Dr. Paul.Feb13,2K8

October 28, 2008

New Yorker: Hagel asending Mccain :Beware what falling tide leaves behind

. As many republicans certainly know -in spite of whether they've admitted so- Juan McCain treads slightly en route through his campaign for presidency. Such has been obvious since [R-House of Representatives] Dr. Paul raised 10,000 peaceful supporters in Minnesota. Across the river from the RNConvention, Juan McCain's nomination boondoggle, a coalition of organized protesters rallied to hear from their messenger in Congress.

. This sort were drawn from across the nation, Canadians present, who pitched tent &/or carpooling simply to have "been there". Where?, the initiation of the 2008 Neoconservative demise. Their agenda, touted by Juan of Panama, is most certainly a blunder waiting to unfold. Odds are stacked against McCain as leading party sycophants to jump ship en masse, resulting from core conservatives yet to be convince; in all, Juan's weak strategy through the primaries [utilizing friends to snowball support] isn't reverberating nationwide -nor far beyond the drone base who voted for him during the primaries.

. Juan's constant evasion of debate & discussion brought about underdeveloped policies & proposals. Regardless of the nomination, had Juan talked with all GOP contestants -Dr. Paul included- his foreign policy & economic oversight might not be as pathetic & lame. This is no colloquialism, it's literal! GOP operations have fallen out in Michigan [who knows where else]; Mccain/Palin rallies consist of little substance beyond fear mongering; keystone crimson states of old tradition are prepped to vote for the competition, Ohio/Montana/the Carolina's; examples pour out at every mainstream outlet.

. With little more than a week remaining, Juan treads on by inciting isolationist rhetoric directed to a narrow demographic, white-bred crowds in a rabble over socialism & patriotism, slight words used to replace age old racist quips. Centering on Obama's "otherness", weak associations of deviant behaviour, selecting a VP who condescends intellect above 5th grade stamina & a drowning attachment to mercantile enterprise clumsily drive the "Straight talk" campaign. All these will certainly bring about Juan's fall, as it should.

. Yet, for it all talking heads are already propping up the next politicos. It seems, for every attempt failed, contemporary thought through media only gains legitimacy by supporting junk -so long popular consumers bite. By such a measure, the pop princess Gov. Sarah Palin might continue running weeks after the election. Still, in spite of the repudiation of phony conservatives to come, it's been said, no republican seat is safe this coming election [Nov.4/2k8], I know of one congressional district which no DNC campaign will bait, Texas' 14th. Apparently, DNC chairman Gov. Howard Dean knows better than to compete in Paul's district, whose popularity runs a strong 70%+ majority, as indicated in the recent primaries.

. Approaching the coveted Mar. 4 primaries, McCain wanting to seal his nomination & gain access to the RNC treasury, conspired to distract Dr. Paul with a congressional campaign during his presidential bid -despite arrangements for automatic seating- forcing a competition within a waning party. Little more than self-destructive to sinister means, the RNC suggests neoconservatives are prepared to destroy their own in pursuit of self fulfillment; warning all that failing to tow the party line would result in sabotaged careers.

. So, who does the establishment have ready to roll out for the next election catwalk, post-Nov.4? Chuck Hagel has been presented strongly by the influential New Yorker, as has been Palin, by Cheney's gang no less. Obviously Romney/Giuliani/Huckabee still dream -in spite of being discredited by supporting race/sex-baiting Juan Mccain; but more importantly, the R3voLution needs philosophic leaders to rally around. Senatorial & Congressional campaigns haven't been maneuvered successfully yet, though insider talk indicates stronger campaigns two years from now. Other influential party seats have been gained, certainly a solid base to start for a dream. Come 2010, our R3voLution could strike a few seats in Washington, under either establishment party. Remember, they're only teams in a game they've rigged. Independents are important, but change must ultimately come from within. As for Hagel, he is significant because of his reported stance:

On the Senate floor, he declared, “Actions in Iraq must come in the context of an American-led, multilateral approach to disarmament, not as the first case for a new American doctrine involving the preemptive use of force.” He also expressed fear about what he calls “the uncontrollables”[Dr. Paul's blowback!]—the unpredictable consequences of military action—and about America’s limited knowledge of the Middle East. “How many of us really know and understand Iraq, the country, the history, the people, and the role in the Arab world?” he asked. “The American people must be told of this long-term commitment, risk, and cost of this undertaking. We should not be seduced by the expectations of dancing in the streets.” In September, 2004, he called the situation in Iraq “beyond pitiful.”


. Doesn't this sound a little like someone we know? Hagel voted for the war, so his rheological proclamations are weak... but sounded through the right tubes, citizen-voters may be duped into supporting this establishment politician. If nothing else, this ought to spur us to remain vigilant and constantly growing, otherwise, the RNC tide which falls out may leave behind unsavory company.

October 12, 2008

Egalitarian economics Examined

Suppose an individual was equal to another as such, in that their worth was undiminished by social preconceptions, establishing their rights at birth. By this standard, we might achieve social standing by personal actions weighted through the public sphere. For such a reality to take effect, condemnation & appreciation of individual action [positive or negative] ought to be fixed on a varying scaled, measured by their relative cost-benefit -equally, across the board with draconian enforcement.

Sadly, extreme application of the theory above would, under current conditions, prove draining and unmanageable throughout society. Heavy handed conditioning begins early, during a child's rearing, so unless early development models aren't trained to improved towards critical-thought,  true egalitarianism escaped us by another generation, again.

However, against my better nature, economic fundamentals diminish the ideals of the eqali, with stronger theory, namely the free market. Of course, totally laissez-faire services aren't common -although many exist off the grid. On a gradual scale, a market becomes freed when entrepreneurial individuals place risk before gain, to achieve success. Conversely, closed markets become more prevalent when gain is placed before risk, so that central planning dictates what is necessary and what is valuable.

[eqali - n. those who exists as equals amongst their peers]

In free markets, an individual might risk their savings, investing in an idea or product so that they may approach the market, exchange within it, and profit while benefiting both parties. The challenges of  engaging the market are elastic, variable and fickle, to say the least. However, succeeding in this environment provides the greatest reward; financially, often the pursuit also allows for greater investment upon social development.

Ultimately, entering the market requires acknowledging four factors, defined as: price, the negotiated value of a given product by buyer & seller; product, development and production of said item which is marketed with purpose; distribution, providing the means by which to facilitate an exchange between manufacture and end-user; finally sales, the manifest process of transaction.

With these challenges, it becomes apparent to anyone attempting to enter free-market enterprise that the fewer invasive obstacles placed before the entrepreneur, the less strenuous maintaining a venture becomes. Strains upon a business venture are those which inhibit competition, growth and productivity.

These may take form in unfair legislation, such as mandating all hotels use identical sprinkler systems, regardless of size or structural capacity. Not only would this close the local market on sprinkler systems in the clutch of few businesses, but it would also overburden unprepared unnecessarily, where another safety measure might prove more cost effective.

Taxation leeches from growth when it become apparent to management that greater revenue means a greater loss to government demand. That is, if it means profiting more equals a larger percentage of revenue being, individual ambition to achieve greater is diminished. Underachieving is promoted by burdening success.

Again, intrusion upon the market, by outside sources [e.g. government, but not consumer watchdogs] often -if not as a rule- leads to concentrated management of production and distribution, so that here must function like there, regardless of capabilities and demand. When in fact, local market expectations and availability ought to decide how business gets done.

So, while there is hazardous cost to forcing the market into anything but what is possible & necessary, there are those who seek to level the playing field, per se, by facilitating regulations that claim to manage the market's factors [preventing this natural advantage of location or that benefit of cheap labour] actually dilutes the strength of commerce.

It is often thought, minimum wages, public works or subsidized prices benefit the neediest in society; however, it is my belief that  these very policies perpetuate poverty and struggle. While establishing a claim upon the market is difficult, made none easier by precocious regulations, the incentives wrought easily make up for any mental challenges required to succeed.

In my next discussion I will attempt to repudiate socialist tokens of common-sense, defend social class against egalitarians & tell you why the centralized management breeds despair.

Till then, tread conservatively & live liberally