The inanity of some people drives me crazy.

I’ve been in an ongoing conversation the last few days with someone on the Academy of Art University Facebook app discussing the Egypt protest situation. Today that conversation just went somewhere I never expected: circumcision. That’s right. It went there. How or why is beyond me, but it did. Below are excerpts from the conversation:

Derek Fidler: Who’s ​been ​watching ​the ​news ​intently ​wondering ​what’s ​going ​to ​happen ​in ​Egypt?

Gisele Schoenberger: yeah, ​don’t ​go ​now!

Josh Rincon: It’s ​exciting ​to ​see ​what’s ​happening ​in ​Egypt ​and ​I ​have ​hope ​for ​our ​‘brothers’ ​fighting ​for ​their ​rights ​in ​a ​country ​that ​has ​been ​oppressed ​by ​a ​dictator ​for ​the ​last ​3 ​decades ​in ​which ​the ​United ​States ​has ​supported. ​FREE ​EGYPT!

Derek Fidler: “has ​supported” ​ie “still ​supports”

Gisele Schoenberger: Free ​Egypt… ​requires ​a ​megaload ​of ​education ​for ​the ​people; ​which ​the ​Taliban ​is ​NOT ​interested ​in ​assisting ​the ​humans ​who ​live ​there ​with. ​ ​Why ​are ​they ​so ​backward, ​anyway? ​ ​We ​are ​all ​evolving ​simultaneously ​and ​yet ​there ​are ​no ​expected ​hopes ​for ​each ​generation ​to ​acquire ​an ​education ​especially ​for ​the ​fair ​gender. ​ ​It ​freaks ​me ​out.

Josh Rincon: The ​Taliban ​have ​nothing ​to ​do ​with ​Egypt. ​They ​are ​concerned ​with ​the ​rulings ​in ​Afghanistan, ​not ​Egypt. ​That ​should ​answer ​your ​first ​question. ​As ​to ​your ​second ​question, ​I ​leave ​you ​this ​wonderful ​quote ​by ​Noam ​Chomsky, “If ​you ​assume ​that ​there ​is ​no ​hope, ​you ​guarantee ​that ​there ​will ​be ​no ​hope. ​If ​you ​assume ​that ​there ​is ​an ​instinct ​for ​freedom, ​that ​there ​are ​opportunities ​to ​change ​things, ​then ​there ​is ​a ​possibility ​that ​you ​can ​contribute ​to ​making ​a ​better ​world.”

Gisele Schoenberger: Good ​quote, ​hope ​you ​can ​abide ​by ​it. ​ ​Are ​you ​so ​sure ​about ​the ​taliban ​Not ​being ​a ​part ​of ​this ​insurgence? ​ ​Look ​at ​the ​news, ​the ​internal ​strife ​not ​driven ​by ​Mubarak ​is ​externally ​incited ​and ​names ​(as ​usual) ​are ​not ​being ​divulged. ​ ​Anderson ​Cooper ​was ​inside ​last ​eve ​in ​hiding, ​bcz ​journalists ​are ​being ​beaten ​by ​the ​insane ​wildebeasts ​native ​to ​that ​land. ​ ​It ​is ​not ​a ​highly ​educated ​people ​and ​they ​can ​be ​and ​are ​being ​stirred ​by ​religious ​fanatacism ​in ​the ​surrounding ​regions. ​ ​They ​are ​pawns ​in ​whose ​larger ​and ​eviler ​plans? ​ ​Abinadina- ​jacket ​probably. ​

Derek Fidler: Actually ​Egypt ​has ​one ​of ​the ​best ​educational ​systems ​in ​the ​region ​with ​compulsory ​education ​from ​age ​6-15. ​Over ​93% ​of ​children ​are ​enrolled ​in ​school ​and ​the ​literacy ​rate ​for ​the ​country ​is ​around ​73%. ​(Compared ​to ​the ​US ​which ​has ​less ​than ​80% ​functional ​literacy ​according ​to ​the ​NALS, ​Egypt ​looks ​quite ​good)

Additionally, ​there ​is ​no ​fundamentalist ​Islamic ​political ​organisation ​in ​Egypt ​and ​as ​a ​whole ​the ​few ​fundamentalists ​receive ​more ​publicity ​than ​the ​average ​Egyptian ​which ​skews ​the ​media.

Attempts ​to ​paint ​the ​situation ​as ​a ​fundamentalist ​take ​over ​is ​purely ​the ​western ​presses ​and ​governments ​trying ​to ​make ​up ​for ​the ​fact ​that ​they ​supported ​a ​horrible ​tyrant ​for ​30 ​years ​in ​the ​name ​of “stability/peace ​in ​the ​middle ​east” ​and ​are ​seeking ​to ​ensure ​that ​a ​pro-western ​leader ​comes ​into ​power ​after ​Mubarak; ​whether ​he ​is ​another ​tyrant ​or ​sincerely ​a ​good ​leader ​is ​irrelevant ​as ​long ​as ​he ​can ​be ​co-opted ​into ​the ​US/Israel ​hegemony.

Nevertheless, ​both ​Republicans ​and ​Democrats, ​including ​the ​Obama ​administration, ​are ​continuing ​to ​provide ​billions ​of ​dollars ​in ​military ​aid ​each ​year ​to ​Egypt ​which ​will ​remain ​our ​number ​2 ​recipient ​of ​foreign/military ​aid ​as ​long ​as ​a ​pro-Western ​leader ​is ​in ​power.

Gisele Schoenberger: Interesting ​information. ​ ​What ​kind ​of ​a ​leader ​do ​you ​want ​to ​see ​there, ​one ​that ​is ​of ​anti-western ​thought? ​ ​I ​think ​Western ​thought ​is ​cool. ​ ​The ​whole ​world ​should ​have ​the ​opportunity ​to ​have ​a ​Western ​Education. ​The ​education ​you ​refer ​to ​in ​the ​middle ​east ​is ​already ​sloshed ​around ​with ​anti-western ​sentiment ​until ​western ​thought ​is ​seen ​as ​‘other’ ​and ​not ​good, ​other.

What ​is ​the ​predominant ​religion ​over ​there; ​it’s ​not ​Judeo/Christian; ​ ​I ​think ​they ​are ​muslim ​and ​angry ​that ​everyone ​else ​in ​the ​world ​isn’t, ​so ​therein ​lies ​the ​heretical ​religious ​slant ​or ​tirade ​from ​extremism ​from ​the ​inside. ​It’s ​sad. ​ ​Most ​Americans ​want ​to ​Live ​and ​let ​live ​and ​live ​in ​peace ​on ​this ​planet. ​ ​Nobody ​want ​to ​go ​to ​war. ​ ​My ​dad ​didn’t, ​he ​was ​a ​boy ​of ​14 ​forced ​to ​and ​was ​destroyed ​by ​war.

Unfortunately, ​I ​see ​from ​internal ​journalists ​that ​there ​is ​a ​lot ​of ​bloodshed. ​ ​Anderson ​Cooper ​is ​not ​skewing ​his ​stuff, ​he ​is ​a ​liberal ​and ​he ​cares ​about ​humanity ​ ​... ​these ​people ​who ​are ​ending ​up ​broken ​up. ​ ​Yes, ​there ​are ​political ​forces ​around ​Egypt ​with ​fanatical ​and ​financial-power-gain​ ​viewpoints. ​ ​Who ​are ​you ​kidding?

​ ​Rioting ​in ​the ​streets ​and ​beating ​up ​the ​world ​media, ​c’mon. ​ ​These ​are ​educated ​people? ​ ​ ​Hmmm ​more ​Western ​thought ​and ​education ​needed; ​perhaps ​the ​inherent ​individual ​violent ​natures ​of ​all ​the ​men ​there ​in ​the ​ENTIRE ​region ​ ​would ​be ​better ​off ​if ​they ​were ​circumcised. ​ ​For ​some ​reason ​it ​just ​seems ​to ​stave ​off ​the ​violent ​ ​tendencies ​in ​the ​male ​nature ​in ​the ​first ​place. ​Compare ​world ​societies ​and ​figure ​it ​out ​yourself. ​ ​It ​should ​be ​mandatory ​for ​male ​humans ​born ​onto ​this ​planet. ​ ​Really ​all ​this ​fighting ​and ​aggression. ​ ​It’s ​disgusting ​we ​haven’t ​evolved ​past ​this ​stupidity.

Derek Fidler: There ​are ​stories ​like ​this ​one ​and ​thousands ​of ​others ​that ​prove ​positive ​how ​destructive ​pro-western ​backed ​dictators ​are ​to ​liberal ​ideology ​in ​the ​middle ​east. ​What ​temporary ​stability ​we ​gain ​comes ​at ​the ​cost ​of ​millions ​of ​oppressed ​people, ​trillions ​of ​lost ​dollars, ​and ​an ​increasing ​number ​of ​fundamentalist ​muslims.

We ​must ​realise ​that ​our ​involvement ​with ​politics ​and “aid” ​in ​the ​middle ​east ​is ​actively ​undermining ​the ​spread ​of ​freedom ​and ​democracy. ​We ​have ​continuously ​aided ​anti-democratic ​leaders ​in ​the ​middle ​east ​when ​it ​suits ​us ​and ​turned ​on ​them ​when ​they ​go ​against ​our ​wishes; ​we ​have ​supported ​such ​figures ​as ​the ​Shah ​of ​Iran, ​King ​Abdullah ​of ​Saudi ​Arabia, ​Saddam ​Hussein ​against ​the ​ayatollah, ​Osama ​bin ​Laden, ​the ​mujaheddin, ​and ​the ​Taliban ​against ​the ​Russians, ​and ​countless ​other ​ruthless ​leaders ​in ​the ​middle ​east ​as ​well ​as ​around ​the ​world.

We ​need ​to ​get ​out ​of ​their ​politics ​and ​bring ​our ​troops ​home ​before ​we ​can ​see ​real ​pro-democratic ​change ​in ​the ​middle ​east.

For more information regarding the protests in Egypt please read this article by Maajid Nawaz. The sooner people realise that Western-backed leadership are worse for democracy and freedom the sooner we will see peace in the middle east, an end to our military involvement in the region, and greater prosperity for all.

Image courtesy of New Statesmen

Amendment to Reaffirm the Constitution and Limit Governmental Power

Section 1.

The President shall not deploy or quarter troops abroad without the consent of Congress, through a Declaration of War, unless in times of emergency in which the nation, or people within the nation’s borders, are in imminent danger.

Section 2.

Congress shall make no law without explicit jurisdiction derived from the Constitution which shall be put forth in accompanying documentation. Laws challenged in the Judiciary without such documentation shall be required to put forth explicit Constitutional jurisdiction in documentation in a speedy manner.

Section 3.

Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income so long that the tax system is impartial to religious or political affiliation, age, gender, ethnicity, sexual preference, or marital status, and does not reward or penalise any specific behaviour or character.

Section 4.

No representative of the Government shall receive compensation, neither in payment nor gift, in return for influence over legislation from any source.

I think the argument between free market and fair market individuals has been going on for long enough and it’s about time someone proposed a new figure in the equation. The parties today represent two sides of the same coin, one expounds the belief that our government should protect the freedom of commerce while the other believes that our government should control aspects of commerce. Both the power of commerce and the government has slowly risen year after year so now we only hear the slight ebb and flow of power between the two. Both parties, while arguing bitterly, have created a governmental system which benefits only commerce and government at the expense of the true sovereign power of any democratic nation, the people.

To any reasonable business person, the only people that truly matter are the customers: without them there would be no business. Likewise, our founders created a government in which all power was derived from the consent of the people: without people there would be no government. Often I feel that our current parties have forgotten this simple fact, and we have returned to the days in which absolute despotism reigns, although under a democratic guise. I believe power should flow amongst the three constituents—the people, commerce, and government—although with the acknowledgment that all power originates from the people. If we forget that last fact, we end up with government for its own sake, business for its own sake, and, worst of all, business and government in concert working for their own sake.

My proposed amendment redresses a few key grievances that I see as an affront to the power of the people: mainly the enlarged power of the Executive and the enlarged power of Congress in regard to law making, taxation, and partiality to certain interests.

First and foremost, the power of the President has grown beyond the execution of law to a domain in which the President has absolute power over the entire government. This absolute power derives from control of the military which has become the most expensive portion of the government’s discretionary spending. Through this, the executive can now bankrupt our entire nation with costly foreign activities. The original founders countered this eventuality by requiring Congress to provide a declaration of war in Article 1, Section 8; however, they failed to anticipate that Congress would usurp the consent of the people and diminish their own power while providing the President with the ability to deploy troops without a declaration of war, ie. the War Powers Resolution. My attempt to diminish these powers is two-fold. Section 1 reiterates the requirement for the government to abide by Article 1 Section 8 so that Congress regains structural control of the military. Secondly, I attempt to reiterate and reinforce the spirit of the Third Amendment by expanding its power to all activities of our military, both foreign and domestic. Had the founders assumed we would become an aggressor nation, as England was at the time of the Revolution, they would have included such a statement; however, it was assumed our military would solely be used for defense.

My focus for the second section is the reiteration of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Congress has passed many, many laws which have no Constitutional authority. Explicitly within the last two amendments of the Bill of Rights is the reservation of all rights to the people not enumerated to Congress and the States, and the idea that even the enumerated rights shall not infringe upon the rights of the people. As late as 1919, people still felt that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land and Congress was beholden to it, and as such felt it necessary to provision the Constitution with a prohibition of alcohol, granting Congress power to legislate on that singular issue. Since then our government has forgotten what its enumerated powers are and has taken more and more power and choice from the people, banning the proliferation of “illicit substances”, “illicit images”, and “illicit language”, while promoting ephemeral social ideas such as segregation and affirmative action, and allowing some marriages while banning other marriages. It is comical to me that at one time people felt they had to change the Constitution for a singular item like alcohol when today Congress can ban anything from harsh words to a particular cigarette brand without a single reference to the enumerated power that allows them to do so. I support an idea, that I have heard before, in which Congress must clearly reiterate their enumerated power in each piece of legislation they wish to pass. Additionally, in accordance with ex post facto, existing laws shall not be required to abide by the new Amendment until challenged in a court of law.

A legitimate government, with power derived from consent of the people, must have laws that the people can understand and abide, but who can understand or abide by a law that is over 54,000 pages long? Legitimate government must also treat all people equally under the law, but our income tax is amongst the most guilty of laws for treating people unfairly. Within its complexities are thousands of unfair agendas, designed to engineer the people into certain actions without their knowledge or consent. For example, the government encourages home ownership as a quick way to raise GDP and as a result has provided mortgage deductions and numerous home ownership credits. Unfortunately, this discriminates against low income renters who cannot gain access to these deductions. The IRS code also promotes bigger government by providing tax breaks and incentives to those who buy government bonds while double taxing dividend income and other corporate investment. Another example is the marriage tax penalty which originally was not a penalty but a reward. In 1969 the reward became a penalty, and in 2003 became a reward once again. Then there’s the single parent tax credits. If you have one child you get a small credit, and if you have more children you get larger credits, but if you invest or save some money—say, for your children’s education—outside of IRS approved accounts, your credits are taken away. My proposition would require Congress to create a tax system that treats all people equally by removing the rewards of credits and deductions, and the penalties of the AMT and investing. All persons, no matter their social circumstance, should be taxed equally with a person in the same circumstance.

The final section is focused not only on diminishing the power of the government, but limiting the power of special interests. The power of special interests has been important in American history since its founding, but in the past, influence was much harder to garner when Representatives met only a few months per year. Being a Representative now is a full time job, and quite often the Representatives rarely return to their represented states. I see the detachment of Representatives from their electors as the reason for the expansion of special interest power, and I write this section of my proposed Amendment with special attention to lobbyists and the activities of businesses, social advocates, and unions who all disregard the power of the people for the combined strength of business and government. The fact that lobbying is now an everyday part of business in Washington, that billions of dollars from the oil, drug, tobacco, auto, teaching, alcohol, investment, and recently tech industries are now flowing into Washington, that there are ex-Representatives earning six-figure incomes for their “services” is evidence enough that power is pooling at the capital when, truly, the power should be derived from only one place: the consent of the people. I propose to Constitutionally ban this flow of money from businesses, unions, and special interest groups into Washington so that it could be better spent employing people, developing new technologies, contributing to grassroots causes, education, or whatever else billions of dollars could go towards. I make my departure from free market people, who prefer all lobbyists to have their “freedom”, and also my departure from fair market people, who prefer their specific industries—whether business, governmental, or union—to have their “freedom”. I think the Representatives should never forget who their constituents are, who gave them their power, and who can take it away.

This is only the first Amendment I propose to right some of the wrongs with our current government, but there are many other issues which I feel only Amendments to the Constitution will right. Among these, I would propose an Amendment for a balanced budget and an Amendment guaranteeing all people an economical education with the fundamental choice of school. Perhaps soon I will have time to write about these other issues.

For anyone with some time, this is good reading. It’s the final text from the latest Proposition 8 hearing which Judge Walker overturned today. I’ve gotten to about page 10 but have to stop, although the whole thing is fascinating.

I am partial to saying that neither side has a strong “constitutional” argument and the entire matter is social and has nothing to do with law. The “same-sex marriage is constitutionally protected” argument is a huge stretch, and the reality of the matter still stands that the Constitution doesn’t grant the government power to marry individuals in the first place, much less decide who gets to marry. Marriage and “due process” are not the same. All the government need do is recognize all those that want to be married as married as it was done in Common Law days, and we’d be done with this whole argument. An excerpt I have read on early American marriage portrays the very system that we should return to:

The Dutch and Germans performed the wedding ceremony in their native languages, employing customs from their homelands. The Quakers held weddings in their meetinghouses. There, couples could marry themselves, often by reciting vows they devised, without a clergyman. For many years, Anglican traditions, based on the Book of Common Prayer, prevailed in the South.

Just looking at the signers of the Declaration of Independence would tell you that they wouldn’t agree on just one way to get married.

Marriage has been a pain in the ass in Western Culture since the Council of Trent, when society switched from Common Law marriages to religious marriages that had to be performed by a Roman Catholic priest. Ever since then, minority groups have fought their governments against marriage laws, eg. after the English Marriage Act of 1753 people would elope from Ireland to Scotland to marry under Scottish law. Is there any reason to think that after 400 years our governments would be able to pass a law that everyone could agree with? Not from what I’ve seen.

Additionally, people tend to forget that the Constitution is a legal document, not a moral document. America’s moral document is the Declaration of Independence in which the preamble famously states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable 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 People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Moral advocates on either side tend to think that both documents are the same, but in reality the Constitution only provides safeguards against the government interfering with people’s lives, not promoting or deciding what is Life, Liberty, and Happiness. If people were honest about the Constitutional argument, they would be arguing that the government has no right to decide who gets married, not whether one group is protected or not.

Pro-8 defendants originally argued about some moral superiority of heterosexual relationships, but this had no legal standing. The legal argument they’ve conjured up regard to statistics about raising children in heterosexual relationships, but I find it hard to believe that this information is useful considering the tiny number of same sex couples with children. The oddest argument I’ve noticed is the advancement of America through procreation. The last time I checked America had a growing population and suddenly allowing same-sex couples to marry wouldn’t jeopardize that growth rate unless these are the same people that think legalizing heroin would create an entire country of drug addicts, but that’s just conjecture on my part.

Con-8 proponents argue about the happiness they would gain from social acceptance and the freedom to choose who to marry. That sounds like something out of the Declaration to me. Arguing that the 14th Amendment protects the choice of whom to marry isn’t exactly the same argument I would make since the Constitution doesn’t grant anyone the right to marry, but having the right to live your life how you want is more American sounding than what the Pro-8 people are selling and that’s what counts to me.

Image Credit

Recently I was turned onto the subject of federal land management in my Environmental Biology course. I did some research regarding the topic through various organizations and I came upon an idea that I really liked of splitting up the smattering of bureaus that manage federal land into trusts managed locally by an elected group of trustees. The beneficiaries: the public, environmental groups, local governments, and businesses would be responsible for electing the trustees, while the trustor, Congress, would have oversight into the activities of the trusts. Congress would also be responsible for creating the trusts and setting the legal ground rules for the trusts’ actions as well as a legal, accountable way to reproach trusts that are abusing their authority. I feel that this may not be the best answer in every situation but it’s a good place to start the debate so as part of a class assignment I sent a letter to the Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. The letter follows:

Dear Secretary Salazar:

The United States has a history of progressive environmental policy, as one of the first nations to institute a National Park Service, Wildlife Agency, and other important landmarks in conservation. Our nation has strived to protect our remaining environmental resources for future generations for the past 100 years quite laudably, and the 630 million acres of public land managed by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and Wildlife Service clearly displays our nations pledge to protecting our environment.

Despite public land accounting for 28% of the entire nation’s land, the federal land management agencies fail to make revenues each year and instead cost taxpayers over $7 billion annually. This failure is the result of a number of problems: taxpayer money is spent erroneously, few people benefit from public land, agencies are rewarded by growing their budgets and not curbing them, and everyone pays the cost while no one is accountable for the way it is spent. Additionally, 90% of the revenues from federal land come from little more than 1 million acres primarily through the practice of gas, coal, and oil mining, seemingly pointing out that exploitation of non-renewable resources is the only way to make money. Of the revenues that are received by the federal land management agencies, most is retained by the individual agencies and almost none is returned to the origin of federal money, the national Treasury.

The public land and resources managed by the federal land management agencies are immensely valuable from an economic, and equally environmental, viewpoint. The largest cause of the economic difficulties of federal land management is Congress, which has basically handicapped the federal land management agencies’ ability to make money, much the same position the Postal Service is in. In certain circumstances Congress has exacerbated problems due to improper use of funds, creating incentives to overproduce through subsidies, and unfair competition with private land owners.  If Congress allowed the Forest Service to charge market rates for all federal land resources when it was initially proposed in 1989, the agency would net revenue each year with the majority of profits coming from recreation activities as opposed to gas, coal, and oil mining. Additionally, with more revenues coming from recreational activities and not non-renewable resources, managers would have an incentive to protect the resources that are renewable instead of promoting more exploitative mining and lumbering operations.

There are alternatives to the current system that could balance the needs of all the stakeholders and relieve some of the fiscal issues associated with public land management, as well as our country as a whole. One such alternative is the establishment of public fiduciary trusts to manage regional portions of public land which would accomplish the goals of Congress, environmentalists, public land users, and private citizens. Congress would act as the trustor, creating individual trusts for regional management of public land. The trustees would be elected by beneficiaries of the public land, including private citizens, environmental groups, businesses, and local governments, while the trust document would dictate how Congress would like the land used in a legally binding, accountable way.  Congress would be required to give the trusts a clear mission statement, something federal land managers lack often times.
Creating a new system does not have to instantaneously replace the old system, and in some cases changes may not be the best solution, but with over 1000 national forests, wildlife refuges, Bureau of Land Management lands, and other assorted public lands a trial period within a few select areas could be easily accomplished. Trusts could be divided into two types which specialize in mixed use and preservation. Congress could create mixed-use trusts with a mission to maximize revenue while preserving the natural capacity of the land to be productive, whereas single-use trusts could focus on particular areas of interest such as endangered species recovery or cultural and natural ecosystem rehabilitation. Mixed-use trusts which would inevitably make more money than single-use trusts could subsidize single-use trusts in their region thus keeping money close to the community it originates in.

One example of how public fiduciary trusts could empower citizens to take an active role in protecting valuable federal environmental resources is the Endangered Species Act. Unfortunately the Endangered Species Act places much of the burden of protecting endangered species on private land on the owner of the land without any incentive. Private land owners are not compensated for the loss of their land due to endangered species habitat nor are they allowed to make money off endangered species for ecotourism.  Naturally the result has been landowners fighting against the Endangered Species Act and few species recovering due to the Act. A public fiduciary trust could be formed to create incentives for private land owners to promote the recovery of animals on the Endangered Species Act as well as removing restrictions on private land owners to make money off of endangered species. Private enterprise could generate ecotourism to America as well as encourage innovation in endangered species recovery.
Continued deficit spending of any kind is dangerous for our national resources for two reasons. First, when the economy is slow the environment will be the first area to suffer, and second, the current system stifles an industry that could thrive as healthily as any other. I implore you to examine the benefits of a new system of federal land management, and use public fiduciary trusts as a jumping off point for policy discussion.  Reform does not have to start nationwide and can be instituted in just a few parks to demonstrate the effectiveness of proper management, but a system that empowers citizens and creates revenue while meeting the needs of all stakeholders is a system that will ultimately be more successful for the continued conservation of our country’s natural resources than any other.

Sincerely,

Derek Fidler

This idea for land management trusts was originally created by the CATO Institute but I felt it was one of their better ideas that was not completely free-market oriented and deserved a closer look. Let me know what you think.

What exactly happened this past tax day? People on the right yelled for change, people on the left yelled for patience, and everyone got fucked. Just a few months ago during the presidential campaigns just the reversal of slogans and attacks were thrown around with the left clamoring for change and the right preaching stay the course. Irony passed over the day in its usual silent style except for the few cynics that noted the hypocrisy on both sides but no one seems to like them or their opinions and the chuckles of amusement faded before they even happened. As one of those cynics I watched in bemusement as my conservative parents rabble roused at their home in New York to the tune of Fox News and read with gusto the blog rants and comments on CNN and MSNBC youtube clips. It seems everyone got it wrong on Tax Day and it’s a shame.

Where did the tea parties come from? Most of the Fox set gave credit to Rick Santelli of CNBC for starting the Tax Day tea party movement and to them it really did start with Rick Santelli. His claim was that on July 4th he was going to dump thousands of stocks that were going to be worth nothing into Lake Eerie in Chicago due to unreasonable tax burdens and government regulations from Obama’s administration including the new budget, the ARRA, and other recent regulations that have passed in the past few months. In reality a lot of the tea party organizers were not following Santelli’s lead and the movement had started about a year before then. Fox News didn’t notice since they were supporters of McCain or Guiliani or Huckabee that the annivcersary of the Boston Tea Party in 2008 was the single biggest fundraising day of Libertarian/Republican candidate Ron Paul and that his campaign resurrected the idea of “no taxation without representation”. To the right, which inevitably took over the tea party idea as their own, Tax Day Tea Parties were another chance to gripe about Obama’s election, the chaos in their own party, and how much they don’t like paying taxes.

What was the real message of the Tax Day Tea Parties? To true Libertarians, many of which organised the tea parties across the nation, the point of the demonstrations was simply “no taxation without representation.” I believe the offshoot of Ron Paul’s Revolution Campaign, the Campaign for Liberty, stated most simply that Americans are no longer in control of the government that we pay to rule over us. The people’s power has been subjugated by lobbyists and special interest groups that are primarily responsible for electing public officials and passing legistlation. These interest groups and lobbyists are not guilty of belonging to one side or the other, they are only guilty of creating laws that interfere with the way people live their lives, either directly such as anti-Abortion activists that bring religion into law by banning abortions or indirectly like creating subsidies to big businesses like the current paper industry scandal. But beyond the special interests and lobbyists, the greedy politicians that have been elected continued to expand the power of the government including in recent history Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, George W Bush, and now Barrack Obama. These presidents have taken the power from the people with limitless beauracracy which is controlled by appointed officials and with each new government seat has the ability to swing wildly to the left or right as subsequent presidents step into power and replace the bureau heads with their own choices.

Why didn’t the message get across? The Tax Day Tea Parties were destroyed by the media on both sides. In Fox’s charge to get more people to the rallies they destroyed the original message and lionized the events as solely conservative when originally they were third party. In response the liberal and even centrist media sources responded with vicious attacks going so far as to label the parties as Fox-sponsored, right wing militant, and anti-Obama. Both sides are equally guilty of killing the message and it wouldn’t be right to say one side was more to blame or the other but such things happen and will happen more frequently as the political parties become further radicallized. Although Fox’s coverage did an excellent job covering the spectrum of the ideas that the tea parties ended up supporting, their very presence created a cloud of mistrust from everyone on the left   further resulting in putting off a lot of the original tea partiers from the Ron Paul Campaign, yes those same people that created the events in the first place. The coverage meanwhile on MSNBC and CNN in particular were disturbingly partisan as some anchors showed their true colours as opinion overran their objective reporting. Fox at least tried not to label the as conservative to no avail but CNN and MSNBC went so far as to claim the events were Fox-sponsored which was unfounded and outrageous to anyone who knew anything about the work put in to organizing the events. It was generally a case of Fox stampeding around like a bull in a china shop and CNN and MSNBC putting their heads where their asses are. Thank you objective journalism.

So what can we hope for? Not much. It seems that the liberals which are in charge of the whole of Congress and the White House have plenty on their plates with a failing national economy, deteriorating global markets, increased hostilities in Pakistan, Iran, and Somalia, and a list of reasons why the ARRA and increasing the national debt won’t help for long. The conservatives on the other hand were so beaten back that they’re hopelessly in the minority and can’t do anything except squabble and kvetch about Obama’s administration. They could use this time to reorganise and modernise their party politics but if it took twenty years for the Tory party in England to come up with anything who knows how long it will take for the Republicans here. It isn’t completely unreasonable to see the conservatives swing wildly right wing in which case we’d be in for a real tough time in the future, but it’s equally easy to foresee a change toward a more centrist or Libertarian stance in the conservatives if they can learn their lessons from the Bush administration. But that’s a huge IF and one that I am not abundantly optimistic about either.

For now I’ll continue to push for a true third party in the United States and a return to politics of the people. Shorter term limits for all elected positions, banning campaign contributions from third parties, creating accountability in the government, a peaceful foreign policy, and a true free market system instead of this false-free market pro-big business system that we’ve had for the past forty years.