…the end of man is to know

10. Sarah Palin has named her kids Bristol, Piper, Track, Willow, and Trig.

9. She has taken on corrupt Alaskan bureaucrats. She has angered Senator Ted Stevens and strongly supported her Lieutenant Governor’s bid to unseat 18-term congressman Don Young in the Republican Primary.

8. In light of McCain’s health problems: Sarah Palin runs marathons.

7. She is a moose hunter. Not a Bull-Moose hunter, but actual Moose. (Mooses? Meese? Moosen?)

6. Palin’s husband works as a commerical fisherman and is in a labor union…can’t much more blue-collar than that.

5. Palin’s husband is a champion snowmobile racer, winning the Tesoro Iron Dog, billed as the world’s longest snowmobile race, four times.

4. Her eldest son, Track, will be going to Iraq with the US Army next month, not unlike the other VP candidate

3. In 1984, Palin was named Miss Wasilla and runner-up as Miss Alaska.

2. Her youngest son, Trig, was born in April with Down’s Syndrome. Palin has made a point to talk about her son and her decision to not have an abortion despite knowing about Trig’s condition during pregnancy.

And….the best thing about Sarah Palin is:

Her parents were called this morning by their son-in-law to listen to the radio for a special announcement. They almost missed hearing about their daughter’s VP nomination because they were *drumroll* CARIBOU HUNTING.

Lest there be no doubt: the GOP has returned to the party of small government, increased transparency, and support the working-class!

McCAIN-PALIN 2008!

YES HE CAN! YES SHE CAN! YES THEY CAN!

In what is the most “No ‘Effing Way” of every “No ‘Effing Way” I have written, McCain has pulled a rabbit out of his hat. Everyone had Romney, Pawlenty, or Lieberman as the top 3 with Condi, Cantor, and Kay Bailey Hutchinson in the second tier. Instead, he completely hoodwinks the entire country and launches Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate.

I always thought she was a great pick, but her lack of media coverage and speculation made me think it wasn’t going to happen. Serious props to The Midnight Ride, who called Palin as a VP pick in late June. Also, Madison Classical Liberal talked about her in early July. Finally, Extremism in Defense of Liberty also called it in late June. I privately talked to Extremism, Midnight Ride, and The Silent Majority about it, but I didn’t have the onions. I was weak and didn’t want to the risk in formally endorsing her. I was wrong.

Palin is a TREMENDOUS pick for a ton of reasons, increasing in legitimacy:

1. She is a woman. There is no bigger middle finger to Obama’s “post-racial” campaign than putting a woman on the ticket. It’s hard to argue you have a monopoly on change when Palin is the first woman with a serious shot to be in the White House (no, Geraldine Ferraro does not count).

1A. Moreover, this could get the Hillary supporters. Clintonites have long argued that Obama and the media were sexist and unfairly cruel to Hillary. Now that Clinton is out of the race, female voters who want to fight sexism will be drawn to Palin. She has a son with Down’s Syndrome and is a former beauty queen. Palin is feminine and has definite appeal to disgruntled female voters looking for a role model.

1B. Palin is tough to beat in a debate. As someone who spent 5 years in speech and debate, I would dread going toe-to-toe with a female, especially an accomplished and intelligent one. It is hard to be a male and go offensive against a female. The fact of the matter is that anytime a guy gets aggressive, he runs the risk of being perceived as a know-it-all sexist pig. While Palin has to face the prospect of being seen as an icy bitch if she gets aggressive, this puts a huge burden on Biden in the VP debate.

1 C. Palin is EXTREMELY attractive. This is a stupid reason. Okay, it’s a really stupid reason. At the end of the day, thousands upon thousands of males will vote for “The Hot Chick”. I think it is exceedingly shallow to vote based on aesthetics, but if it means helping out the conservative movement, I won’t resist. Behold, the new White House Hottie:

2. Palin has real conservative credentials. Any Evangelicals who didn’t trust McCain, must vote GOP. Any small-government libertarians don’t have to waste a vote on Bob Barr. Palin took on the most corrupt state in the country, Alaska, at a time that what was really hard. Ted Stevens is terribly corrupt. The Murkowski family is a dynasty of corrupt, incompetent leaders. Palin has gotten rid of superfluous government expenditures and slashed the budget. She has sound energy policy and is the ultimate on how to reduce oil prices.

3. She balances out this ticket in a way that no other candidate could. Male-female. Old-young. Experienced-fresh. Senator-Governor. There is nothing “missing” from this ticket. There is no weak link that applies to both candidates. They have strengths which back up the other’s weaknesses. Even if Obama wants to hammer Palin on experience, it’s tough-sledding. Obama has 3.5 years of experience in the Senate and Palin as 1.5 years experience as Governor. That difference is relatively small. Also, Palin has been in the City Council from ‘92-’96 and served on Alaska’s Oil & Gas Commission, before resigning in protest of the lack of ethics. She is on the young side, but has achieved great things.

Perhaps Palin’s (and McCain’s) greatest achievement? Taking ALL of the wind out of Obama’s sails, bumping him from the top of the headlines and making this race even more competitive.

If John McCain sends out a telegram (we know he doesn’t do text messaging), I really want it to say, “McCain-Lieberman. Tell that Obama boy to take his partisanship and shove it…” Alas, it won’t.

Before I crash the bi-partisan party, humor me as I look at all the positives:

1. Lieberman still caucuses with the Democrats, but could be powerful in slamming them. He was kicked out by the Democrats after losing his primary to Ned LaMont. After no Democrat asked for his support in 2008 and McCain did, Lieberman officially supported Johnny Mac because he wants to cut through partisan hackery. As a punishment, the Democrats stripped Lieberman of his superdelegate status, making him the same as an *bad pun coming in 3,2,1* average Joe.

Lieberman could be effective in talking about how the Democrats have failed him, and America. His public disputes with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi could be very effective. If Obama wants to pretend that he has great bi-partisan support, he will have a hard time selling the American people if Lieberman is on the other side. Also, McCain’s negative ads may not seem so harsh since they are coming from both sides of the aisle.

2. He is a moderate liberal on domestic issues. libertarianism (small “l” is intentional) is growing as a political movement. The public is seeing the value in enhancing personal liberty. Whether that means low taxes through the elimination of superfluous issues or protecting a “woman’s right to choose”, libertarianism is an appealing philosophy. With McCain running policy, he can hold the conservative base together while Lieberman dances on the sidelines and convinces confused liberals to jump ship. Unless voters are willing to bet on McCain’s death AND a Supreme Court vacancy, Lieberman will be helpless to promote a progressive social agenda on the courts. In any event, some voters are on the fence and a pro-choice VP on the GOP ticket could be just enticing enough.

3. If McCain doubles-down on experience, they could absolutely tear apart Obama-Biden. Obama took Biden because he knew he was lacking in experience. Four years in the Senate simply doesn’t cut it to be a successful President. Biden brings 35 years in the Senate and is the Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee. These solid credentials will be thrown out if McCain takes Lieberman.

Think of it this way: if McCain takes a foreign policy lightweight, like Romney or Pawlenty, then McCain can crush Obama, but Biden will hit Romney/Pawlenty in debates. Though the Presidential debates are more visible and more important, not taking Lieberman mitigates McCain’s great policy advantage.

With Lieberman, McCain gets to maintain a strong edge on foreign policy AND accuse Obama of being a hypocrite by taking a Washington Insider as a running mate. It’s win-win.

4. Lieberman is old and will not seek a second term. In this race, the only way McCain can win is to be far as possible from party identification. In a generic election, voters prefer Republicans to Democrats by double-digits. Therefore, it is crucial to make this election as non-generic as possible. McCain can win on the platform of being a maverick outsider. Bringing in Lieberman fits that mold. Given their ages, it is a sure bet that neither will run in 2012. The White House will have two men who have proudly served their country and are immune to the rigors of campaigning for re-election or kowtowing to party bosses. If America wants to give it a try, it can get four years of good, honest politicians working for the people, not themselves. That is a powerful message, but is incumbent upon McCain and Lieberman promising not to seek re-election.

5. Lieberman is Jewish. I know that being Jewish and in politics is not rare enough to be “special”, it would dispel a few myths and problems for the GOP. First, if Obama wants to be the first bi-racial person in the White House, then McCain can ask Americans to put the first non-Christian in the White House. The DNC spent all night last night focusing in on minorities (Pelosi: female Italian-American, Jesse Jackson Jr: black, Ted Kennedy: catholic, Obama’s half-sister: Asian, Michelle Obama: black). It is hard to call the GOP the WASP party when it’s VP nominee is Jewish.

Also, being Jewish offers electoral advantages. Prior to Obama’s run, Jews were the most partisan demographic, including African-Americans and Hispanics. Lieberman will certainly appeal to Jewish voters and can go hog wild on Obama’s anti-Israel stance (call me anti-anti-Semitic, but I’m pretty sure Lieberman could have a field day talking to Jewish retirees in Boca Raton about Obama’s relationship with Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan). While most Jews are in solid blue states, Florida, Colorado, Pennsylvania and Nevada are battlegrounds and could use any boost possible.

The negatives:

1. McCain is already too far to the left. The conservative base is pretty unhappy with McCain. Campaign finance reform, a path to citizenship for illegals, opposing torture, and waffling on the Bush tax cuts are all very damaging. McCain got beat by Bush in 2000, because the Rove machine turned out the Evangelicals. McCain certainly will have trouble doing that if he has a pro-choice running mate who is mildly sympathetic to gay rights. If McCain can’t hold together the conservative base, there is no amount of moderates that can save him.

2. Lieberman is hawkish, hurting chances of building a bi-partisan coalition. If the Democrats want to win this election on the drumbeat of failure in Iraq, then Lieberman doesn’t help McCain. Democrats can turn the tables and say that it didn’t leave Lieberman, Lieberman left the party. Joe’s hawkish stances on Iraq, Iran, and Israel are all directly at-odds with the Democratic Party’s platforms. The Democrats will only need to make a slight alteration from “The Republicans caused this war and the war needs to stop” to “the War Hawks caused this war and the war needs to stop”. It’s a pretty simple sidestep and mitigates the appearance of bi-partisanship.

3. Lieberman is too old. If you thought the charges of senility on McCain were bad, wait until he gets Lieberman. The campaign will be branded Grumpy Old Men. I think of Walter Matthau as more McCain and Jack Lemmon more Lieberman, but the Obama people can sort it out. As Obama is trying to show, it is very easy to cast old people as “out of touch”. And that is exactly how the Dems will play it.

The easiest way to win an election is to get 50.1% of the population as close as possible to the edge of not voting for you. The GOP needs a big coalition to take down Obama. To cater to multiple groups, it must be willing to risk losing them. But it cannot afford to. The question is whether or not McCain-Lieberman pushes to the Evangelicals into staying home. If not, this pick will all but seal a Republican victory. It is this question that is tearing up the McCain War Room.

How delightful that just after my post about the glory of the Olympics, I get to discuss war. American media has been very kind in not reporting various international conflicts that don’t directly involve the United States. However, when a petro-state that has nuclear capability and a checkered past invades a democratic ally, it tends to get some press.

Russia has swiftly come to the military aid of South Ossetia, a separatist region of Georgia. Reminder: Georgia is a former Soviet republic, not just the home of Ty Cobb, sweet tea, and T.I

The question is: what should we do? Well here are the options:

1. Military intervention:

As far as I’m concerned, this is off the table. We absolutely can’t send more American troops into harm’s way. We have lost billions of dollars and thousands of lives in the Middle East, and are spread too thin. More broadly, the United States’ soft power has been crippled by interventions. Proceeding without international consent would destroy whatever shred of diplomatic sway we have.

2. Condemn from afar

Virginia Governor Tom Kaine would have us believe that Barack Obama’s foreign policy is not just effective, but also is causing international change. Governor Kaine said, “And I’m very, very happy that the Senator’s request for a ceasefire has been complied with by President Medvedev.”

Because we all know that the Russian President is making monumental foreign policy decisions based on the words of an American presidential candidate who hasn’t even been officially nominated by his party.

Allow me to yet again remind Barack that HE IS NOT PRESIDENT. Allow me to also remind Tom Kaine that HE IS NOT THE VICE-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE OF SOMEONE WHO HAS NOT YET BEEN PUT IN OFFICE! Simply hanging out in Washington D.C. and saying that violence is bad is pointless.

3. Sanction

I think that sanctions are the most effective way to deal with quasi-rogue states. I use “quasi” because I believe that Russia is willing to stand in the face of the international consensus, but still has very calculated, rational decisions. However, they simply will not be enacted. Industrialized states are simply too reliant on Russian oil and natural gas. More importantly, Russia knows that it can outlast Europe. A few days of decreased energy revenue is far less painful than sending massive price shocks through the oil and gas market.

4. Prepare an alternate grand strategy

Here is the most effective, and complex, solution. The United States needs to recognize that the former USSR will continue to take any lands it can. Like the board game Risk, you always take neighboring territories that are easily defeated and ill-defended. Therefore, the United States must recreate a situation which counterbalances and deters Russian aggression. A meeting between NATO and allied former Soviet republics is in order.

When NATO was first formed, it was created as a means of mutual protection from a Soviet invasion. I now suggest a NATO backed alliance among emerging Eastern European democracies. Countries like Georgia, Ukraine, and the “-stans” must publicly work together. Using their own political and economic resources, create a union which will oppose Russian entanglements.

I cannot offer guarentees that a rag-tag group of fledging countries can hold off Russian invasions, but I think it is the best available option. At the same time, the world needs to be talking with Russia. Let’s the naiive discourse and put Russia’s intentions on the table. There is enough room in the world for Russia as a regional power. Russia has a large population, military, and economy. It deserves a commensurate amount of influence. Yet, influence is earned. Russia can offer strong leadership, but needs to be kept under the watchful eye of the international community.

Whether it’s former Soviet Republics or the international community, all would be wise to remember Ben Franklin’s words, “we must all hang together, or assuredly we shall hang separately”.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Anyone who has taken econ 101 knows that trade is good. Countries which specialize in making what they are most efficient at will, ultimately, have the most stuff for the least amount of effort. That’s why the US invents the idea of an iPod and China makes the iPods. However, even some of the most ardent free traders believe in creating a self-sufficiency of food. I believe we can find a middle-ground of quasi-independence. We can limit subsidies while maintaining some amount of domestic food production.

Food is unique in that it is absolutely essential for survival. If China stops exporting iPods, we’ll party like its 1999 and bust out some CD players. If Greenland gets uppity and halts ice exports, we’ll adapt. If Brazil is the only exporter of sugar, we would, to an extent, be at Brazil’s mercy. The food issue strikes at a key relationship between politics and economics: countries don’t trust each other and refuse to sacrifice the guarantee of not starving.

Basic economics preaches that sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, rice-paddied Southeast Asia, and a few grain-heavy regions should be the sole producers of food. Japan sticks to technology, the US uses brain power, and Luxembourg focuses on….okay, I’m not even positive that Luxembourg is a country, let alone its chief exports. The problem is that underdeveloped countries cannot have the power to starve out imperial powers, or so our politicians argue. Despotic leaders of agricultural powerhouses could use a “food shield” the same way despotic leaders of oil producers use the “oil shield”.

So what is the result? Massive agricultural subsidies, tariffs, and export quotas. Subsidies force the average American to pay more money in taxes ($89 billion in 2007) so they can pay more money at the local grocery store. Tariffs hurt other countries’ attempts to grow their economies, forcing the American consumer to spend more and buy inefficiently produced goods. The drive for agricultural independence has severe economic and political ramifications.

If we’re so damn concerned about the risks of ticking off agricultural economies, why are politicians content to restrict free (read: fair) trade? Many underdeveloped countries are hostile to American tariffs and agricultural subsidies. If food markets were opened, there would be no reason for the growing economies to intentionally stop selling their products.

While I don’t suggest completely free markets which totally strip any nation of food independence, the US is far from a happy medium. Subsidies and tariffs have gone too far and are economically irresponsible. Low tariffs and minimal subsidies would go a long way to lowering taxes, dropping prices at the farmer’s market, and stripping the international community’s fear of American imperialism and exceptionalism.

So instead of looking at geography, let’s judge food purchases on a more pragmatic and appropriate scale: taste.