Firstly, I apologize for not posting in so long. It is generally good to be busy, but it is not good for one’s political blog. Secondly, I am not a football man. I will not be some Rush Limbaugh doing football and other sports asides to my political commentary. The Superbowl was the only game I saw this year. There were, however, two things that struck me, one good, one bad, that seemed worthy of appearing in this forum.

First I will mention the good aspect, which came from the game itself. It was a good game between fairly closely matched teams. There were few penalties and major errors, even the interception near the end was more the result of a good defensive play than a poor offensive play or a bad throw. The Saints won, not because they played better, but because they took risks. If there is anything to be learned from a game like that its that you can win big if you take risks. You can blow away your competition even when they are a little better if you have guts and toughness. That is what was so beautiful about it. The Saints didn’t win by having the highest paid players or the best players or the best coach or the basis of unfair calls or some corrupt means. The Saints won by taking risks and maximizing their potential.

Now, they had to play well also, and they had to get lucky a bit, i.e. the recovery of their onside kick, etc., but they would not have won without taking some huge risks and playing innovatively and in unorthodox manner. It is a lesson for the country and for business and the economy. Its not about playing by the rules, its not about getting help from others or from the officials (government), its not about having lots of money or being the best. Its about doing your best, taking risks, and maximizing your potential. Cheers to the whole franchise for that brilliantly executed game.

Now for the bad part that got me the most fired up. It came in the form of one of the commercials, from the fourth quarter of the game. It was a commercial called “paper or plastic“, and I was hoping about halfway through that someone was finally making fun of the eco-police. In a way they might have been, or it might have been their intention, but the message was: “drive this car because the eco-police wont get you”. It even said it “feels right” to be in one of their new clean diesel cars. Now I am all for efficiency and reduced emissions. I am all for Audi’s new car, you like it and want one, go get it. I love that diesel is making headway in the non-commercial market, it has always been a higher efficiency fuel.

But the message of the commercial is that a day is coming when we really will have eco-police and we better deal with it. It was more scary than funny. If I start seeing arrests for the wrong light bulb, I will know that I should have taken up arms against tyranny long ago.

Now, maybe Audi was trying to make fun of those who cry foul about every little eco trend. Maybe the “green police” was supposed to be a joke on the public opinion trials we all face if we drive an SUV or throw away a plastic cup. Or, maybe thats just wishful thinking. Either way, what I took from the commercial is that I need to be very vigilant of something like that actually coming. The green movement, regardless of its intention, is fast becoming another power grab, and with the obvious manipulation of environmental data and the ability to follow the dollar to find motivation for such corruption of science, it is becoming more and more evident just how blatant a power grab it really is. Even Obama’s state of the union address glosses over environmental questions as if to silence the debate so that the government can continue to gain control unabated.

I am not one to trounce Audi by calling for a retaliatory boycott of their clean diesel engines. I am sure its a fine machine and not a bad idea at all. But their marketing guy is way off, because that commercial was not a positive or funny experience at all. Here’s hoping that we all wake up before the jack-booted green police thugs take away the only vehicles that can get around in this snow (thank you global warming). I love my 40mpg Civic, but I have been driving an AWD Mercury Mountaineer to make it to work this week, the Civic is going nowhere until the snow is less than 5 inches deep and the Mountaineer pulls it out of the hole its in. Just sayin’

Rule number 1, military for defense only. Rule number 2, first learn rule number 1. The libertarian stance on the military is a bit more reserved than the average conservative stance. This does not mean that libertarians are anti-military or that we are even anti-war, but we do believe that war is a last resort, used only for defense. We tend not to believe in the draft, and we do not buy into police actions, nation building, or “spreading democracy” through military intervention. Freedom is something that people have to get for themselves, it is not a gift to be handed out to those who are not ready.

That said, there are a few arenas of agreement that most libertarians have with the conservative military position.

Continue Reading »

The drug war. A colossal waste of money and manpower with results that should have been expected considering the disaster that was prohibition, a war on alcohol that succeeded in veritably creating organized crime in this country. Of course, it would not be the first time clear lessons of history were completely ignored by our government, but it is no less frustrating.

The libertarian stance on drugs has been a political white elephant for the party. In my political strategy articles I admonish libertarians to put their position on drugs on the back burner. Even in cases where a candidate has not mentioned drugs, it tends to be brought up by opponents because it is a hot-button, emotionally charged issue that when attacked in sound-bite form tends to make the libertarian under fire look like a crazy extremist. The only defense is to downplay the issue and point out the silliness of the attack and hope that it gets dropped. That said, I would like to let the conservatives out there in on the reasoning behind the drug stance in the libertarian platform.

Continue Reading »

In recent years, especially the last 2 or 3, many conservatives have been looking seriously at third parties, especially the Libertarian Party as a new home for their vote. For the most part, their former party was the Republican Party, but the actions of the Republicans have been increasingly indistinguishable from the opposing party, with some actions even more atrocious in their invasion of individual liberties and cost to the taxpayers. This trend has even lead to some comments that the LP is being taken over by Republicans, or that libertarians are just anti-war republicans, etc. While this is not the case, I do welcome the huge influx of former, or reformed, republicans. I am, in fact, one of them myself, only my transition was about 10 years ago.

Continue Reading »

Once again Rush and many others are decrying the growing movement towards a third party. I understand this sentiment from a strategic standpoint, but I do not agree that their stratagems are properly thought out. For a strategic political maneuver, a third party is essential. Not to mention a third party will be necessary for most people to truly begin to vote as they were meant to, for a representative, not a politician or the “lesser of two evils”.

Continue Reading »