this great comes along, you can’t keep it to yourself.

Oil prices continue to break new records, and this has consumers paying a lot more for food at the supermarket. Ill informed policy towards increasing ethanol production has pushed up corn prices considerably. High fructose corn syrup is widely used in lieu of cane sugar in the United States because of sugar import quotas. There is a lot that can be said about government intervention in the areas of energy and agriculture, but that’s a different article. Let’s focus on how to deal with the mess we’re in, rather than how it came about.

Some analysts are predicting the possibility of 200 dollar per barrel oil by the end of the year. Personally I don’t think we’re headed for a Road Warrior style apocalypse, but it looks like things are going to get quite a bit worse than they presently are. It may not be time to gear up for battle with the motorcycle marauders, but it is time to do something. Some people may try to start a garden in order to reduce their food costs. In my opinion, most people don’t know very much about how to garden, and it’s only feasible if you have land available and spare time at your disposal. Most people would be much better off, from a dollars and cents perspective, if they simply worked additional hours during the time they would spend weeding the beets.

Much of the cost of food in the grocery store comes from the fact that the food was likely shipped a long way before it ended up on the shelf in front of you. Locally grown food can get to you with far less fuel being expended, and market forces may be making it more affordable than ever to buy local. Local produce is not a magic bullet. In many places climate limits variety and only permits agriculture on a seasonal basis. There is also the obvious constraint that once local food becomes more economical than the produce in the grocery store, demand will increase and drive prices up. The supply of local produce in a given area isn’t likely to keep up with increasing demand.

For all its limitations, local produce may provide some relief from sharply rising transport costs, and it has other benefits too. For most people the generally higher quality of local produce has not been incentive enough to pay prices that are higher than those at the grocery store. As the price gap narrows, that may change. If high oil prices are here to stay, there may also be growth in agriculture that produces food for local consumption. Current supply chains are not designed to function economically with oil at $200 per barrel. The market can adjust to higher energy prices, although the faster prices rise, the more growing pains are involved. Local or at least relatively more regional agriculture is likely to become more and more attractive as oil prices continue to climb to new heights.

In my opinion, consumers need to vote with their dollars. Assuming price parity between local and long distance food becomes a reality, buying the food which has been shipped a long way only reinforces what seems to be a less sustainable supply chain. By buying local produce, which is already in some cases cheaper than what is in the supermarket, local farmers are supported. If local farmers see increasing demand for their produce, it will lead them to expand their operations. It’s time that we as consumers exercise the free choice that we have, to move the market towards a paradigm that will be more sustainable over the long term.

It’s nothing new to hear politicians and talking heads use the line that, “We’re all Americans”. Ever since the civil war, the sameness of Americans is supposedly so profound as to render our differences insignificant. It’s a feel good message, which is pushed by people on the left and right. It is also a thinly masked call for people to stop dissenting or speaking of important issues where the opinions of Americans differ. I’m not standing up for sectionalism, or antagonism by one part of society towards the other, but I do believe that this all too unquestioned supposition is actually harmful to the true interests of America and the people who call it home.

As more decisions are made in Washington, there must necessarily be less national unity. When a central government is dealing with only a few key issues, such as national defense, it allows people to agree to disagree. Under our current paradigm, the people of Mobile, Alabama and San Francisco, California are supposed to be governed by an identical policy on many issues. For the sake of argument, let’s say that eighty percent of people in Mobile oppose gay marriage, while eighty percent of those in San Francisco support it. Thankfully there is still enough respect for the constitution that states and localities are allowed to make this decision about what constitutes marriage. In this case, the vast majority of people in both cities can govern themselves, and be satisfied with the policy under which they live.

Centralization of decision making has the opposite effect from the example above. Contrary to the founding principles of the United States, many decisions that are very unpopular or impractical in given states or communities are imposed from above. Voters in California strongly supported legal access to medical marijuana for the seriously ill, but the DEA continues to enforce drug laws that have no basis under constitutional law. The reason America was founded as a federalist system, was because such a system allows people to control the rules and laws that govern their communities. Under such a system, a person who is in the minority in one place, let’s say a homosexual in rural Kentucky, has the option of moving to a state or locality where they would find more people of like mind.

There are some areas where there is no room even for local or state laws. People have a right to free speech, and though it is less popular to say today, a right to bear arms. These are natural rights, which cannot be legitimately impinged upon by even the smallest body politic. While the federal government could serve a legitimate function in preventing states and localities from violating these rights, it seems interested only in curtailing the rights some states have not gotten around to tramping on. For instance New Jersey enforces laws which clearly violate the second amendment. Rather than protect the resident of New Jersey from this oppression, the federal government quite often borrows ideas from draconian states like New Jersey, to further oppress people in the other 49 states. From this, it is clear that the federal government is not seeking to enlarge its scope so that it can benignly protect the rights of American citizens.

The cure for polarized politics in Washington, and national division on many hot button issues, is simple federal decentralism. Americans do share a number of core beliefs about freedom and the importance of the individual, but just because we have a lot in common does not mean that people should be prohibited from making different decisions where they disagree. In fact the only national framework that makes sense for a people, who supposedly value their liberty and the rights of the individual, is a loose one. I, for one, would have much more pride in being an American, if the United States government gave the power to choose back to the people.

If you have a friend or family member who doesn’t quite get it yet, show them this video. It’s beautiful!

This weekend, I’m going to the Libertarian Convention in Denver. I have no real interest in the Convention itself, however I’m going to help out at the Free State Project’s table. I myself am a member of the Free State Project and I’ll be moving to New Hampshire within the next month. I believe in what the FSP stands for and I’m proud to be able to help them spread the FSP’s message at the Convention. I hope to meet awesome new people who believe in giving others the freedom to live their lives as they see fit, make some new friends and take my life back from the streets of Denver. Living free is the only way to live and soon enough, I will.

As a side note, there’s some mainstream media coverage of the Libertarian Party Convention that’s actually, believe it or not, not entirely negative. You can check out what the Denver Post had to say by clicking here.

Many people try to behave in an altruistic manner—with selfless regard for the welfare of others. Although selflessness is a noble goal to wish to achieve, it isn’t possible for any non-omnipotent being to behave in a selfless manner.

I’m not here to argue the fine points of religion, God, buddhas, or other religio-spiritual beliefs which may point to an altruistic higher power. I am, however, here to argue the fine points of human psychology—the thoughts in our own heads which prevent us from ever acting in a truly selfless manner.

This isn’t to say that I believe that humans are inherently bad. The fact that human behaviors are not selfless does not mean that human behaviors are not good, kind or caring. The fact that human behaviors are not selfless does not mean that they are, therefore, selfish. The fact is that human beings are hardwired for survival. Our entire psychological makeup is based on the need to stay alive, procreate and ensure the survival of our offspring.

For those of you who lean towards the view that actions can be selfless, you may be asking, in your mind, if the parent who takes a bullet for his child isn’t selfless. The answer is no. Every human action involves some sort of selfish motive. A parent who takes a bullet for a child is, in reality, practicing a form of self-preservation. Preserving the life of a child, whether your own or another, helps to ensure the perpetuation of the human species into the future. Certainly it isn’t selfish, but neither is it selfless.

Every seemingly selfless action provides the person performing the action with some kind of reward, no matter how miniscule, from the warm fuzzies to a sense of accomplishment to an actual measurable reward. Yes, humans help eachother. Humans can be good.

Another aspect of selflessness which must be examined is the socialistic view that humans can be forced to be selfless. No human can be made to help another person out of the goodness of their heart without internal motivations. Enforcing socialist ideals upon another person will never make them selfless. It will simply make them resentful. The best, most sincere form of charity and giving is that which is provided voluntarily.

It’s hard to distinguish,
If it exists at all.
It’s like searching for the perfect snowflake
-fluttering
serene
eloquent-
Searching in a blizzard.
One fleeting glimpse of that beloved snowflake
-symmetric
dancing
exquisite-
Finds it stolen by the jealous wind;
Stolen and lost among the others
-the damaged
the frigid
the ordinary-
Lost amidst the flawed.
The cherished snowflake
-divine
radiant
precious-
Has slipped away for eternity,
Slipped in an infinitely brief moment,
Frozen in time and space.
Frozen in imagination
-what could have been
beautiful.

But should you catch the one virgin snowflake
-translucent
unique
fragile-
Softly on your tongue or in your hand,
Guard it forever.
For there it will lightly rest,
Trapped at a point in time
-ephemeral-
Before it begins to change.
The one perfect snowflake
-lingering
unmistakable
an illusion-
Is no longer perfect.
Transformed by contact
-melting
fading
seeping-
Through osmosis it unites
The essence of perfect and memory
-the memory of a single perfect
feeling.

It is rare for the nature and role of government to be raised in public debate these days. It is, however, an important question. Since the issue is seldom debated today, it is necessary to go back quite a long way to find points of reference on this question. The Founding Fathers of the Untied States arguably concentrated more effort on establishing the legitimate role of government and debating the application of their conclusions than any other generation of men in history.

It was Washington who said, “Government is not reason, it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master”. From this quote we can see that Washington, who was not even radical among the other founders, had a deeply held view that government was little more than a mechanism to wield naked aggression. His reference to the government as a “servant” or “master” is a passing reference to what at the time of Washington’s life was a revolutionary idea; government’s only legitimate role was to serve the people. Under the King of England the idea had been quite the opposite. Today most people in the United States and the western world agree with that sentiment. Sadly the nuance of Washington’s warning is lost on most people today. He goes so far as to say that even when government is a servant to the people that it is dangerous.

To paraphrase the Declaration of Independence, “…All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the government to alter or abolish it, and replace it with a new government laying its foundation on such principles.” So this founding document sets forth the idea that government is instituted by men to protect their life, liberty, and property. Jefferson was paraphrasing John Locke and it is clear from Jefferson’s writings that when he swapped “property” for “pursuit of happiness” that property was included. When the US Constitution was written, it intentionally kept the government’s role limited to the defense of these natural rights.

Now where does a chainsaw fit in to all this talk about founding intent? It is my opinion that most Americans think that they more or less agree with George Washington about what constitutes good government. It is also my opinion that most of them are wrong about this. Since most people envision government as a tool of the people, let us pick a particular tool that describes it well. It is clear that the United States was founded by men who saw the legitimate role of government to be the protector of life, liberty, and property; men who saw government as a threat to these very things it served to protect. A chainsaw seems to fit the bill quite well.

Now let’s imagine the American people, or at least their representatives, as a single person wielding a chainsaw. While a chainsaw can be dangerous, it can be very useful when a person needs to cut down a tree. There is still a danger that one could injure or kill oneself even when using a chainsaw for this most obvious application. But the risk seems justified to most rational people, because it is a necessary and sensible one. So what constitutes a “tree” or more precisely, what is a legitimate function of government?

At the time of its founding, the Federal Government dealt with defense from other governments, pirates, counterfeiters and not much else. It was granted authority to keep the state governments from imposing trade barriers or violating certain fundamental freedoms of their citizens. The federal government was primarily concerned with keeping other governments and brigands from violating the rights of Americans. The states exclusively dealt with crimes like murder, theft, and rape. Government’s role is to defend people’s rights through national defense and a justice system that punishes crimes which violate people’s rights. These are the legitimate functions of government. If that sounds radical to some readers, remember that the government was at first so limited as to not keep a standing army in peacetime, and that there were not regular police as we would think of them today.

What would happen if you used a chainsaw for something that it was never designed to do? A reasonable person would certainly not try to use a chainsaw to dig a ditch. That would be dangerous and would not work well at all, but this is precisely how the American people use government today. Think of how many functions of government fall outside a military and justice system meant to protect the rights of the individual. This isn’t completely surprising. A person with a chainsaw can easily start to see everything as a tree. If we follow this a little further, the American people today use government for things to which it is ridiculously ill suited. It would be as if a person decided to use a chainsaw to carve the thanksgiving turkey, trim a hangnail, and open the front door. This would easily destroy the operator, the desired goal, and the chainsaw. If this seems absurd, that’s because it is and so is the way politicians, who sadly do represent many in the public have, wielded the dangerous tool that is government.

This, in my opinion, is a very good reason to keep government extremely limited. I personally do not advocate doing away with it completely, because like the founders I have some doubt that men could live in complete harmony without some recourse to government when they are invaded, robbed, or aggressed against by their neighbors. This argument leaves aside the complicated moral questions about government, since it is funded by forcible taxation, which is itself a violation of a person’s natural rights. At its very best government is an evil which is necessary to prevent greater evils, usually other governments, from entering into the lives of those who live under it. If the American people fail to rediscover the truth of this argument soon, we will end up like the foolish chainsaw operator, hurting ourselves with our own government while simultaneously destroying that government and the ends that we foolishly used it to try to achieve.