Excuses Excuses

I know, I know, I haven’t been very diligent about posting over the past few days—unfortunately, it’s not because I’ve been relaxing. With midterms on the horizon (as in, next week), I’ve been scrambling to stay on top of things/marginally ahead of the curve.

The State of the Citizen protest on the State Capitol steps was great. 400+ protesters showed up to voice their desire for small government, which, coming from Ann Arbor, is refreshing.

But yeah, it was really cold.

And there were some incoherent BAMN (By Any Means Necessary) hooligans voicing their anger over…well, it wasn’t exactly clear. They wanted to end Wall Street Bailouts (something that no one at the State of the Citizen protest supported either—oops), stop foreclosures (how, exactly?) and guarantee the “right to education” or something. They tried drowning out our speeches with 30-year-old chants (“Power to the people!” etc.), but once their megaphones ran out of batteries, they kind of melted away into irrelevance.

Oh, and I made it into the paper!

That's me above the word "Death" on the "Liberty or Death" College Libertarians banner.

…sort of. My aunt and uncle actually pointed out me in the picture; obviously, I wasn’t named specifically. The College Libertarians did prove to be quite a popular subject for photos; at least four or five people stopped to take our pictures, and several wanted to pose with us. I’m not sure what those photos were for; maybe we’ll show up in some anti-government literature.

Here’s the link to the Free Press article, by the way.

I’m attending an econ symposium tomorrow morning that promises to be interesting. Once I get back to Ann Arbor, I’m sure I’ll have plenty to talk about. And once I find my camera upload cable, I’ll post some of the (largely mediocre) photos I have of the State of the Citizen event.

The State of the Citizen

This past evening was spent in Lansing—a few hundred concerned, taxpaying citizens, some idiots who had no grasp on economic reality, the College Libertarians, and myself were gathered in front of the Capitol Steps for the State of the Citizen address, an alternative to Granholm’s last State of the State address.

Despite the frigid and damp weather, it was a great event. I’ll post some photos tomorrow, but in the meantime, I’ve got to get some homework done and go to sleep.

Rules for Radicals, Part 2

As I mentioned yesterday, there were a few important things I missed out on or simply didn’t have room for while writing my book review on Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.

For one, I simply didn’t feel that it was necessary to belabor the fact that yes, many of those in power now (or those that advise them) have successfully internalized much of what Alinsky outlined.  Conservative talk hosts and pundits have done a great job driving this point home, but I’m not quite sure to what end: yes, Obama may have used it to get his first state senate speech and every position of power that followed, but that doesn’t make it a bad method.

I’m worried that a potentially invaluable set of political tactics may have been hopelessly stigmatized because of the values that they have been used to advance, not any inherent flaws or evils in the tactics themselves.  Think of them in the same way I like to think of guns: on the one hand, you have brutal murderers like Mao Zedong recognizing that “political power grows from the barrel of a gun,” and on the other, you have underdog American Revolutionaries using guns to overcome a mighty empire.  Tactics, like guns, are tools, and can be used for good or for evil.

And on that violent note, I’m pretty impressed that Alinsky shunned violent tactics early on in his text.  He criticized the young, self-destructive and violent revolutionaries of the 60s as suicidal cop-outs, destined to polarize public opinion against the leftist cause.

Hell, he even panned flag burnings, instead suggesting that one should reclaim the true meaning of a great and beloved national symbol—work to make it stand for true liberty, true justice, and true equality instead of simply creating a public spectacle.  I may fervently disagree with the man’s conception of what the true meanings of those words are, but I think you can see the brilliance and simplicity of his point.

When even a leftist like Alinsky calls you an ineffective loser...

That ties nicely into a larger, broader theme: working within the system.  Conservatives and libertarians may be tempted to, in effect, work outside of the system by latching on to third parties or just sitting seemingly fruitless elections out, but Alinsky would recognize this as a cop-out.  We are blessed and cursed with an electoral system in which 51% of the mob takes all; this can be used to our advantage.

Instead of clamoring for a third party or bitching about the lack of good GOP candidates, get involved with your local GOP and take charge.  As Alinsky urged, be the delegates the next nominating convention.  Will this take a lot of work?  Yes, but that’s the price one has to pay to consider oneself an active, engaged citizen.  If you cannot in some way commit and contribute to this cause, you have no right to complain when someone you emphatically disagree with gets elected to the office of the President, the governor, or the local dogcatcher.

And as for proof as to whether this type of behind-the-scenes, low-intensity activism works, look at who is President now.  Would a candidate like Obama have been nominated thirty or more years ago (and no, I’m not talking about race), let alone win?  You don’t have to wear a beret and go down in a hail of gunfire to be a revolutionary; in fact, while you might wind up on a t-shirt, you won’t get a whole lot done in the long run.  Seize control of the political machinery at your disposal.

Lastly, since this is getting long, it’s important to keep focus on the long-term goal you are fighting for and keep a positive, upbeat, and confident demeanor as you move forward.  Probably my favorite quote from the book:

A word about my personal philosophy.  It is anchored in optimism.  It must be, for optimism brings with it hope, a future with a purpose, and therefore, a will to fight for a better world.  Without this optimism, there is no reason to carry on.

Yeah, yeah, I know, the Hopemeister may have taken this theme a bit to far during his campaign (and yes, there are a bunch of passages concerning change in the text as well), but there’s a reason Obama made “hope” such a central feature of his campaign.

Conservatives and libertarians are often portrayed (by other students of Alinsky, no doubt) as “anti-progress.”  We’re slowing down society’s natural, humane evolution, or some such garbage.

Before we even try winning elections, we need to combat that perception.  Leftists do not have a monopoly on brighter, more hopeful futures. I believe that freedom, be that economic freedom or personal freedom, is the real key to a better world.  I’m sure many of you do as well.  Never lose sight of the fact that this is the true reason you are fighting for liberty.

It’s easy to be defeatist, especially in light of current economic circumstances.  But if you are a defeatist, that implies that someone has already defeated you.  Throw off the chains of defeatism, go forth, and be a revolutionary.

Well, shoot

I just logged on today after class and noticed that the lengthy post I typed up for yesterday (Rules for Radicals Part 2) is completely gone. I’m going to hunt around and see if I can recover any traces of it, but I’m not all that hopeful.

I thought it was pretty good—so I’ll try to remember exactly what I wrote and reconstruct it. Until then, sorry, I thought there was something new up to read.

UPDATE:  Score.  I found an older autosaved draft and tweaked that.  The day is saved.

Rules for Radicals, Part I

I spent all of last night reading Saul D. Alinsky’s handbook of community organizing, Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals.

For many of you, your only exposure to the text is via conservative talk show hosts who are correct in  pointing out the left’s almost to-the-letter adherence to the so-called “Alinsky Method,” which outlines a realistic (and clearly, highly effective) road to harnessing public energy to advance a cause.

The immediate cause of my reading of the text was a book review for an upcoming issue of the Michigan Review, but I found much to admire in the majority of Alinsky’s teachings.  I had a lot to say about the work, and since my book review was to be around 650 words, I didn’t have enough room to get it all out there.

For tonight, here’s the review.  Tomorrow, hopefully, I’ll be able to share the rest of my thoughts, which were maybe a bit less suited to a serious publication.

Groovy baby.

I had initially planned on reading Saul D. Alinsky’s notorious 1971 book, Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals as an exercise in self-punishment.  I’d sit down with the text over the course of a few evenings, stoically suffering through the master community organizer’s leftist rants and endless tales of sit-ins and confrontations with The Establishment.  Then, I’d write a scathing review that managed to work in some heavy-handed references to the current Administration and their apparent use of the so-called “Alinsky Method.”

I had it all planned out.  It was going to be easy.  And then—surprisingly—I was caught off guard by what I read.  No, not because I was shocked or outraged, as I would have expected—but rather because I found myself agreeing with a man whose ideology was apparently the polar opposite of mine.  The late Saul Alinsky spent his entire life rallying the poor, downtrodden underclass towards…well, towards whatever they seemed to need to be organized towards, and unlike most professional agitators, he carefully and systematically examined and documented what he learned about building mass movements.

Yes, elements of Rules for Radicals are dated—the Vietnam War and other US military adventures of the era keep popping up as key points of contention—and no, Alinsky’s ideology is not completely absent from the book’s pages.  Over the course of his life, he claimed to reject all concrete ideologies and movements and denied that he was a Marxist, but it is obvious from the book’s title alone that Alinsky was no moderate.  In his mind, greedy, capitalist, war-mongering corporations form the biggest threat to the freedom of Americans, and an entire chapter is devoted to exerting influence on these soulless, evil entities by exerting shareholders’ voting rights (I feel it is important to note that though the effectiveness of this method is relatively unproven, it is completely legal and potentially brilliant).

Fortunately, the detailed discussion of shareholder muscle-flexing is the most specific such example in the text.  The beauty of the methods that Alinsky outlines in Rules for Radicals is that they are basically apolitical; they could be used by a radical libertarian as easily as by, say, a radical leftist community organizer that would one day grow up to be President.  A motivated, passionate individual could substitute “Big Government” for “Big Corporations” into the Alinsky equation with no loss of potency.

This is largely because Alinsky recognized that to be effective, a successful community organizer could not be tied down by rigid adherence to specific tactics.  Refreshingly, he rejects the bloodlust and violence of various radical left-wing groups like the Weather Underground, and there is nary a tribute to Ché Guevara—but more unexpectedly, he by and large dismisses popular demonstrations like sit-ins as hokey relics of the past.  The key, you see, is to be adaptable and unpredictable, provoking one’s opponents and letting them stumble over their own weight.

Today, with bureaucracy bloated beyond anything even Alinsky himself could have imagined and citizens’ respect for government at historic lows, a young revolutionary might soon stumble upon a copy of Rules for Radicals and be inspired to work towards a freer, more prosperous society defined by the absence of state control over our daily lives.  Put your prejudices aside and pick up the book; there’s a lot to be learned from it, and who knows—that revolutionary organizer might end up being you.

Tonight

…tonight is an important fraternity event, so I don’t have much time to write.  You’ll notice that I didn’t have the time last night either—but don’t worry, tomorrow and Sunday will be fruitful.

I did, however, want to point out that John Stossel picked up on my limited government approach to the Supreme Court’s ruling on McCain-Feingold (I’m sure it was due to my blog post), which was a major point of contention during the State of the Union Address.  See his insightful article here at Reason.

Also from the good folks at Reason (via Hot Air):  Reason TV’s Nick Gillespie makes a darn good case for getting the government the hell out of our lives while discussing the fallacy of the so-called “obesity epidemic.”

Gillespie is, as always, eminently watchable and never backs down from an ideological challenge while always remaining diplomatic.  Why can’t we seem to find more politicians like him?  Probably because if they were more like him, they’d be doing something more productive than stagnating in DC.

State of the Union-Blogging

I’m going to be writing my notes down on the State of the Union.  It’s not really a live blog since I’m not clever enough to come up with witty responses on the fly, and I’m going to need these notes for a news article I have to write.

8:59-CNN has a countdown ticker.  22 seconds remaining.  Can’t decide if this is funny or not.

9:00-Switched to FOX.  Didn’t want to give CNN ratings I guess.  Janet Napolitano looks way too happy.  Come to think of it, all of these bottom feeders look a bit too happy.  I’m suspicious.

9:03-Three minutes late; what a disappointment.  The crowd is getting restless; we’re trying to think up decent drinking games.  My favorite so far: drink every time Nancy Pelosi claps like a seal.

9:06-Ecce homo!  The Bamster’s fake smile is shining through the shadows of the door.  Apparently Congressmen wait all day to get the aisle seats to get their mugs on TV—kind of like the Star Wars premiers.

9:07-Oh hey, it’s Sarah Palin on FOX.  A miniature Ronald Reagan bust has been set in front of the TV as a talisman.

9:10-I guess it wasn’t scheduled to start until now.  The anticipation has reached a boiling point.  Obama strikes his signature chin-up pose; looks like Pelosi drained a bit of the botox out of her face; Biden’s hair plugs have filled out quite nicely.  I wonder if Biden and Pelosi coordinated colors?  His tie complements her lavender pantsuit rather well.

9:12-Historical reference?  What?

9:13-If by “we are tested” he means “my administration has been tested by the public” then yeah, I guess he’s got a good point.

9:14-Financial system in ruins; minorities and women hardest hit.  Shout out to Elkhardt, Indiana

9:15-Brace yourselves for higher taxes: it’s for the children.

9:16-Blah blah blah adversity blah blah blah touching letters blah blah blah hope.

9:17-First applause of the night!  Taking a drink.

9:18-Nice variety in pantsuit colors-I’m seeing a lot of red and blue, but also some yellows.  The orange pantsuits really aren’t working though.

9:19-Struggling to justify the bailout, etc.  Brace yourself for the ridiculous banking regulations he’s going to

9:20-Yep, he did it.  Bank taxes.  No matter that many of the banks that were forced to accept TARP funds have already paid them back, with interest.

9:22-Tax cuts?  What tax cuts?  PROTIP: tax credits are not tax cuts per se.  Stop calling them such.

9:23-Eric Cantor is not pleased.  Thad McCotter has clearly been working on his tan.

9:24-Jobs created/saved: 100 billion.  Jobs jobs jobs jobs stimulus jobs jobs jobs more spending jobs jobs jobs.

9:25-THANK GOD WE SPENT TRILLIONS TO SAVE A TEACHER’S JOB.  Money well spent.

9:26-Jobs bill=stimulus package #2 (or is it 3?  4?)

9:27-Yes, government can create the conditions required to encourage job creation—by getting the hell out of the way.

9:30-Oh God.  I think he just proposed the Community Reinvestment Act for small business.  Cool, we’re eliminating capital gains taxes on small business investment.  Why not just eliminate capital gains taxes period?  I know, dumb suggestion.

9:31-Cool, more anti-free trade proposals.  We could encourage business to stay here by lowering corporate tax rates, but nah, let’s just penalize those who try to remain competitive through outsourcing.

9:32-Rattles of a list of government-caused problems, proposes a list of government-based solutions.

9:33-Oh great.  We need to be more like China.

9:35-I’m getting the impression that this guy thinks that government is the solution to all of our current social and economic problems.

9:36-We’re going to be spending a lot more on green energy development—whether we want to or not.

9:37-Oil and gas development.  That’s kind of neat.

9:38-Comprehensive energy and climate bill.  Crap.  Chances of getting passed: low, hopefully.

9:39-Some people disagree with climate change evidence.  I’ll say.  Shut the hell up, please.  You don’t understand global economics.

9:40-blah blah blah TWO MILLION MORE JOBS blah blah blah EXPORT INITIATIVES blah blah blah NATIONAL SECURITY blah blah wait, national security?  What?

9:41-”Free trade.”  He keeps using that phrase.  I do not think it means what he thinks it means.

9:42-Education.  I believe we spend more on education per capita than most European countries (I’ll have to confirm this) and are rewarded with poor results; what is more spending going to do?

9:42-I’m pretty sure more Pell grants will result in higher tuition, but whatever.  I’ll be out of school soon enough.

9:44-We’re going to reward people for in public service (translation: working for the government) with student loan reductions?  What the $#@! is this?  Don’t people providing valuable goods and services serve the public?

9:47-Health care reform.  Break out the sob stories.

9:48-With everyone unemployed and starving, won’t the childhood obesity epidemic tackle itself?  And health care reform is going to cut $1 Trillion from the deficit over the next few decades?  What?  Why not $2 Trillion?  $3 Trillion?  The sky’s the limit here folks.

9:50-Nothing surprising, it’s our duty to help people without health care.  Despite overwhelming public opposition.

Also, I think better plans have been proposed by Republicans (like Paul Ryan), Mr. President.  Get a clue.

9:51-It’s for the American people!  And the children!

9:52-Obama states the obvious.  Brace yourself for a massive non sequitur (I really like that phrase, by the way).

9:53-”I’d really like to cut the deficit, but instead I’m going to increase it by a few trillion.”

9:54-Hey, wait, did he just propose a spending cut?  This is too good to be true!  Three year government spending freeze starting in 2011?  Cool. Oh wait, social security, medicare, and other massive entitlements won’t be covered?  Crap.

9:56-$20 billion whole dollars saved?  Cool.  Oh, and no tax cuts for the most productive members of society.

9:57-was this the first or second blame Bush moment?

9:58-I’m sorry, I just can’t take Biden seriously.  There’s just something about him.  He seems too much like a used car salesman maybe—I can’t figure it out.

10:00-I’m getting kind of bored.  He’s preemptively attacking the right; fellow watchers have pointed out that he’s offering a false choice: Obama or the status quo.

10:01-Deficit of trust?  I’ll say.

10:02-McCain-Feingold was penned over a century ago?  You’d best be joking.  The Supreme Court Justices are not pleased with Obama’s shenanigans.

10:03-Change!

10:05-Actually, I’m pretty sure Obama did think his election would usher in an era of post-partisanship.

Americans have differences of opinion over the role of government in our lives.  You think?

“We can’t wage a perpetual campaign.”  I think that was supposed to be a laugh line that went over everyone’s head.

10:06-”Change” instance #2.  Heels are being dug in.  The obvious is being stated.

So if the citizens want their representatives to vote “no” on an issue, the representatives are being obstructionist?

10:07-Aww, monthly meetings.  Maybe they could meet over a nice brunch?

Security.  This could get interesting.  Did he just un-blame Bush?  Nah.

Hope!

10:09-This is getting kind of long.  Was that an olive green pantsuit?  Not flattering.

Afghanistan.  Common purposes will be reaffirmed.  We will succeed.  Etc. Etc.

10:10-You’re not going to be ending this war anytime soon, dude.  Just embrace this fact and get this done in and orderly and responsible fashion.  The military men in the audience are not pleased.

10:12-Nobody hates the military-not really surprising.

10:13-Are nuclear weapons really the greatest threat to the United States these days?  This isn’t the 60’s.  I’m pretty sure our own government is a bigger threat than the Russians these days.

10:14-Consequences for Iran.  We’ll see.  Fighting radical Islam by promoting…science?  What?

10:15-Haiti.  Relevant, I guess.

10:16-”Freedom” has been used for the first time.  That’s worth a drink.

Diversity!  Obama as Mary Sue Coleman.

Doesn’t look like Pelosi can move her face; her eyes are darting back and forth nervously.

Ending Don’t Ask Don’t Tell—sounds ok.

Equal pay laws—bad idea.

Immigration reform—sounds pretty right-wing to me

10:19-I’ve kind of lost interest.  Ooh, let’s attack the fat cat CEOs that were taken advantage of risky economic opportunities created by government.

10:20-”Change” III and IV

…and V.

Sometimes the electorate is noisy.  Especially when you try to do what they don’t want you to do.

10:21-Apparently government knows what’s better for the next generation than the next generation does.  No real surprise.  Another justification for pursuing more unpopular legislation.

10:23-Things might be winding down.  Fingers crossed.

IMPORTANT NOTE:  I’m not sure if Nancy is wearing a pantsuit or a skirt with matching blazer.  Her face is stuck again.

“The spirit that has sustained this nation will be crushed beneath the boots of government”

10:24-God Bless America, it’s over.

The push for health care, explained with shirts

Towards the end of this past December I came across a link to an online Rock the Vote apparel and accessories shop.  I can’t remember what blog posted the link originally, but I do remember that the shirts ranged from stupid to overdesigned to just plain surreal.

Though ObamaCare seemed to be on the verge of reality back then (and a post on said t-shirts would have been more a bit more relevant) I ended up heading up north so as to ring in the new year with assorted small arms fire and forgot about the whole thing completely.

But something triggered the memory of those bizarre t-shirts.  Even if the legislative monstrosity currently on the table is vanquished, and even if we are able to pass truly market-based health reforms that make health care affordable for millions of those currently lacking without involving the heavy hand of government, the issue isn’t going to go away.  It’s like government-run, European-style health care is some kind of leftist fetish—they’ll always choose it over a free-market plan that’s far superior (not to say that Republicans have really proposed such a plan).

So this issue will always be relevant.  And unless we understand the mentality of those insisting that “free” health care is a right, we’ll never be able to effectively combat their views and sell a viable alternative.  This selection of shirts goes further toward unlocking minds of dedicated leftists than any thesis paper ever could.

First, there’s this:

We deserve health care because we want it!

This is actually kind of scary, and really cuts to the heart of the problem with democracy.  If 51% of the mob public demand something, it must be for the public good, right?  That’s great when you’re in the majority.  But try to see things from the perspective of the other 49% some time.  I could probably get 51% of the country to demand that the other 49% surrender their property and wealth and leave for a foreign land immediately or die—does that make it right?

Not that anywhere near 51% of the population supports health care reform in its current state.

Next, there’s this tote bag:

Hipsters rejoice! Finally, a way to show you care about the environment, organic produce, health care, and poorly imitated 70's/80's graphic design.

The design also comes on shirts and a wide range of inane accessories.  Even if health care reform really wasn’t about constructing some kind of legacy for Obama, his rabid supporters seem downright determined to make that the case.

Finally, there’s this shirt.  I’m still up in the air over whether this was submitted as a joke, but either way, it nicely sums up the thought processes of so many people my age:

Could this be the mother of all non sequiturs?

If this is real, color me stunned.  I know it’s supposed to be funny, or hip, or edgy or something.  But for Christ’s sake, why would you make the hollowness of your agenda this blatant?  I’d be interested to see what these party-loving youth are willing to sacrifice in exchange for their free health care.

Chances are, the answer is: some rich person’s money.  I don’t want to live in a society where that answer is considered acceptable.

Meh

I’m battling a sinus infection and mounds of homework tonight, so no real update. Sorry.

Maybe tomorrow after the doctor’s appointment etc. I’ll be in a better condition to write.

Cars I like

I’m wrapping up some applications for various summer internships tonight, so I decided to just post some pictures of cars I like.  Just to get my preferences on the record.  To motivate me when I feel like taking a nap instead of working.

First, there’s the Maserati 3500GT.  This was the first “mass production” Maserati, and I think they did a pretty good job.

I mean, ANYBODY can own a Ferrari.

It’s clean and understated.  It’s kind of a common theme among cars I like—most of them, I think.  I know it’s probably a stereotypical pick and all, what with the James Bond association, but the Aston Martin DB5 is up there on my list:

You usually see these in silver, but I like the British Racing Green on this one.

Like the Maserati, it’s powered by an inline six.  So performance isn’t going to rival a new $1,000,000+ supercar, but you can definitely go 1960’s sports car fast and there’s the added thrill of knowing that if you crash you’ll probably die in a fiery explosion.

I know getting this car would be next to impossible, since I’m pretty sure the only one that exists is in a museum, but I really like the 1954 Plymouth Explorer concept.  I’m guessing that it also had some sort of inline six like the other two.

Yeah, I posted a picture of this car before.

But if I’ve somehow got the cash to buy the other two cars, I figure I’ll have the resources to have one custom-built.  No big deal.  Anybody know any custom fabrication shops?

Going back in time and adding a few more curves, there’s the 1935 Auburn Boattail Speedster.  Supercharged, of course.

It's tough to find pictures of a real one, since there are so many fiberglass-boded replicars on the road. Even the full-scale ones never look quite right for some reason.

The supercharged editions were all tested to speeds in excess of 100 mph before sale.  I’m sure that feels plenty fast with bias-ply tires and drum breaks.

Finally, the most radical car on today’s list:  the sharknose Graham.

These are pretty rare...

It’s mighty hard to find parts for these, even if you can find one to buy.  So again, considerable resources would be needed to restore one unless you could find a complete example in the first place.

It be cool to be able to afford one or two of these someday.  So I’d better get back to work.