The Republic of Yellowstone

If you have ever visited a national park (Yellowstone for example), you have undoubtedly seen signs or have been told to Not Feed The Bears.

Have you ever wondered why? It's probably pretty obvious.

From bebearawaresw.org spokesman, General Norman Schworzkopf lists some of the reasons:

1. Bears should never obtain human food, pet/livestock feeds, or garbage. Bears that receive these "food rewards" may become aggressive towards humans or cause property damage. To protect people and their property, these bears may have to be destroyed.
2. Wild bears have a natural fear of humans and will attempt to avoid people and developed areas fed bears do not!
3. Wild bears rely on natural foods such as berries and fish. Fed bears will abandon vital food sources for human foods and garbage!
4. Wild bears quickly become conditioned to handouts and will teach their cubs to do the same.
5. Wild bears fed along roads tend to stay near the road - increasing vehicle-animal accidents.

When camping or visiting bear country, there are some precautions so as to not have a run in with a bear
such as:
store food away from your sleeping area
keep food in "bear proof" containers
don't sleep in clothes that have food smell on them.

All this so that we can be spared injury from a bear and the bears can be spared injury from us. So how does this relate to anything that I normally post?

Well I came up with the idea for this post from my brother in law, Mark.

You see just as irresponsible it is to give hand outs to the bears (even though it may seem they are starving and emaciated), it is irresponsible for our government to give handouts to it's people.

In reference to the above bulleted quote

Fed bears will abandon vital food sources for human foods and garbage! "Fed" humans will abandon work and progress for hand outs and freebies.

Wild bears quickly become conditioned to handouts and will teach their cubs to do the same. People will come conditioned to not working and government subsidies they will propagate laziness through their posterity. (Which seems to be the most active reproducers).

Now I'm not saying that we should deprive our nations poorest and underfed, but that there are inherent problems with government providing for them.

Statistics from the US food and nutrition web site. (Food Stamps)
In 2000, it served 17.2 million people a month and cost $17.1 billion.
In 1995, it served 26.6 million people a month, and cost $24.6 billion.
In 1990, it served 20.1 million people and cost $15.5 billion.
In 1985, it served 19.9 million people and cost $11.7 billion.
In 1980, it served 21.1 million people and cost $9.2 billion.
In 1975, it served 17.1 million people and cost $4.6 billion.
In 1970, it served 4.3 million people and cost $577 million.
The program's all-time high participation was 27.97 million people in March of 1994.

Although to the government that is not that much money, what it is doing to the population is what is truly dragging down our country.

Attack of the Clones???

I always loved the A-Team growing up, but I could never understand how they could fire a ba-zillon rounds from a fully automatic, but nobody gets hit( never mind killed). The solution: as learned from Star Wars I The Phantom Menace, create an army of robots. It's not violent to kill off a thousand robots is it? Even StormTroopers wore robotic like masks that de-humanized them. But at least those roles were filled with actual acting extras.
Here is a good video of the "Machines"



(Insert robotic voice here) "Yes We Can"

California Wealth Tax Proposal

I got this from Coyote blog. It was too good not to share here.

Sometimes a proposed law is so wrong and so destructive, but so typical of a certain philosophical bent, that I almost wish it would pass, if for no reason than to have an Atlas Shrugged-type object example of disastrous results. Such is the case for a California ballot initiative that has qualified for the signature-gathering stage. The initiative, in part: (full text linked here)
Imposes one-time tax of at least 55% on property exceeding $20 million of a California resident or held in California by nonresident. [note that this is an asset tax, not an income tax]
Imposes one-time tax (between 36.5% - 54.3%) on income exceeding $10 million when resident dies or leaves California.
Imposes additional 17.5% tax on total incomes of taxpayers with income exceeding $150,000 if single, $250,000 if married; 35% if incomes exceed $350,000 if single, $500,000 if married.
The proceeds of this money will be used to:
To purchase 30% to 51% of the outstanding shares of stock in ExxonMobil, Chevron, General Motors, Ford, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and Citigroup, in order to ensure California has an uninterrupted source of energy and financial capital.
To drain and restore the Hetch Hetchy Valley to it’s condition at the beginning of the 20th century.
Use any Surplus funds to combat Global Warming, make infrastructure repairs and improvements, and to research alternative energy sources.
Beyond the unbelievably Marxist confiscation going on here, it begs the question of just what supply of energy and financial capital that California is not getting today that this will somehow ensure. The implication seems to be that ExxonMobil, GM, and Citigroup are too fair-minded, selling their wares too even-handily, and that California would prefer their attention tilted towards California.
Of course this initiative is profoundly immoral, so I can't do anything but deride it, but it would make for a spectacular object lesson (though one would have thought the Soviet Union's experience to be sufficient to this task, but apparently not). I am sure GM's troubles would be greatly helped by replacing its board of directors with the California State Legislature (the only American organization running a bigger deficit than GM) and replacing Citigroup's credit analysis with California social services bureaucrats. I would kind of like to see this in the same way I would love to see what happens if I threw a crate of fluorescent tubes off a 10th-floor roof -- I would never actually do it, because it would be unsafe and destructive, but I can still dream about how compelling the disaster would be.
Postscript: One could probably label this the Arizona and Nevada economic stimulation act and probably not be far off the mark.

If you follow the links and actually read the proposal it is breath-takenly absurd. ie:


The People of California find and declare all of the following:

a) The concentration of wealth in the hands of the few is inconsistent with the tenets of a democratic society.
b)Staggering sums of wealth have come to be concentrated in the hands of a tiny percentage of the population coinciding with growing poverty for tens of millions of persons, declining living standards and worsening economic security for tens of millions more.
[...]
e)Massive concentrations of financial power have fueled the globalization of the American economy, undermined America's traditional manufacturing, industrial and agricultural strength and substituted a class of money changers and speculators. The concentrated financial power has wholly undermined free democratic institutions, created a new breed of public office holder wholly beholden to it's power and reduced America to a debtor nation and a nation of debtors.

Aren't the tenants of a democratic society the fact that everybody has the freedom to do with their life what ever they want? Aren't there tens of millions of people that have started in poverty and have risen to be very wealthy? Have you ever seen the movie "The Pursuit of Happiness" with Will Smith? I just don't get this mentality. Sure everybody would like to better off, but at the expense of others?
And really do we really want to go back to the day when the US manufactured everything? I guess we are going to have to fire all the robots and machines that have taken that roll, so all these willing and able Americans can step in and do it slow and at a higher expense. I guess some peoples views of a democratic society is to take things away from those that have worked hard and give to those that don't.
Good Luck California

This Great Nation, Fairness To All

Obama in his DNC acceptance speech talking about the heros of our nation.

"In the face of that young student, who sleeps just three hours before working the night shift, I think about my mom, who raised my sister and me on her own while she worked and earned her degree, who once turned to food stamps, but was still able to send us to the best schools in the country with the help of student loans and scholarships.
[...]And when I hear a woman talk about the difficulties of starting her own business or making her way in the world, I think about my grandmother, who worked her way up from the secretarial pool to middle management, despite years of being passed over for promotions because she was a woman.She's the one who taught me about hard work. She's the one who put off buying a new car or a new dress for herself so that I could have a better life. She poured everything she had into me. "

And these impressive feats, thanks to Obama, and the Democratic message, will soon be legends of history. His vision is that no suffering will take place, every person will have health care, every one will have cable (or satellite), everybody will have a Prius to drive. "They" will provide everything that "We the People" have right to. Such as a 30 hour work week, 6 weeks vacation so that we don't go postal and go on any shooting sprees. Instead of worrying how to pay for things, we can just sign everything over to the government and they shall provide. Where $100 of our earned dollars returns at about $20. No more are the days in which you will need to rise above the economic class your in. Everybody will be middle class, except the politicians that so graciously commit their time and energy to making sure our rights (and the rights of animals and the planet) are never violated. They will probably even create a new division of government just to create more rights for the people. How can this be bad???

How to Build a Welfare State

I recently read about Frederic Bastiat. He was a French political economist in the 1800's. His views look like a page right out of the Libertarian play book (Life, Liberty, and Property). He derides government for social support of it's poor (or any one else for that matter). That is one of the biggest arguments the "left" has -- Compassion for the poor and needy. Where is your compassion if you are against food stamps? Subsidised living? Health Care for all people?

Well he explains things this way:

"[The socialists declare] that the state owes subsistence, well-being, and education to all its citizens; that it should be generous, charitable, involved in everything, devoted to everybody; ...that it should intervene directly to relieve all suffering, satisfy and anticipate all wants, furnish capital to all enterprises, enlightenment to all minds, balm for all wounds, asylums for all the unfortunate, and even aid to the point of shedding French blood, for all oppressed people on the face of the earth.Who would not like to see all these benefits flow forth upon the world from the law, as from an inexhaustible source? ...But is it possible? ...Whence does [the state] draw those resources that it is urged to dispense by way of benefits to individuals? Is it not from the individuals themselves? How, then, can these resources be increased by passing through the hands of a parasitic and voracious intermediary?...Finally...we shall see the entire people transformed into petitioners. Landed property, agriculture, industry, commerce, shipping, industrial companies, all will bestir themselves to claim favors from the state. The public treasury will be literally pillaged. Everyone will have good reasons to prove that legal fraternity should be interpreted in this sense: "Let me have the benefits, and let others pay the costs." Everyone's effort will be directed toward snatching a scrap of fraternal privilege from the legislature. The suffering classes, although having the greatest claim, will not always have the greatest success." — from Journal des Economistes (emphisis added)

And also a quote by Henry Grady Weaver from his book
THE MAINSPRING OF HUMAN PROGRESS:
"Most of the major ills of the world have been caused by well-meaning people who ignored the principle of individual freedom, except as applied to themselves, and who were obsessed with fanatical zeal to improve the lot of mankind-in-the-mass through some pet formula of their own....THE HARM DONE BY ORDINARY CRIMINALS, MURDERERS, GANGSTERS, AND THIEVES IS NEGLIGIBLE IN COMPARISON WITH THE AGONY INFLICTED UPON HUMAN BEINGS BY THE PROFESSIONAL 'DO-GOODERS', who attempt to set themselves up as gods on earth and who would ruthlessly force their views on all others - with the abiding assurance that the end justifies the means." (p. 40-1; P.P.N.S., p. 313)

Sounds like the Hollywood elite. Look how cool I am, I go to Africa and adopt babies, so I know
how government should take care of it's people. Government shouldn't have to "take care" of its people, people should take of people.

The Proper Role Of Government

In 1968 Ezra Taft Benson wrote a paper titled "The Proper Role Of Government". It explains principals of government in simple terms and, the pitfalls that will lead to the decline of our nation. I don't really see my self as uber patriotic. I do serve in the military and have tremendous respect for all those that serve as well. I do feel "emotional" every time I hear the national anthem. But honestly what I value most is the opportunity to work and prosper. I'm sure there are many freedoms I enjoy that I don't fully recognize, but really the chance to improve my economic comfort is a major quest of life.

Here is an excerpt from the paper

The Basic Error Of Marxism
According to Marxist doctrine, a human being is primarily an economic creature. In other words, his material well-being is all important; his privacy and his freedom are strictly secondary. The Soviet constitution reflects this philosophy in its emphasis on security: food, clothing, housing, medical care - the same things that might be considered in a jail. The basic concept is that the government has full responsibinsidered in a jail. The basic concept is that the government has full responsibility for the welfare of the people and , in order to discharge that responsibility, must assume control of all their activities. It is significant that in actuality the Russian people have few of the rights supposedly "guaranteed" to them in their constitution, while the American people have them in abundance even though they are not guaranteed. The reason, of course, is that material gain and economic security simply cannot be guaranteed by any government. They are the result and reward of hard work and industrious production. Unless the people bake one loaf of bread for each citizen, the government cannot guarantee that each will have one loaf to eat. Constitutions can be written, laws can be passed and imperial decrees can be issued, but unless the bread is produced, it can never be distributed.
The Real Cause Of American Prosperity
Why, then, do Americans bake more bread, manufacture more shoes and assemble more TV sets than Russians do? They do so precisely because our government does NOT guarantee these things. If it did, there would be so many accompanying taxes, controls, regulations and political manipulations that the productive genius that is America's would soon be reduced to the floundering level of waste and inefficiency now found behind the Iron Curtain. As Henry David Thoreau explained:
"This government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. IT does not educate. THE CHARACTER INHERENT IN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAS DONE ALL THAT HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED; AND IT WOULD HAVE DONE SOMEWHAT MORE, IF THE GOVERNMENT HAD NOT SOMETIMES GO IN ITS WAY. For government is an expedient by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it." (Quoted by Clarence B. Carson, THE AMERICAN TRADITION, p. 100; P.P.S.N., p.171)
In 1801 Thomas Jefferson, in his First Inaugural Address, said:
"With all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens - a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it had earned." (Works 8:3)
A Formula For Prosperity
The principle behind this American philosophy can be reduced to a rather simple formula:
Economic security for all is impossible without widespread abundance. Abundance is impossible without industrious and efficient production. Such production is impossible without energetic, willing and eager labor. This is not possible without incentive.
Of all forms of incentive - the freedom to attain a reward for one's labors is the most sustaining for most people. Sometimes called THE PROFIT MOTIVE, it is simply the right to plan and to earn and to enjoy the fruits of your labor.
This profit motive DIMINISHES as government controls, regulations and taxes INCREASE to deny the fruits of success to those who produce. Therefore, any attempt THROUGH GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTION to redistribute the material rewards of labor can only result in the eventual destruction of the productive base of society, without which real abundance and security for more than the ruling elite is quite impossible.

I would like to point out that Obama wants to do precisely what Ezra T. Benson is waring us about. I don't have a lot of faith in the politicians of this country. There seems to be a snowball effect in which government gets bigger and bigger (and personal rights get smaller and smaller). For example take universal health care: My biggest concerns are how intrusive the government will be, and how much I will have to pay. In the military medical is part of the package, but with that comes monthly safety briefings on how to climb a ladder, how to wash your hands correctly, how to spot potential safety problems in the work place, how to inspect a radio so that it wont cause a fire when plugged in etc etc... . The only things government should provide us is security, and incentive.

Robin's Hood

A few weeks ago Glenn Beck talked about taxing the rich to give to the poor. You know Robin Hood stuff. Now, I'm not rich, but I can surely see how bad an idea this is. Of course choosing a level at which you become "rich" is absurd.

Obama defined it in his interview with Rev Rick Warren:

IF YOU ARE MAKING $150 THOUSAND A YEAR OR LESS AS A FAMILY, THEN ARE YOU MIDDLE CLASS OR YOU MAY BE POOR. BUT $150 DOWN, YOU ARE BASICALLY MIDDLE CLASS. OBVIOUSLY IT DEPENDS ON REGION WHERE YOU ARE LIVING. I WOULD ARGUE THAT IF YOU ARE MAKING MORE THAN $250,000 THEN ARE YOU IN THE TOP 3, 4 PERCENT OF THIS COUNTRY. YOU DOING WELL. NOW THESE THINGS ARE ALL RELATIVE AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT EVERYBODY THAT IS MAKING OVER $250,000 IS LIVING ON EASY STREET, BUT THE QUESTION THAT I THINK WE HAVE TO ASK OURSELVES IS IF WE BELIEVE IN GOOD SCHOOLS, IF WE BELIEVE IN GOOD ROADS, IF WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT KIDS CAN GO TO COLLEGE, IF WE DON'T WANT TO LEAVE A MOUNTAIN OF DEBT FOR THE NEXT GENERATION, THEN WE'VE GOT TO PAY FOR THESE THINGS. THEY DON'T COME FOR FREE. AND IT IS IRRESPONSIBLE, I BELIEVE IT IS IRRESPONSIBLE INTER GENERATIONALLY FOR US TO INVEST OR FOR US TO SPEND $10 BILLION A MONTH ON A WAR AND NOT HAVING A WAY TO PAY FOR IT. THAT I THINK IS UNACCEPTABLE.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS UNDER THE APPROACH THAT I'M TAKING IF YOU MAKE 150 THOUSAND OR LESS YOU WILL SEE A TAX CUT. IF YOU ARE MAKING $250,000 OR MORE YOU WILL SEE A MODEST INCREASE. WHAT I'M TRYINGTO DO IS CREATE A SENSE OF BALANCE AND FAIRNESS IN OUR TAX CODE. ONE THAT WE CAN ALL AGREE ON IT SHOULD BE SIMPLER SO YOU DON'T HAVE ALL THESE LOOPHOLES AND BIG STACKS OF STUFF THAT YOU'VE GOT TO COME THROUGH WHICH WASTE A HUGE AMOUNT OF MONEY AND ALLOWS SPECIAL INTEREST TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THINGS THAT ORDINARY PEOPLE CANNOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF.(empasis added)

I like the candor in which he explains things. He makes no apology for taxing those over the $250K mark. My question is is that "balanced" or "Fair"? When you increase taxes on the rich there is a decrease in incentive to work hard to become rich. I'm not talking about those that make $20 million each year, or those that don't have to work due to their amount of wealth, but those on the cusp of that $250k. Is it worth going to 8 years of college knowing that if I am successful I will have to pay my country rather than saving my money to put my kids through college. But apparently Obama says that is where my money will be going anyways. so the question is: who is better at spending my money? Me? Government?

Glenn Beck counter points Obama:

'The rich should be willing to pay more' 'As Barack Obama said, If you believe in good schools, good roads, if we want to make sure that kids can go to college and if we don't want to leave a mountain of debt for the next generation, then...we've got to pay for these things' 'You conservative-Christians claim to be so into the Bible, why don't you read it sometime! We're supposed to take care of the poor'

Your winning, logical, reasoned arguments

1. Why? Why should anyone be willing to have their hard-earned money taken from them by force, and then wasted by an out-of-control government?
2. So, the only way to have good schools is to spend more money? Then why are some of the worst schools in America, scholastically speaking, in Washington DC, where we spend the most money per student? New York spends the most per student at $14,119 yet ranks 44th in SAT scores. DC ranks 3rd in spending-nearly $13,000 per student, yet ranks 51st, yes dead last. As for leaving a "mountain of debt for the next generation", here's a concept…CUT SPENDING!
3. We sure are. And if you can show me even ONE verse in the King James version of the Bible where it says that governments should tax their citizens more to help the poor, I'll swallow the Bible whole, join the democrat party right now, donate 50% of my income to the federal government, and do bake sale fundraisers for Barack Obama.
INDIVIDUALS have the responsibility to take care of the poor NOT governments…each person is responsible for himself and his family, then if he can't make it, his other family members should step in, then friends, then church organizations. If none of those can help then, as a last resort, the government is there. If we had these values, there would be no need to forcefully take obscene percentages of successful people's income from them.(emphasis added)