next »

[PseudoCyAnts]

I've been busy on the net around places where libertarians exist, to express by extreme displeasure at the Libertarian Party's sell-out with the nomination of Bob Barr as this year's presidential candidate.  I quickly discovered that I am not alone feeling this way, and that many members of the LP are offended.

There is a rift within the party between purists and equivocators, and an intermediate group striving for some sort of unity.  Equivocators is my term, they would prefer to be identified as realists or some other such rot.  Realism has no place within libertarian theory, btw.  It is a type of Utopian musing.  Any attempt to partially bring it into contemporary reality would result in a hell upon earth.  The equivocators are also the faction within the LP that has been dragging it rightwards for over a decade now. They have bastardised the whole concept of individual liberty by elevating all private property rights to the plane of inalienable, while they quite happily ignored the assault upon humanity's true Natural Liberties by the Bush Administration.  To the equivocators, the state has overextended its reach only when it picks their wallets from their pockets.  They seem to derive enjoyment from the state's hands reaching inside of their zippers.  Private property ownership is a necessary element of a free society, but it does not need to be expanded to the extremes of The Mises people, who assert that the state has no right to possess any property, that all property must be private.  That is an absurdity that completely disregards the U.S. Constitution.  Their path leads to feudalism, not liberty.

Without habeas corpus being secured in its possession by humanity, there can be no freedom, and LP members who whine about eminent domain abuses, while ignoring the Bush tyranny, should suck it up, accept personal responsibility, and return to the Republican Party which spawned them.  Many of the LP's equivocators started using a derisive term for the purists: anarchists.  They became enraged upon discovering that most of the purists find the designation to be somewhat appropriate, and very humourous in this context.  Few, if any are willing to publicly disavow it, and responses to the intended slur have often been returned with a middle finger salute, along with reflections along the lines of: "If I wanted to sell my soul for election wins, I'd still be a member of the {Democratic-/OR/-Republican} Party".  I've been even more foreboding when responding to pleas of unity, presenting a sort of Dr. Frankenstein responsibility argument.  One who aided in a monster's creation is responsible for seeing that it gets put down before it can cause society harm.  Needless to say, the equivocators have tagged me as being an anarchist, and are very unhappy that this amuses me.  It's too bad they are unable to pierce the complexity, and understand that it is not an anarchist point of view driving this thought, but is instead, focused nihilism for good, not evil.

In these recent visits to libertarian spaces on the web, I've come into contact with some people who are members of the Constitution Party, and quickly learned that at their foundations, they embrace an ironic absurdity, given their party's name.  They seem to believe that the 14th Amendment was enacted unconstitutionally, and is not a proper part of the Constitution.  Imbeciles, unwilling to accept fact as reality.

[Carol Gee]

How would we ever know anything about the LP, without your analysis?  You must drive them crazy, PCA. 
I enjoyed your post. Thanks.

[Devon]

I can see how this is sad for you as a libertarian, but I have to say that I'm pretty happy, as a nominal Democrat/anti-Republican.  And I'll give Bob Barr some props for being opposed to the power grab of the Bush Administration at its very start - I was working at the Center for Constitutional Rights after Sept. 11, and we made early common cause with Barr in opposing the first hints of terrorism legislation and habeas suspension to come.

[The Facilitatrix]

Realism has no place within libertarian theory, btw.  It is a type of Utopian musing.  Any attempt to partially bring it into contemporary reality would result in a hell upon earth.

What I've known about the Libertarian Party before struck me as merely unkind.  I've seen it as a kind of "survival of the fittest" mentality that says, "eff you if you can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps, and if you don't have bootstraps, well that's your problem.  You can't have mine."

You have not disabused me of my discomfort, because you have confirmed that the "property rights" element have essentially taken over, or at least are making the most noise (which sometimes has the same result).  And if a Libertarian is indeed a purist, then mustn't that Libertarian by extension stay aloof from the politics of governance, because we should all be able to be the masters of our domains?  (Not that way, though maybe so, with your reference about hands in pants. Ew.)

Yeah, it's an ideal, all right, but not my idea of Utopia.  I kind of like the idea of making sure that the weaker of us get to have a life along with the stronger.  Hey, it's not like most of the vulnerable have chosen to be that way.  I believe in social responsibility.

But keep on bugging the buggers, PCA.  Make them look in that mirror and see what clothes they really are—or aren't—wearing.  (Now I've made myself queasy.)

[Hcberkowitz]

Somehow, some of the late 60s/early 70s spinoffs of the hardcore libertarians, such as Frank Myers' fusionism, seem to have dropped out of existence. Fusionism both recognized minimal goverment intrusion was desirable, especially in the private sphere, but there were some necessary and desirable government functions. Those government functions needed oversight, and occasional zero-based rejustification.

It can definitely confuse discussions with the more shrill anarcho-libertarians to bring some government functions that are less well known, or have technical aspects that may not be obvious. Most people are stunned by the amount of emergency authority given to the U.S. Public Health Service, and indeed to local and state health authorities.

Other areas, such as drug or environmental testing, can improve, but there are issues of economies of scale for the laboratory, and also that there are just so many subspecialists and work to keep the subspecialists at full proficiency.  Do we really want, for example, Biosafety Level 4 "hot labs" in every state?

[Hcberkowitz]

I can see how this is sad for you as a libertarian, but I have to say that I'm pretty happy, as a nominal Democrat/anti-Republican.  And I'll give Bob Barr some props for being opposed to the power grab of the Bush Administration at its very start - I was working at the Center for Constitutional Rights after Sept. 11, and we made early common cause with Barr in opposing the first hints of terrorism legislation and habeas suspension to come.

Barr is one of those U.S. political figures that persists on not being pigeonholed, and that I've been known to love and hate on alternate weeks. I was furious when he wanted Wiccan services banned from military bases, and also that he was among those that threatened all kinds of Federal funds cutoffs to DC-area jurisdictions if they failed to participate in the naming of the memorials to Lenin...Reagan!

It came out, apparently to Barr's embarrassment, that he and his wife spent a good deal of time as rank-and-file workers in homeless shelters and various forms of community service. The circumstances were such that there was very little chance this was a publicity stunt.

He's all over the place on surveillance.

[PseudoCyAnts]

How would we ever know anything about the LP, without your analysis?  You must drive them crazy, PCA. 
I enjoyed your post. Thanks.

I've driven them crazy under several pseudonyms in the last 5 years.  My first got banned off of the LP website blog for referring to people who felt that greenie criminal protests that only destroyed property rose to the level of terrorism as cowards who ought to make sure they were prepared to secure their in the event of an emergency, by stocking up on Depends®.

If someone spikes trees in front of lumberjacks, they have committed an act of terror, but if someone torches RV's, even as a political statement, they've committed arson, and if someone rampaged through Wisconsin committing serial acts of trespass, then releasing semi-domesticated farmers' chattel intended for use by the fur industry, they engaged in counter-productive stupidity assuring that the lives of many little furry creatures would be short and end brutally either by starvation or being predated on by bigger, wilder furry creatures.  It was not an act of terror.

It is appropriate to tag me anarchist, because I've no love of government, yet understand that humanity is not at a point where no government is an option.  A politician should never be trusted farther than you can swing a rope from a tree.  It is this sort of feelings that enabled the LP to get jacked by right-sided activist though, because many of the purists have a distaste for being active politically, and think that any libertarian who does actively seek political position, is questionable in his/her libertarian point of view. Fortunately, there is a younger group of LP members, who are hard-core, and who do not perceive it in the same way.  They are the ones who are being slandered with the derogation anarchist, because they have been very active within the party.  They are also just as adamant as I am, although usually not as brutal in reply, regarding the asinine proposition that personal choices about sexuality and reproduction are States' Rights.  Some of the Southern born have been very vocal about their feelings regarding this:

[PseudoCyAnts]

I'll give Bob Barr some props for being opposed to the power grab of the Bush Administration at its very start - I was working at the Center for Constitutional Rights after Sept. 11, and we made early common cause with Barr in opposing the first hints of terrorism legislation and habeas suspension to come.

Barr is a weasel with a tongue forked multiplicatively:

“Many of you have also come up to me and said, ‘Yo, Barr: why did you offer the Defense of Marriage Act?. If you’re so set against the PATRIOT Act, why did you vote for it?’

Well, let me tell you; I have made mistakes, but the only way you make mistakes, the only way you get things done is by getting out there in the arena, and making those mistakes, and then realizing, as things go on, the mistakes that you’ve made. And I apologize for that. For example: as I mentioned to you all last night with the Defense of Marriage Act.

As I mentioned to you all last night, and I reiterate it here today; standing before you, looking you in the eye: The Defense of Marriage Act, insofar as it provided the federal government a club to club down the rights of law abiding citizens has been abused, misused and should be repealed. And I will work to repeal that.”

Bob Barr, Libertarian Party presidential nomination acceptance speech, May 25, 2008

The very next morning on CNN:

John Roberts: But what do you say to people who want to know why you supported the Patriot Act? Why you co-sponsored the defensive marriage act? Both of which fly in the face of Libertarian beliefs.

Bob Barr: Well, I wouldn’t be too hard, too fast to talk about the defense of Marriage Act flying the face off anybody’s platform. It simply stands for the proposition that each state is free to make up its own decision, its people are able to decide for themselves what their definition of marriage to be and no one state should force another state to adopt its definition. A very, very sound individualistic and state’s rights policy.

Bob Barr, CNN News, American Morning, May 26, 2008

[PseudoCyAnts]

What I've known about the Libertarian Party before struck me as merely unkind.  I've seen it as a kind of "survival of the fittest" mentality that says, "eff you if you can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps, and if you don't have bootstraps, well that's your problem.  You can't have mine."

There are greedheads in every political party.  There were also many libertarians who went down to Louisiana after Katrina into areas that were abandoned by the government, out of their own pocket, and helped the survivors get on their feet.  There is no liberty in walking by someone who has been thrown face down into the mud by the vicissitudes of life.  That leads only to conflict in the end.  Liberty comes from giving them a hand-up and a stake if you can afford it, but not from putting them on the dole.  There is a tremendous difference in these three different paths.

[PseudoCyAnts]

Barr is one of those U.S. political figures that persists on not being pigeonholed, and that I've been known to love and hate on alternate weeks. I was furious when he wanted Wiccan services banned from military bases, and also that he was among those that threatened all kinds of Federal funds cutoffs to DC-area jurisdictions if they failed to participate in the naming of the memorials to Lenin...Reagan!

It came out, apparently to Barr's embarrassment, that he and his wife spent a good deal of time as rank-and-file workers in homeless shelters and various forms of community service. The circumstances were such that there was very little chance this was a publicity stunt.

He's all over the place on surveillance.

He is a blatant hypocrite.  Author of the Defense of Marriage act who is now on his third wife. Went after Clinton on morality issues, yet was photographed licking whip cream off a stripper's bare breasts at the same time.  Barr has decried the disappearance of habeas corpus, but one of his first acts in Congress was to severely impair habeas appeals by persons incarcerated in American prisons.  He kept his Leadership PAC after getting tossed from Congress, and used up the vast majority of collected donations on operational costs, which included a well-salaried son.  Even after he had become a LP Regional head, what little monies were donated into political campaigns often went to very unlibertarian minded Republicans, including the odious Saxby Chambliss, and the newest Georgian Member of the public potty peepers, Broun, who recently proposed a bill that would ban Playboys and Penthouses from being sold on US military bases, wanting to define even a side view of a woman's breast as obscene.  This from a man who preaches death and damnation to Iraqis.  Barr has even defended Craig, claiming that he was railroaded.  I'm an easy going guy about personal sexuality, but if I'm using a public restroom and a man starts staring intently through the stall door crack at me for over a minute, goes into an adjacent stall, starts plying footsie, and then gestures with his hand under the stall in a manner intimating a hand-job, I am going to feel that my personal privacy has been outrageously invaded, and on a bad day, it could end up rather ugly.  I've never been offended when propositioned by a gay man, but I would take great offense had it ever occurred while I was using a public restroom facility.  Craig got what he had coming to him.

[neoboho]

Hey, PseudoCyAnts, why not become a Situationist like me?  It's the most dignified way of compensating for powerlessness that I know of.  Contradictions?  No problem.  You don't even have to stay consistent through a single issue and still keep your credentials untarneshed. 

"George Washington was a wonderful man.  I spoke to him once, at his funeral.  Some said he was dead, some said he wasn't.  I said nothing.  I had no opinion.  It was none of my business." -- Mark Twain

[The Facilitatrix]

There is no liberty in walking by someone who has been thrown face down into the mud by the vicissitudes of life.  That leads only to conflict in the end.  Liberty comes from giving them a hand-up and a stake if you can afford it, but not from putting them on the dole.  There is a tremendous difference in these three different paths.

Well, that's something that makes more sense and is kinder to boot. 

It is appropriate to tag me anarchist, because I've no love of government, yet understand that humanity is not at a point where no government is an option.

And so there you go.  And it's back to what you said about a Utopian ideal that isn't practical, at least not as the world now stands.  Therefore, we need the safety nets that I have perceived the LP decries, and certainly the biggest assholes in the Republican Party see as "handouts" rather than a "hand-up."  And until those who can afford it know that their good fortune and personal liberty ethically require them to help those with bad fortune and, thus, no liberty, the only way to pay for the safety nets are through taxation.

But at least progressive taxation compensates for personal responsibility by setting levels that are commensurate with good fortune, if you will.

In the years before my health turned, I was "household manager" for a youngish, rich puppy who made his fortune from a semiconductor process he came up with and licensed to a big Silicon Valley company, where he also worked as a division manager.  I'm not talking megabucks, but he had quite a few millions to play with and a guarantee of a good income, whether he worked or not.  Prudently, by working for the company using his process, he ensured that his income from the license would be the highest possible.

Intellectually, there was much to admire in this guy.  Personally, not so much.  The Young Master, as I sometimes-affectionately referred to him, indulged himself in just about everything he could.  Every article of clothing, ort of food, dram of wine and liquor, hotel room, haircut, massage, and hour of entertainment had to be "best" possible, though what made quality in his eyes was what magazines and other rich people deemed the best.  He was pretty venal, and he was willing to pay for whatever processes and grooming would turn the girl du jour into the busty but kinda-classy-looking bimbo he had currently installed.

I went into all of this because in the course of my duties, which included paying all his bills and expenses from an account he infused from his "real" money, I saw where his money was spent.  One Christmas, he told me to send a check to his office for a food bank charity his company was promoting for holiday donations.  It was a decent donation for $500.  When Christmas next year rolled around, I asked him if he wanted me to send the donation in again, and he said, "No, the company's not doing that this year."

In the four years that I worked for him, that was the one and only charitable donation he made.

Meanwhile, because I was making what I considered to be very good money—certainly more than I'd ever made before—I was delighted to be able to make donations to all the charities and causes I'd wanted to in the past but couldn't.  And I could increase the amounts to those that I'd donated to even when I wasn't making much.

When he replaced me with someone else (not even telling me until I pressed him, prompted by my knowing that there were bills to pay but I hadn't had a recent cash infusion), I unfortunately had the leisure from being ill to reflect on the disparity between what he "gave back" and what I tried to.  It turned out that without doing it with any method, I was tithing during those years.  And even though I was suddenly without income, I didn't regret that 10 percent over those years.  I felt that it was just the right thing to do.  But the Young Master?  I couldn't make a guess at how small the percentage of his income had gone to anything but payment for services and goods, but it sure as heck wasn't 10 percent, and not even 1 percent or .1 percent.

So, if our society had to rely on people like the Young Master to give a hand up to those in need, we'd be screwed.  And this, chiefly, is why I just could never embrace the Libertarian philosophy.

[PseudoCyAnts]

And so there you go.  And it's back to what you said about a Utopian ideal that isn't practical, at least not as the world now stands.  Therefore, we need the safety nets that I have perceived the LP decries, and certainly the biggest assholes in the Republican Party see as "handouts" rather than a "hand-up."  And until those who can afford it know that their good fortune and personal liberty ethically require them to help those with bad fortune and, thus, no liberty, the only way to pay for the safety nets are through taxation.

But at least progressive taxation compensates for personal responsibility by setting levels that are commensurate with good fortune, if you will.

It is a bit of semantical playtime, but your use of the term "net" cuts to the chase.  A net is used to ensnare. 
Wouldn't it be better to have a safety trampoline, or better yet, safety flubber? You do not aid liberty be making society's underclass wards of the state.  Not only does it trap the recipients, it alienates a subset of the whole society who are coerced into contributing without their consent.

Your example of the Silicon Valley scion only touched upon a very significant factor.  His wealth was itself derived from a state entitlement, which would not have been his otherwise: intellectual property.  There is no natural right to possess a thought, once it has been shared with another.  What many who feel cheated by being taxed fail to understand, is that a great deal of their personal wealth is directly derived from state entitlements.

[PseudoCyAnts]

Hey, PseudoCyAnts, why not become a Situationist like me?  It's the most dignified way of compensating for powerlessness that I know of.  Contradictions?  No problem.  You don't even have to stay consistent through a single issue and still keep your credentials untarneshed. 

I have a strong affinity towards situationists, yet at the same time an intense aversion to situationalists.

My newest pseudo creation has potential for forceful situationist usage.  I don't wish to make it too easy in the event it gets hunted on the web at some point in the future though, but am pretty sure a two-part riddle should make it evident, and serve to obfuscate simultaneously.

1) Choose of of the three following terms for a Church lay officer (presbyter/elder/deacon)
2) Add to it the past-tense of strike.

I don't recall seeing this one in play anywhere either.

[Hcberkowitz]

He is a blatant hypocrite.  Author of the Defense of Marriage act who is now on his third wife. Went after Clinton on morality issues, yet was photographed licking whip cream off a stripper's bare breasts at the same time. 

It occurs to me that a truly world-class hypocrite would fight against universal health care, but demand legislation that requires his insurer to cover statins to reduce cholesterol* abnormalities caused by excessive cream consumption.

Butr perhaps I misunderstand -- is "whip cream" specific to dominatrix strippers?

*Yes, I know the difference between lipoproteins and cholesterol, and cholesterol is cholesterol, not good or bad. Well, maybe oxidized and not.

[PseudoCyAnts]

It occurs to me that a truly world-class hypocrite would fight against universal health care, but demand legislation that requires his insurer to cover statins to reduce cholesterol* abnormalities caused by excessive cream consumption.

Butr perhaps I misunderstand -- is "whip cream" specific to dominatrix strippers?

*Yes, I know the difference between lipoproteins and cholesterol, and cholesterol is cholesterol, not good or bad. Well, maybe oxidized and not.

Aren't you referring to "lipocritical"?

[The Facilitatrix]

It is a bit of semantical playtime, but your use of the term "net" cuts to the chase.  A net is used to ensnare.
Wouldn't it be better to have a safety trampoline, or better yet, safety flubber? You do not aid liberty by making society's underclass wards of the state.  Not only does it trap the recipients, it alienates a subset of the whole society who are coerced into contributing without their consent.

Frankly, when I think of "net" I think of the safety net, like the one trapeze artists use.  The daredevils "work without a net," but they're the ones who'll get grievously injured or worse when something goes wrong.  I think most of us prefer to work with a net.  I know I wouldn't be alive today without the ones our society has.

I can't agree that liberty is not served by assisting or even supporting those who cannot.  If you judge it your way, it really becomes a case of liberty OR death.  Alienating a subset of society?  If we were a culture that took care of its sick, disabled, and elderly within families or villages, society at large wouldn't be burdened with contributing to their survival.  But, what I took from your statement "Any attempt to partially bring it into contemporary reality would result in a hell upon earth" is that you acknowledge we're not.

Your example of the Silicon Valley scion only touched upon a very significant factor.  His wealth was itself derived from a state entitlement, which would not have been his otherwise: intellectual property.  There is no natural right to possess a thought, once it has been shared with another.  What many who feel cheated by being taxed fail to understand, is that a great deal of their personal wealth is directly derived from state entitlements.

I could not agree more about this.  Much of the spike in the wealth of corporations and their executives has come from the sweet legislation they've had passed that has lifted their strictures.  And it really pisses me off, because what has developed is a sense of entitlement among those who have benefited from these sweet deals that this is how it should always have been and should always be.

And this links up for me with your terming those who need assistance and support from the state as the "underclass."  Class is a tricky thing to define.  For me growing up, people who engaged in artistic pursuits (theater, music) were the upper class.  This morphed into an admitted intellectual elitism as I got older and had no patience with ignorance—especially deliberate and proud ignorance.  Money never factored into how I saw class divisions in my life.

Yet I freely admit that class divisions in this society are based on wealth.  Therefore, I see the reality that successful businesspeople are valued much more than effective teachers, but it never tracks with my brain and perceptions.

When the big cuts in NEA funding closed countless artists of all kinds out of their chosen pursuits, I wondered how many geniuses had to make their art their avocation rather than their vocation.  And I wondered what the Renaissance would have been like without the patronage (often equivalent to government patronage, especially with someone like Lorenzo di Medici) of the geniuses whose work still affects us today.

I watched a not-superb but still-good movie by Claude Chabrol last night.  And it was funded by a number of state organizations, as many European movies are.  They don't make American blockbusters that bring in boggling amounts of money through worldwide distribution, but I feel that these movies are essential to film creativity.  American indie producers and directors are renowned for financing their little films with their parents' backing or credit cards, but how many of those movies would have fulfilled their directors' visions and knocked the film world's socks off—yet faded into obscurity—if creating the movies was the main focus rather than how to get them made on a shoestring budget was?

These are the issues that concern me as well as giving our less fortunate some dignity in their lives.  I know I'm in a minority with these concerns.

[The Facilitatrix]

But perhaps I misunderstand -- is "whip cream" specific to dominatrix strippers?

No, sir.  Many others of us who employ that suffix also enjoy that and other dairy products.

—The Facilitatrix
    Fulfilling needs since 1993. 

[PseudoCyAnts]

Frankly, when I think of "net" I think of the safety net, like the one trapeze artists use.  The daredevils "work without a net," but they're the ones who'll get grievously injured or worse when something goes wrong.  I think most of us prefer to work with a net.  I know I wouldn't be alive today without the ones our society has.

I can't agree that liberty is not served by assisting or even supporting those who cannot.  If you judge it your way, it really becomes a case of liberty OR death.  Alienating a subset of society?  If we were a culture that took care of its sick, disabled, and elderly within families or villages, society at large wouldn't be burdened with contributing to their survival.  But, what I took from your statement "Any attempt to partially bring it into contemporary reality would result in a hell upon earth" is that you acknowledge we're not.

You're forgetting what I said a few comments back: that my libertarian posturing is an exercise in Utopian musing. You also seem to miss what I was referring to when making a distinction between a net and trampoline.  The Great Society has been a dismal failure.  It has not brought equality into reality, and has instead only further bound succeeding generations into state servitude and poverty.  Have I ever whined about my personal tax burden?  It will not happen, and there have been years in the past where I've felt the applicable tax rate was actually lower than it should have been given the circumstances.  I also believe that a public school system is a valid task of the state.  I've seen the studies that show increased funding does not improve aptitude test scores, and was unconvinced.  Comparing funding levels between starvation and bare subsistence proves nothing. The Postal Service is another example of a proper state function, and it should not be held to the same standards as a for profit venture. A misaddressed letter/parcel has a significantly higher probability of being delivered as intended through the mail than it does through UPS or other commercial carriers.  This is because there are differing standards of job excellence.  The USPS still rates themselves primarily on their ability to deliver the mail, not how quickly they can deliver an acceptable percentage of it.  Private property is an essential element of a free society, but the concept has been expanded well beyond what is necessary, as well a natural.  The natural right to possess property extends only as far as it can be directly utilised by its owners in their day to day lives.  Absentee real property ownership rights are not natural.  They in fact impair the Natural Rights to private property.

Then there is one of the biggest obscenities to individual liberty in this modern world: the collectivist business entity.  There is an imperceptible difference for those on the receiving end of a boot stomp, whether the imprint left from the tread came branded with a Hammer-and-Sickle or a Nike-Swoop. Collectivism, be it systemic state or privatised for profit, is a mortal enemy of individual liberty.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/syCBG_cp-N8&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/syCBG_cp-N8&rel=1</a>

[The Facilitatrix]

You're forgetting what I said a few comments back: that my libertarian posturing is an exercise in Utopian musing. You also seem to miss what I was referring to when making a distinction between a net and trampoline.  The Great Society has been a dismal failure.

I guess these are my own version of Utopian musings, only my Utopia takes care of its people because it's the right thing to do, not because they have to.  And I was playing with semantics as well, because there's much to be admired in the daredevil who works without a net.  It's that personality that finds something innovative that the "safer" personality couldn't.

Have I ever whined about my personal tax burden?  It will not happen, and there have been years in the past where I've felt the applicable tax rate was actually lower than it should have been given the circumstances.

No, sir.  I would never accuse you of whining.  Wining might be another story, but it's one I can't know.

The only thing that has ever irked me about my taxes is having them wastefully used, and I can't think of a bigger example of waste than this war and all of the costs associated with it.  The old "scandal" about $420 hammers (I don't remember the actual figure, and maybe the "42" comes from the answer to life, the universe, and everything) has been rendered quaint with the squandering and war profiteering we've recently learned about.

Terry Gross interviewed an economist and author this morning, who gave me more agita about the inequities in taxation:
"Your 401(k) might not be the secure retirement plan you think it is. Economist Teresa Ghilarducci examines pension plans and offers advice on retirement security. Ghilarducci's new book is When I'm Sixty-Four: The Plot Against Pensions and the Plan to Save Them."
Part of the discussion described how even 401(k)s are unfair to lower-income people, because the way the tax structure currently exists, wealthier people get a disproportionately higher tax advantage for their non-taxable contributions.  It never seems to end.

Then there is one of the biggest obscenities to individual liberty in this modern world: the collectivist business entity.

A big amen to that.  I didn't have an understanding of the influence (positive for the business, negative for the buyer) of branding back when I was a teen, but something in me made me unstitch the brand names from my clothes even then. I once bought a pair of Calvin Klein jeans, and I sure didn't want to walk around with that label on my butt, so I took it off.  My uncle, who lived much of the year in Mexico even in the '70s, took the label to his friend in Mexico.  The friend sewed the label onto his cheap jeans, but his status increased greatly because of that label.  Crazy.  I have never purchased an article of clothing that had advertising on it that I couldn't remove.

Certainly, my experiences with the Young Master turned me even further away from branding.  Yet the world 'round, consumers want what others have simply because they have it, and much of this is branding.  The Tommy Hilfiger phenomenon is extremely troubling to me, because of the popularity of that brand with black kids, and the status it seems to bestow.  Hilfiger is quoted as saying that he wishes black people wouldn't wear his clothes and that he hasn't designed his products for them.  The racism is clear but not blatantly stated, and an entire subculture defines itself in part by wearing clothes made by someone who likely hates them.

Here's another point of view on the issue:

Rage Against the Machine