…the end of man is to know

As someone who legally cannot consume alcohol, this post is a bit of my league (or age-bracket). Regardless, I found this morning’s Red Eye cover story to unusually shocking. Apparently, some are cracking down on mixed drinks that contain more than the “standard 1.5 oz” of liquor. Critics, also known as bar owners and prohibitionists, say that bartenders too frequently don’t use jiggers to measure out alcohol. Instead, they “free pour” and use their own experience and intuition. This trend decentralizes the drink-making process, letting bartenders pour customers more than the allotted amount. The concerns of over-pouring are two-fold: money and well-being. Bar owners are terrified that bartenders who top you off are rapidly depleting inventory. Social welfare experts are more concerned that those who receive strong drinks are getting too drunk.

To this, I have three responses/thoughts:

1. Bar owners are frightened that they can’t keep track of inventory? Bartenders work for tips, not for the measly wages they get from the bar. So it is in their best interest to keep customers happy. That’s why frequent, high-tipping customers often get a little extra or will sneak a drink on the house. So are they surprised by this? No, it’s part of the business. When you stop charging $10 for some soda and cheap gin, I (or my legal counterpart) will sympathize. Clubs and bars put huge markup on alcohol, so don’t expect public support that you are running out of Skol faster than you thought.

2. Prohibitionists are not-so-cleverly masking their actual argument. By pretending to be concerned about drinkers’ welfare, they hide their bold opposition to the notion of drinking. People don’t go into a night saying, “I must have 8 drinks tonight or my life will be incomplete”. They say, “I want to get a little intoxicated and enjoy myself”. If I (read: legal counterpart) am 3 drinks in and feel drunk, then I will stop. If I am 9 drinks in and hardly feel the effects, I might go in for another. All things (such as sleep, food, and tolerance) held equal, upping alcohol content will decrease total consumption. That’s why beer is served in 12 oz. bottles and liquor is served in 1.5 oz shots. Surely people of all sobrieties can recognize the difference.To simplify the social reasons for drinking down to alcohol per glass completely misses the point. Reactionaries have turned the ideological and rhetorical equivalent of Malibu into Everclear.

3. Do we have nothing better to do with our time than study this nonsense? People get all dressed up, wait on line for hours, and go to bars/clubs for the experience, NOT because they like dropping $15 to buy the cute girl in the black dress a cosmopolitan. I’m all for pragmatism, but the whole point of a bar is to not appear pragmatic. Bar goers enjoy not worrying about things like how exact the jigger’s measurements are. A crackdown on free-pouring dehumanizes the process and destroys what it means to go to a bar. Bars would generate more attendance (and profits) if they let this crap go.

Honestly, the social police is seriously killing my buzz.

Nicky Cheese shed some light on the topic of instant runoff voting in his post yesterday. The video at the bottom of his post is pretty sweet and explains IRV quite well.

IRV allows voters to rank their candidates 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. If no candidate has a majority of the vote, then those who voted for the 3rd most popular candidate have their 2nd-choice candidate receive their ballot.

This concept is hard to explain, but easy to show.

Hypothetical of Georgia in 2008:

Obama gets 48%, McCain gets 46%, Barr gets 6%

Under the current system, Obama would win Georgia and all of its 15 electoral votes.

Under an Instant Runoff system, voters would have already decided which candidate is their 2nd and 3rd choices. Since Barr’s Libertarian Party is ideologically closer to the Republicans, let’s assume that 5% of the voters voted Barr, but put McCain as their 2nd choice and 1% of voters voted Barr, but have Obama as the second option.

This recalculates the vote totals to be: McCain 51%, Obama 49%.

The benefit of Instant Runoff Voting is huge. It allows voters to actually reveal their preferences. Though I am deeply dismayed by many of McCain’s policies and thoughts, I feel that I must vote for him to knock off Obama. If I knew that the vote would go to a run off in the even that neither candidate garnered a majority I would be free to vote for my preferred candidate without the pragmatically political ramifications.

To this end, we can get an accurate and non-damaging look at the popularity of candidates (and their parties). Those Georgians who do vote for Bob Barr risk helping Obama. Those who don’t vote for Bob Barr are denying the Libertarian candidate his rightful support.

While Instant Runoff Voting may seem appealing, it will never get off the ground. The reason is intuitive: Democrats and Republicans lose the most from IRV. They also control every level of government and the bodies which enact the switch to IRV. In a great paradox, the only way to achieve IRV is to outright win elections, which is nearly impossible without IRV.

As I have argued many times, the best way to enact large-scale political change is to use pre-existing political machinery. libertarians (small “l”) need to hijack the GOP and dominate the primaries. If they all voted for Ron Paul in the primaries, Bob Barr wouldn’t be so damn attractive. The Democrats’ support of Obama over Hillary, though the race was close, helps to define their party.

Given this post’s title, I expect lots of PragmaticallyPolitical “virgins” who are disappointed to see such a bland blog. Please forgive my shameless attempt to fuse fun and web traffic, economics with pornography.

This post is mainly to carry the message from an article on wired.com: Sex isn’t selling! Sales are down .3% and rentals are down 10-15%. Conventional wisdom always held that in a down-trodden economy, invest in illicit smokables, drinkables, and watchables.  From 2000-2002, the Standard & Poor’s Casinos and Gaming index grew 115% and the S&P 500-stock index fell 47%.  The reason is that people who are struggling, will continue to spend money on booze, cigarettes, and pornography. No way to kill the pain of unemployment like lighting up, knocking back a couple, and …well, you know. Also, these industries are so highly regulated that entry is nearly impossible. While regulation is the reason alcohol is so damn expensive, it also insulates brewers and distillers from competition. With artificial protection, there is no wonder why these companies do so well while everyone else struggles.

Charles Norton famously developed the Vice Fund in late 2002, which solely invests in gaming, alcohol, tobacco, and brewer/vintner companies. The fund has fallen almost 9% YTD, but otherwise has had good returns over the past few years. I say let hippies and philanthropists invest in “Green” and “Humanitarian” funds, I’d have much more fun knowing that buying some 6-packs and playing slots is boosting my portfolio.

Yet, there is this odd case of pornography, which hasn’t benefited from our economic woes. My hunch is that sales and rentals are falling off because the government can no longer protect the industry. If a company goes online, and especially if it isn’t attempting to turn a profit,  there are no barriers to entry. As myriad celebrities have proven, any idiot with a video tape and a computer can distribute a sex tape. The government is, thankfully, powerless to stop the free market.

The other cause of hard times for the adult film industry is pirating. Even those movies which are professionally produced and distributed can be had for free. Various torrent websites allow for illegal downloading of anything from Tommy Lee’s new CD to Tommy Lee’s sex tape. Therefore, there is little reason for anyone with high-speed internet access and a desire for law-breaking to go to a store and buy a DVD.

While the internet has made nearly every industry (except for USPS) harder, better, faster, stronger, adult films have seen a skyrocket in supply and a decreased demand. All of this spells doom for our video vixens.

Though I adamantly and truthfully deny any illegal behavior, I don’t think it is immoral, unimportant, or even childish to worry that the formal viewing of the world’s oldest profession may be going out of style.

I spent the weekend down at Americans for Prosperity’s Defending the American Dream conference down in Austin, TX. The weekend served as a high-quality sounding board for free-marketeers. Some of the highlights:

The Ron Paul people are intensely angry with the Republican Party. Apparently, delegates for Rep. Paul at the TX GOP Convention were shouted down, insulted, and treated like second-class Republicans. They insist that they did not leave the Republican Party. Instead, the GOP left them. This argument certainly carries a great deal of weight, given that spending has greatly increased and our foreign policy has become more interventionist. In any event, the divide between libertarian conservatives and the party-line was noticeable and tense.

Bob Novak spoke very well and intelligently described the political landscape. When I met him, he looked disheveled and had a sizable stain on the vest of his 3-piece suit. After telling him that I attend Northwestern University, he semi-seriously sneered and told that he is an Illini (University of Illinois alum). Good guy, though.

Barry Goldwater Jr. gave a solid speech. He keynoted and delivered surprisingly funny jokes. I got a chance to meet him and he didn’t disappoint. He was the only speaker I met who wanted to shake my hand for the photo. He also was having problems with his glasses during an interview. One of the staffers ran and grabbed him an extra pair. By fate (or intent), the new pair was identical to the classic black, thick glasses of Goldwater’s more famous father. Unfortunately, I lacked the onions to ask Mr. Goldwater Jr. to wear the black glasses in my photo-op.

Can you tell the difference?

I also had the opportunity to track down Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr as he checked into the hotel. After chasing him to the elevator, I was able to talk to him briefly. He was dressed in cowboy boots, stylish acid-washed jeans, and a white button-down shirt with black embroidery over the left-breast. Barr also felt it necessary to have roughly 4 of his buttons undone, to show off his plain white t underneath. AFter taking photos, he got very solemn and said, “Now I want to you boys something (I was with fellow Sam Adams Alliance interns at the time) that Charlton Heston told me…” At this point, I was really excited. Bob Barr was going to impart wisdom from Mr. NRA! “Never take photos with two cameras at the same time. Because the flash. The flash. The flash can alter the photos.” So that was Bob Barr. He gave us some b.s. advice about photo-taking. On the bright side, he shook all of our hands and thanked us for our support.

For those who haven’t forgotten that I doubt I will vote for Barr in November, take solace in knowing that I didn’t lie. I said “Representative Barr! Rep. Barr. I’m a big fan and wish you the best of luck in November”. Both of those things are true. I like most of his policies and do hope he does well. I just hope that he doesn’t hijack the Libertarian/libertarian movement and/or deliver Obama the White House.

However, if McCain appears even more unelectable and continues to prove his economic ignorance, I might end up voting for the hippest 59 year-old guy I will ever meet. And then fly in the face of a past blog post.

Is it pragmatic? I’d like to think so.

Readers, I have a secret. A deep, dark secret. One that is so telling, it could ruin my legitimacy as a politico. I, Pragmatically Political, am a huge sports fan. I will watch and analyze virtually any competitive activity. I specialize in baseball, basketball, football, and college. I’d be lying if I didn’t say Northwestern’s Big 10 membership was a monster draw for me. Yesterday was to be the sports fans’ dream. And so begins today’s tale.

I had the best laid plans. After work, I was to buy the PS2 version of NCAA ‘09 and watch the all-Star game while testing out the new game. Instead, what ensued was a 7 hour marathon of stress, disappointment, and frustration.

I’m reasonably sure that I’m the only video gamer who still plays on a PlayStation2. I’m too cheap, lazy, and indecisive to decide if I want a PS3 or an XBOX360 (suggestions welcome!). The prices keep falling, the bugs are being removed, and I have to assume that eventually (read: by Christmas 2013) one system will reign supreme. Until then, I’m playing a game with limited graphics and fewer features without online capability and on a 17 inch used TV that I bought off a guy for $20. The game itself is good, but not great. The gameplay is still smooth, but EA Sports added very few new features/options to the PS2 version. I think I’m finally becoming tired with the series that has defined my childhood/adolescence/young adulthood.

I started my Dynasty mode as my beloved Northwestern Wildcats and haven’t won my first 3 matchups, losing to the likes of football lightweights Syracuse, Duke, and Southern Illinois. In short, EA made this year’s version ridiculously difficult. Any pass that isn’t directed to a receiver who is WIDE open is an interception. I threw 8 interceptions on my first 11 pass attempts against Syracuse. Since I prefer to play on Heisman (the hardest difficulty setting), I will pretend that last night never happened and start a new dynasty tonight on All-American (the 2nd hardest setting). In short, I feel emasculated, embarrassed, and humbled. Machine: 1, Man: 0.

When I wasn’t embarrassing myself and my revered Northwestern Wildcats, I figured I could enjoy the All-Star game. Being on Central time, the game started an hour earlier than I’m used to, so I hoped to catch up on some sleep. Somehow the sports deities thought it would be funny to have the game last until nearly 2 AM EST. Each team blew huge opportunities to take the lead/win it outright. Timely defense, base-running blunders, and clutch pitching were the order of the night (and early morning). The clear dud was Florida 2nd baseman Dan Uggla. This all-star grounded into an inning-ending double play with runners at 1st and 3rd in the top of the 10th inning. He then made two consecutive errors to put runners at 1st and 3rd for the AL in the bottom of the inning…he was saved by solid defense and timely pitching from Aaron Cook. In the top of the 12th, Uggla struck out with the bases loaded and one out. A simple sacrifice fly would have given the NL the lead, but Uggla failed again.

When all was said and done, this was Dan Uggla’s night: 0 for 4 with 3 strikeouts and 6 men left on base. He also had THREE errors. Congratulations Dan Uggla, you have now become the focus of a witch hunt for fans of every NL team which thinks it has a chance to get to the World Series. Dan Uggla, meet Steve Bartman.

So that was my night. I sucked at playing an inferior game on an inferior system. Then I cost myself 2-3 hours of sleep staying up all night to watch the NL suck it up.

In case you were curious, the only player on an all-Star roster to not play was Tim Lincecum of my beloved San Francisco Giants. This stud pitcher was not available because he was hospitalized with flu-like symptoms. In a game which showcases the best of the best, I didn’t get a chance to see my favorite baseball player. Awesome. As bad as my day was, I can’t imagine it being much worse than having the undignified title as the only player to not appear in what might be the best all-star game of all-time.

I’ll try to keep up my blogging for the remainder of the week, but I leave for Austin, TX tomorrow. I’ll be at the Americans for Prosperity Conference. In the meantime, Go U Northwestern and Hook ‘Em Horns!

As a libertarian (small “l”), I’m not supposed to be concerned with the homeless. On a purely socio-economic level, homelessness is the free market’s way of punishing those who don’t or can’t contribute to society. Yet, I am still looking for the elusive libertarian who is willing to let the physically, mentally, and/or psychologically handicapped starve on the streets. At the same time, it is highly debatable how much the homeless are willing to do to end their own despair. How fitting that I bring this up the night after #1 draft choice - turned tattooed alcoholic drug-addict - turned baseball all-star Josh Hamilton set the record for most home runs in a single round of Home Run Derby in one of the most remarkable tales of redemption:

I recently viewed John Stossel’s clip on homelessness. To be fair, Stossel is very free-market and presented a relatively one-sided view. He offers a cynical look at the homeless. The video suggests that the homeless milk the system, and our sympathy, becoming dependent. When offered a chance to rise above their situation with honest labor, they pass. They voluntarily choose their low standard-of-living in order to not have to work.

As if Stossel’s experiment of 12 homeless people (where only 1 actually shows up to mow a lawn for $6/hour) wasn’t anecdotal enough, I have my own vignette to share. This morning I stopped off at the 7-11 right by the El stop. I go in and grab my delicious $.99 23 oz. Arizona Iced Tea. While on line to pay for my Nectar of the Gods, I am behind a woman who is clearly homeless. Her clothes are ragged, her skin is worn, and most of her teeth are missing. I felt extremely awkward in my slacks, shined shoes, and button-down shirt. I was off to intern at a prestigious (you hear that, Sam Adams?) political outreach firm to pass the summer in between my education at a prestigious (you hear that, Northwestern?) university. She was off to panhandle and find her next meal. So the woman gathers her loose change and crumpled dollar bills. I tried not to see what she was purchasing out of respect. However, I couldn’t help but let my jaw drop slightly as she bought four $1 scratch-off lottery tickets.

I won’t completely speculate, but my hunch is this: a woman who is malnourished and lacking in the basics of an American lifestyle chose to spend “her” money on lottery tickets. I use the quotation marks around her because she was undoubtedly given that money by those who wanted to make sure she got a hot meal that day. That money was a gift, implicitly intended for necessities. If she told passerbys that she wanted to see if she could hit it big, then I doubt she would have the money to be buying up Mega Millions cards.

So what does this mean?

I think our society and government needs a more objective evaluation of the homeless situation. Why are they homeless? Are they being fed, clothed, and housed? I WANT to believe that the homeless need my help, and my spare change. More importantly, I NEED to believe that any money I give is going to serve a greater good. I don’t want to live in a society where I can rationally look down and psychologically spit on the poor men and women who go through the degrading process of asking random strangers for money so they can survive another day.

Instead of liberal groups which will believe the most far-fetched tales, let’s find some facts. It may be politically-correct and emotionally fulfilling to serve the needy, but it might not be necessary. Enabling a free-rider problem could be seen as having massive psychological and economic damages on the rest of the economy. All of the time and money that goes into charity work and government programs might be doing little more than empowering the lazy. Maybe.

I won’t wholly condemn the homeless community as a bunch of lazy, stupid, ne’er-do-wells because of one morning in a Chicago 7-11 and a John Stossel documentary. But, I certainly have to wonder about giving money to the homeless. If there are ample soup kitchens and shelters, where is my money going? If the basics are being covered by the government and private charity, what role am I playing as individual donor? Am I an enabler of drug addiction and abuse? Am I purely a symbol of human compassion? Am I simply a nameless face who gave a woman some dignity and let her make a luxury purchase? I don’t have the answers, but the questions are telling. I don’t know what I “believe” because I think each homeless person has his/her own unique story that represents a unique blend of bad circumstances and bad personal decisions.

Hopefully this sparks a discussion and gets people thinking. I assure you that those who offer carte blanche to the homeless and those who rank them just above dirt on the social hierarchy both could benefit from some good old-fashioned, political discourse.

Unrelated note: for those of you who know me personally (hi, mom and dad!), you surely must know that today is a sacred holiday for me. It marks the release of NCAA Football 2009, the newest installment of the greatest video game series ever. I think this year will mark the 9th straight year that I have purchased it. Surely even the most uninspired must worship at the altar:

Edit: changed to cover up for my stupidity and apparent lack of school spirit

Since my last legitimate post, the US economy received another shock in the form of the government’s presumed bailout of Fannie and Freddie. There seems to be some confusion over what exactly is going on.

In the 1930s, the US government established Fannie Mae as a means of insuring loans. In the 1970s, Freddie Mac was created for similar purposes. Even though these institutions were government-created, they are publicly traded “private” companies. Even though they are “private” companies, they are privy to unique government goodies. And therein lies the rub:

Hopefully you’re recognizing the inherent flaw in this whole plan. The government is insuring the viability of organizations that profit off of risk. If Fannie and Freddie take on more loans, they get more money. If the loans are paid back, that’s great. If the borrowers default, the government still pays off Fannie and Freddie. In short, this creates a moral hazard (a situation in which the negative consequences of a particular action do not follow on the actor). As any economics, poli sci, or philosophy course will teach you, moral hazards are BAD NEWS. Moral hazards artificially encourage people to take too many risks. It is only when those risks don’t pan out that we even become aware of the situation. Such is the case with Fannie and Freddie.

So where are we at now? Well, we’re at a place where two companies are holding $5 trillion of liabilities (money that needs to be paid back to various people and institutions). The media continually forgets that Fannie and Freddie also have trillions of dollars of assets (money that it has to pay off the aforementioned liabilities). So before we get ahead of ourselves, remember that we are NOT instantly $5 trillion in the hole. At the same time, we don’t know exactly how much F & F are in debt. We do know that in the past 2 years, they have combined to lose $100 billion ($300 for every man, woman, and child in the nation).

Even the most hard-line of conservatives acknowledge the need for a government bailout. There is simply no way that the government can watch and wait to see if two of the largest financial institutions in the world collapse. The proposed plan has the United States government forcing Fannie and Freddie to print new stock shares and having the government buy those shares. This way the companies get desperately needed money and the government formalizes its controlling interests.

Yet, this plan will be fully-funded by the American taxpayer. The government will buy stock shares and fund it through tax revenue. Also, the increase of stock shares will decrease F & F stockowner’s value, due to the decreasing value of each additional share. Worse, the increase spending will serve to spur the same inflation that we are trying to prevent. All in all, the buyout plan is the least-worst option.

Hopefully, voters and politicians can learn something from this debacle.

Voters: be prudent with your money and lending patterns. Borrow less and don’t borrow money you can’t repay. Those who have taken out bad loans now pay for it with higher taxes. Worse, good borrowers also have to share some of the burden.

Politicians: stop creating pseudo-private organizations. Public companies suck, but they at least have some element of oversight and social welfare in mind. Private companies usually benefit from desiring profit, but do carry more risk. If you MUST make something government-run, don’t let it be traded on the stock market and NEVER let companies seek profit while guaranteeing their viability.

The great tragedy of this debacle is two-fold. First, the government’s own ineptitude in creating these institutions is to blame. Moreover, the government now must enhance its powers to reign in F & F. How politically unfortunate that the government gets too powerful and then needs to be even more powerful to slay its own monster. Second, the honest citizen-consumers who are diligent in their finances are now responsible for those who can’t repay their debts. How ironic that the low-income individuals who indulged their dreams of home or business ownership and failed, largely don’t pay federal income tax. Therefore, they don’t have to pay a dime to support the government bailout. This isn’t progressive income redistribution. This robbing from the intelligent to cover the incompetent.

And that is the pragmatic reality of Fannie and Freddie.

Happy Friday, y’all!

Even though most of you probably didn’t notice, I am juuuuust arrogant enough to think you wanted to check out this week’s N.E.W. earlier in the day. This site was accidentally re-directing visitors to the American Majority site. In the meantime, I was over at the Bat Cave sifting through this week’s worst of the worst. Without any further ado: SOME DUDE CALLED TO COMPLAIN TO THE COPS THAT HE PAID FOR CRACK HE DIDN’T RECEIVE.

Like all N.E.W.s, here are some thoughts/questions/things keep that keep me up at night:

1. How dumb do you have to be to call the cops? What basic step of human logic is missing that causes one to deduce from “I’m committing a crime” to “I should tell the cops about this”? Did Max Minnefield not think he was committing a crime? Did he think that the cops are more concerned about getting him his 8 dollars back than about a crack problem which has ravaged many low-income neighborhoods throughout the country? Does he understand the value of rhetorical questions regarding his competence?

2. Is it bad that the charges were dropped? The defense attorney’s brilliant defense of “Whether a drug deal went down or not, you can’t prove it. My client doesn’t have any crack on him. We can sit here and argue that he wants crack, but that’s not a crime” deserves some sort of award. Keeping his moron of a client out of jail, a mental ward, or an elementary school is great for him, but bad for society.

Can we legislate stupidity? Does it make me un-American to earnestly want people who haven’t officially committed a crime to be in jail? Shouldn’t people who can’t function in society not be in society? In some cases, they actually can go to jail!

3. Eight dollars? The drug deal gone wrong cost a total of eight dollars. Granted, I know nothing about East Hartford’s drug market (you hear that, mom and dad? I know NOTHING about drugs!), but 8 bucks seems awful cheap. I know that crack is the poor man’s cocaine, but 8 dollars? If a drug habit is so affordable, shouldn’t we all fall off the straight-edge wagon?

Lest we forget, Whitney is too rich to do crack. So don’t go lumping her with those poor folks! If you want to suggest that she does coke, then I guess that goes unchallenged.

This is how bad drug deals are supposed to shake down. No cops needed. Just drugs, money, and some bad background music.

Most people tend to be politically “moderate” and/or unregistered. Frankly, I can’t blame them. If you don’t know what you are talking about, always acknowledge the good and the bad of each argument. If you do know what you are talking about, you can always stab holes in the arguments of extremists. Aside from political reasons (which will hopefully be explored in a future blogpost), the two-party system is so successful because there is always a place for a moderate. Voting for a major party candidate doesn’t require a thought-out, complete, and complex political ideology.

When I’m not patting myself on the back for my intellectual independence, I generally define myself a a pragmatic libertarian. Supporting individual liberties and the potential gains of a free market economy are two notions that I hold dear, but not sacred. Generally, when I am in an environment that accurately depicts the American polity, I am viewed as out-of-touch. Being an agnostic angers the devout. Opposing gay marriage ticks off the left. Wanting to end American cultural & military imperialism infuriates the neocons. But when I am with a group of hardline libertarians, I don’t always fit in either. I didn’t develop a political philosophy and then extrapolate out policy views. I look at policies and preferences that I have and have been tirelessly working to build an ideological construct and context.

I provide this bio in a post and not my About page because I believe that we, as politically informed citizens, can do better. We can be better at understanding, analyzing, and recognizing alternative theories and beliefs. Socialism is not an illness, neoconservatism is no affliction, communism does not suggest a hormonal imbalance, and you don’t need a learning disorder to support Ron Paul.

A huge part of the political right is nationalism where:

Making English the official language is a priority. Having Barack Obama encourage citizens to speak Spanish is considered a great offense. A culture war appears to be looming. The whites must prepare for physical, rhetorical, and intellectual warfare.

I find this strain of conservatism/libertarianism to be dangerous. Though I wholly reject Obama’s notion that immigrants will learn to speak English and we shouldn’t be concerned, I support the idea of introducing Americans to the globalized world by having us learn new languages. The baseless accusations that liberals and minorities are somehow a drain on society seems all to familiar to me. The demonization of a particular population during a low-point of national strength and pride has happened before. And the results have been disastrous. While I sincerely doubt the United States’ ability or desire to start a racial war, the seeds of ethnic resentment are growing. Obama’s presidential aspirations are simply bringing long-held divisions to the forefront.

The point of this entry is not to rail against any particular ideology, but to plead for tolerance. Contrary to what the left and the right will contend, “tolerance” means that you tolerate something. You don’t have to like it or encourage it. You also can’t destroy it. You simply recognize its right to exist. Instead of using smear tactics, racism, and name-calling, let’s take a step to think about who is on the other side of aisle.

You catch more political converts with honey than with vinegar.

Editor’s Note: the blog post’s title is a reference to the (un)official mantra of Sunshine Review, a wiki which supports government transparency and exposes corruption/incompetence.

In a span of 6 hours, I have been intellectually and financially ravaged. The very underpinnings of a free-market economy have been challenged. Not once, but twice!

First, I swung by the local dry cleaners to clean 5 shirts and 3 pants. I looked around the store for a price list, and it wasn’t posted anywhere. In all honesty, I should have asked for a price sheet, but I was in a hurry and there wasn’t a cleaners within a mile of my residence (I don’t have a car and didn’t feel like walking 10-15 minutes at 7:30 AM). I figured the price couldn’t be that high. So I instinctively pull out a $20 as I’m being rung up (a shirt is usually $1 and I guessed pants would be $3). The grand total? $32! I had to spend $32 to dry clean 5 shirts and 3 pants.

Later in the day, I stopped by Jimmy John’s (a great subs place in the Chicagoland area) for lunch. I peruse the menu and settle for a tuna salad sub. While I’m ordering, the nice employee asks, “Would you like cheese?”. I respond “sure”. Like any red-blooded American, I occasionally prefer my sandwiches to include thin slices of processed and/or enzymed dairy products.

She rings me up for a price that I thought was a bit high. Only when I returned to the office to enjoy the sandwich did I think to check the receipt. That Jimmy John’s Jezebel (J-cubed, for short) charged me an additional $.99 for 2 slices of cheese! Did she ever tell me that cheese would cost extra? No. She offered cheese as casually as she took my hard-earned money.

I, PragmaticallyPolitical, got fooled twice.

To this end, I do accept some responsibility for being overcharged (twice!). I should have asked prices more clearly. One of the central notions of liberal economic thought, and libertarian political thought, is that no one is more careful with his/her own welfare than the individual.

Aside from being slightly humorous, what do these tales tell us? I offer to you that the United States economy is ill-prepared for capitalism. Though I am not an unconditional, raging free-marketeer, I do believe that the private sector best provides for society’s wants and needs. The government can handle roads, defense, basic welfare issues, and legal enforcement. The free market gets pretty much everything else. Yet, if we are at a point where prices need not be posted and extra changes can mysteriously appear on bills, then we have some work to do. The consumer must always be offered sufficient information to make a reasoned, rational decision.

The problem of ignorance extends from economics and into politics. We often fail to ask the hard questions of the candidates they support. Bob Barr supporters shy away from addressing Barr’s electability and potential role as electoral spoiler. McCainiacs don’t want to talk about McCain’s age or curmudgeonly appearance. Obamaniacs would sooner vote for McCain than actually talk about the issues…let alone name a single legislative accomplishment Obama has made in 3 years on the Senate floor. Candidates offer unbalanced budgets and corporate loopholes with a cheese-ier smile than J-cubed gave me. They hide the prices (social, political, and economic) of their platforms and hope you’ll go along with it because they present a good image, use the right buzzwords, and are a member of the right party. Usually, it works.

Consumers: be more prudent and ask more questions. It is the only way you can maximize your happiness and make the best possible choices.

Producers: help us out and be more overt. Once you lose the trust of the market, you cannot get it back. I doubt I shall ever return to that dreaded cleaners on Noyes Street and now will gladly walk a mile and return to my old trusted friends, BC Cleaners. Meanwhile, J cubed makes me want to avoid Jimmy John’s more than Barack Obama avoids talking about the issues (SLAM!).

Thinking: it’s pragmatic.

Roger Daltrey: solving free-market economics in a limited-information environment since 1964!