Category Archives: Politics

The Great Bologna Bust

Posted on by

Contraband BolognaThere’s a news story about a woman who tried to bring bologna into the United States but was stopped by border patrol agents and it’s tickling the fancy of audiences everywhere. An unnamed woman attempted to bring in about two-hundred and twenty-seven pounds of the savory meat but when she declared it, was fined $1,000 and the meat was confiscated and destroyed. Why? I’m not sure.

I’ve read several articles about the incident which all claim different reasons for the seizure. One says the meat contained pork, another says it was simply originally undeclared, a third claims it can cause disease in the pork industry. None of those reasons makes much sense to me. Bologna is generally made from pork so what’s the problem? She forgot to declare it at first but then remembered at the second stop, who cares? How is processed bologna a threat to the pork industry?

The mere fact that three different news articles had three different explanations for the seizure and fine indicates that the sources of information for the articles probably didn’t know why the meat was seized in the first place and were making things up. Maybe, I don’t know. I do know if we have to stop someone from bringing bologna into the country, destroy it, and steal $1,000 from said person then something is wrong with the country.

I think it’s important to understand the base reason behind the entire incident. Various government agencies; federal, state, and local all, finance their operations through money taken from citizens for supposed violations of the law. This is not the way it was designed to be. We pay taxes to finance our government. If government needs other methods to take our money in order to pay their bills there is one of two things happening. Either we are not paying enough in taxes to finance their reasonable expenses or they are spending far too much and using us to pay for their extravagances. Can you guess which one is more likely?

We have gotten to the point where almost every government agency in our country funds itself one way or another through seizure of our money based on laws designed simply to take that money. This is a never-ending circle. The government needs more money, our representatives don’t have to convince us to support legislation for taxes, they simply pass ludicrous laws and begin to enforce them. It is plain to see, the majority of laws we now encounter are not designed to make us safer, but simply to steal our money so politicians can spend it on things they want.

One of the ways they connive us is the supposed lowering of taxes. We think we are paying less but they simply find even more revenue another way; fees, fines, seizures, licenses, you name it. We don’t care when it is someone else from whom they are stealing, we smile and shake our heads until it is us they prey upon. Only then do we get angry. We should all be angry when government takes money in any way, from anyone, that isn’t justified through reasonable argument.

As long as the people are willing to believe the excuses for the ridiculous laws the government enforces, they will continue to take our money. We must say enough is enough. No one is hurt when someone brings in bologna from Mexico. There is no danger. The government simply took someone’s money, and if you’re okay with that, you are part of the problem.

Tom Liberman

Net Neutrality and all the Hype

Posted on by

Net NeutralityThere is a lot of news about Net Neutrality these days and the people who are proponents are incredibly passionate while those who are against are quite determined. The current administration and the Federal Communication Commission seem bent on eliminating Net Neutrality and tout all the benefits of doing so. Those who oppose fill my Social Media with diatribes and examples about how the internet will be destroyed. Frankly, it’s a lot of hype on both sides.

I’m not going to make this a long dissertation on exactly what Net Neutrality is and is not. Instead I’d like to focus on the idea it just won’t make that much of a difference either way. In doing so I understand I’m going to make enemies on both sides of this passionate debate, so be it.

There is a single factor causing the majority of the problems we have with our internet providers, the lack of competition. This dates back to the monopolies granted to cable providers. Basically, territories of the United States were broken up and given to single companies to provide cable access. These monopolies largely continue to exist across the country.

There is a distinct lack of competition in the industry and this means consumers have few, if any choices, about whom provides them with internet access. This means the power largely resides with the companies rather than the customers. They can apply any sort of rules they want and their customers have nowhere else to go. Thus, if an internet provider decides to throttle customers or block particular content there is nowhere else for the consumer to go, they must simply accept the status-quo.

It’s extraordinarily important to note prior to 2015 Net Neutrality was merely a concept that many internet providers followed simply because it made good business sense not to anger their customers. There are some choices in the industry and providers voluntarily gave open content and access to their customers in an effort to provide good service.

There were some exceptions but when they came to light, consumer pressure generally forced the provider to change the policy, it was not government enforced Net Neutrality that did anything, at least before June 12, 2015 when the provisions were accepted by the FCC.

If we had strong competition in the field then Net Neutrality would most certainly be a negative concept. If we had many choices and a company was not providing us with a good service we would simply go elsewhere. Once you get a bad meal at a particular restaurant, do you go back? Of course not, there are far too many good choices. It is the lack of competition that makes it appear we need Net Neutrality. The problem was created by the government, mainly municipal and state, in creating monopolies in the first place. The answer isn’t to enforce Net Neutrality but to open the market to competition.

The reality is enforcing or repealing Net Neutrality in our current situation isn’t going to do any harm or any good. We didn’t have Net Neutrality prior to 2015 and things were fairly much exactly the way they are now. Removing Net Neutrality is not going to bring the benefits claimed by those who oppose the concept. Keeping it is not going to fix the current problems we all have because of the lack of competition.

The proof seems obvious to me. Prior to 2015 we did not have Net Neutrality. Can you tell the difference? I can’t.

In other words, it’s much ado about nothing.

Tom Liberman

Does Government Need a Search Warrant for Cell Phone Location Records?

Posted on by

search warrantThere’s an interesting case before the Supreme Court involving law enforcement agencies gaining access to information about where you have been traveling without a search warrant. In essence, your cell phone knows where you are at all times. The question is if that information can be turned over without the normal protections provided by the Fourth Amendment.

The case in question involves a person who was found guilty of robbing a series of Radio Shack stores. Police obtained records of who knows how many thousands of people, without a search warrant, and correlated data to determine who was close to all the stores on all the dates of the robberies. Certainly, this aided in catching Timothy Carpenter but also gave law enforcement officials access to the traveling habits of tens of thousands of people who did not commit a crime.

No one is arguing if the police suspected Carpenter they could not obtain a search warrant to his cell phone records and find a correlation between his movements and that of the robberies. The question is if they can get everyone’s records, anytime, for any stated reason, and comb over them.

The danger of government being able to know your precise location at any time is fairly evident. What if a government official wanted to know if their spouse was cheating on them and with whom? What if you offended a government official and they wanted to learn if you were cheating on your spouse, or frequenting a casino, or who were you friends so they might question them on your potentially unsavory actions?

The possibilities are limitless and I think it’s ridiculous to assume everyone in government has your best interests at heart. There are vindictive and violent people in government who could and would use this information to hurt people.

Some people reason if you have nothing to hide, then you shouldn’t worry about it. I could not disagree more. If I am not a suspect in a criminal investigation, if reasonable cause cannot be argued before a judge; where I go is none of the government’s business. The government should not have free and unfettered access to my purchases, my movements, or my possessions.

The Fourth Amendment exists for good reason and we must be careful about allowing exceptions.

Tom Liberman

Should We Tax Sugar to Reduce Obesity?

Posted on by
Tax Sugar

A new study suggests taxing sugar is a far better way to control the enormous cost associated with unhealthy citizens of the United States than product specific taxes. I have no problem with the conclusion of the study, it’s most likely correct even though it is based on simple economic models rather than actual implementations. I do, however, have a problem with using taxes to control the behavior of citizens.

Let’s assume it is completely accurate to forecast an obesity drop and a correlating reduction in the diseases that come from being overweight; heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, cancer, and others. If this sugar tax was put into place we could expect to see a substantial savings in healthcare costs associated with the treatment of all those disease. We’d see fewer missed workdays. There are any number of societal benefits to a healthy population, this cannot be denied. I’m all for these results if not the methods.

Arguments Against

We know for a fact the producers of sugary drinks will see the cost of their products rise. This is the desired outcome. When the price rises, people stop purchasing. Well, at least some people. The reality is many people continue to drink such beverages but now have less money to spend on other things, perhaps a new cellular phone or deck for their house. Each dollar we take out of consumer’s pockets must be accounted for on the scale. Thus, the effect on many industries is negative, not just the sugary drink providers.

Arguments For

What are some of the arguments against such taxes? There are certainly undesirable impacts on the sugary drink industry but these negatives are presumably offset by gains in other places. If people move away from sugary drinks they will move to something else. Perhaps they will purchase more tea or water. So, not a bad thing you might say. I’d say, yes, very bad thing. The industries so benefiting have a competitive advantage against the sugary drink companies brought on by government intervention, capitalism has been subverted by crony capitalism. Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if the attempts to tax soda and the funding for studies like the one I referenced earlier were not coming from such industries. When the government becomes involved in which company succeeds and which company fails; then such businesses are forced to attempt to corrupt government as a means of survival.

The idea of taxes in general is to support government programs. We pay a gasoline tax largely to fund road related services. In this case there is no correlating service. We’re merely doing it to try and get people to behave in a way the government thinks best. This deeply offends my Libertarian ideology.

When the Government Gets Involved

I think it is important to consider the government’s role in milk and cheese production. Our tax dollars go to these endeavors including advertising campaigns. The consumption of such food is not necessarily healthy. If we trust the government to promote or demonize one thing, we cannot be upset when they do so for many different things. This is my biggest problem with a sugar tax. By empowering the government to tax simply to engineer a particularly desired behavior, we essentially give them carte blanche to promote any such behavior.

I do not think it takes a leap of logic to understand that unscrupulous business owners will immediately look to subvert this supposed altruistic process. They will immediately, let’s be honest, they are already, attempting to get government to work for their industries.

Even when the government is right, sugar filled drinks and food contribute to obesity and we should probably be eating and drinking less; we cannot allow it to act as an agent for or against a particular industry. The more government has the ability to shape our purchasing habits, the more it will become corrupted by industry.

In essence, the government will simply become a corrupt agent of particularly industries. This is not its intended role. Sadly, I’m of the opinion we are well on our way to such a state of affairs. It does not bode well.

Tom Liberman

The Case Against Sanctions

Posted on by

sanctionsWhen the leaders of a nation decide they want to act in a way the United States perceives as detrimental, the general solution is economic sanctions. The idea being that such sanctions hurt the offending nation and politicians eventually give up on their policies. What I’d like to discuss today is what really happens when we implement economic sanctions on another nation.

One of the main arguments against such sanctions is the leaders of the nation don’t suffer any impact but the average person in said country is economically disadvantaged. The argument for sanctions hopes the people will blame their government for lack of goods. Unfortunately, I think it is much more common to blame the nation imposing the sanctions. It drives a country deeper into behavior we dislike. However, this objection is the least of my troubles with sanctions.

One of the biggest problems with sanctions is that, like a sword, they cut both ways. When we limit trade with a foreign nation we are now preventing companies within the United States from making a profit by selling to willing buyers. As an example, I have a number of family members and friends who work for Boeing and they are hurt by the fact their employer cannot sell goods to quite a few countries in the world. For many companies, this is certainly the difference between growth and hiring and shrinkage and layoffs. There is no question all the economic sanctions we are currently prosecuting badly hurt industry in the United States. How much business could be, and should be, done with Cuba?

Another enormous problem is there is largely a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy when it comes to sanctions. When we ban selling or purchasing a product from a particular nation it hardly stops such activity. It simply pushes it underground. Many of the companies and nations who supposedly support such sanctions actively work around them in a variety of ways, chief among them is simply maneuvering and repackaging product.

Basically, if we aren’t allowed to sell something to a country, that product is shipped to a third-party nation that does trade with the proscribed country and the commodity is simply packaged in a container to disguise its point of origin. And, of course, the reverse happens in purchasing such goods. The offending country ships things to a willing nation who then repackages and sells back to the United States.

The second problem leads to the third, which is the creation of a black market where criminals gain huge profits at the expense of regular consumers. The moving of these goods must be done by extralegal sources or officials who are taking bribes to perform the necessary maneuvering. Now we are empowering criminals and corrupting officials. The product should be shipping at a certain cost but the price goes up because of the sanctions. Thus, when you purchase a product that might somewhere on the supply chain pass through the country with sanctions being imposed against it, you pay an increased price.

Likewise, the illegal maneuvering to avoid sanctions leads us to the fourth problem: Enforcement. Thousands of people and billions of dollars are spent trying to prevent nations and companies from maneuvering their goods in an attempt to avoid sanctions. We have agents at ports around the world inspecting packages and trying to make sure they actually come from the country of origin the packaging claims. This costs taxpayer directly, as opposed to the more indirect cost of higher prices.

Highly trained law enforcement officials spend their days and nights trying to figure out how nations and corporations are avoiding the sanctions when they could well be doing something more useful. The amount of time and money spent trying to enforce sanctions is astronomical.

The final point of my argument against sanction is they simply do not work. The nation in question continues functioning in a fairly normal way. They continue to sell their goods to willing buyers; either nations that have not imposed sanctions or through a black market.

Sanctions apparently do no good whatsoever, cost us huge amounts of money, waste the time of highly trained professionals who could be doing something else, generally harm the average person of the offending nation thus cementing their hatred of the United States, corrupt officials, funnel money to criminals, and cause an increase in the price of the goods you purchase. Yay!

Let’s take a quick moment to look at the results if we continued to trade with nations who we consider our enemies. Our companies make a profit, the people of those nations look at us more favorably, we pay lower prices, and there is an opportunity to open lines of dialog to bring about the change we are attempting to create through sanctions.

It’s a natural reaction to want to punish nations we think are behaving poorly but a better strategy is to engage. Better for everyone.

I ask for all sanctions, to all countries, be dropped immediately.

Tom Liberman

Best Intervention for Fyre Festival of Pizza

Posted on by

pizza-festivalA fellow named Ishmael Osekre organized a pizza tasting festival in New York City which is being compared the failed Fyre Music festival held in the Bahamas. I’m not going to get into detail on the failings of the festival, suffice it to say serving tiny slices of cold, miserable pie to a New York pizza savvy crowd is going to be a disaster. What I’d like to discuss is the best remedy to this situation? Social Media? Government?

The first avenue is that of Libertarian dreams, Social Media. Such Gotham users are in an uproar about the event. Facebook, Twitter, and more are alive with people complaining about the scam and demanding their money back. The organizers eventually promised to create a makeup date but that is doing little to appease those wronged. As one of those aforementioned Libertarians, I’m quite pleased with this turn of events.

That being said, there are realities to embrace. Osekre might well pack bags and depart, leaving everyone out not only the money they paid but also the time they spent attending the event. In addition, such visitors might well have done something else that day of greater value. Social Media can certainly shame such a fraudster. It can spread the word so that the perpetrator will have a difficult time attempting the same in the future.

However, it is still quite possible for Osekre to change names, move to another city, and attempt the scam yet again. Each time he might steal money from those who want to attend such festivals. I think Social Media makes this far more difficult, but it is still possible. This is where government enters the picture.

Alerted to the travesty by Social Media, the Attorney General of New York is investigating and considering charges. Legal remedies are something beyond the power Social Media. If Osekre collected money but did not provide the expected service, that is a crime called breach of contract. Even if the festival was created in good faith but Osekre simply underestimated the popularity, the people who paid money were still defrauded.

My question then becomes; what is government going to do about it? The courts might well find Osekre guilty of a crime and sentence him to prison. They might order him repay the festival goers. The thought of punishing Osekre with imprisonment certainly appeals to the vengeance part of my brain. The possibility of people getting their money back is certainly a reasonable outcome. I’m not convinced people will ever get their money back. The money is probably already largely spent and there is little way to recoup the losses.

It seems to me there is room for both remedies and one creates justice where the other fails, they complement one another. We live in this brave new world in which the collective has far more power than it ever has in the past. Prior to the advent of the Internet and the rise of Social Media, scam artists like Osekre could simply travel from place to place perpetuating the same crime again and again. It was up to government to stop such fraudsters.

In the past government often failed to do so. In fact, government not infrequently became complicit with the fraudsters as long as they were cut in on a share of the profits. This sort of thing still happens on a fairly regular basis. Social Media can force government to be held accountable in a way never before seen in human history with the notable exception of violent revolution. In the same way, Social Media can hold criminals such as Osekre accountable for their crimes, or at least make it far more difficult for those like him to continue on with their nefarious schemes.

To my mind, this is a wonderful synergy. Government and the people working together to implement justice. This dual defense brings us perhaps as close as we’re ever going to get to true justice. Count me in.

Tom Liberman

Hurricane Irma and Government Hysteria

Posted on by

hurricane-irmaHurricane Irma has run much of its destructive course and I wanted to take a moment as a Libertarian to discuss the government reaction to the approaching storm and why I think it was a ridiculous overreach.

The storm was huge, it caused massive amounts of damage as it approached the United States. A number of people on islands in the Caribbean were killed. There was and remains danger. The question becomes what is the responsibility of government in situations like this? The moment I was pushed over the Libertarian Rant Cliff was when avowed small-government Republican Governor Rick Scott declared in no uncertain terms, “You cannot survive this.” He was referring to the storm surge that could potential swamp many areas with water.

I’m quite comfortable calling that statement a hysterical lie spewed by a politician who has completely lost track of what it is he is supposed to be doing. Hurricanes are inherently unpredictable. There was a chance the surge would be relatively small, which it ended up being. Many people, of course, survived the surge. Not only was the statement completely wrong, hey we all make mistakes, but it was clearly a lie designed to frighten people into behaving the way the governor thought they should act.

This is what government has become in our nation. People in positions of power not only think they know better than us, but feel the need to frighten us with hysterical proclamations and enact draconian legislation. I’m happy to say at least the police and national guard were not marched through neighborhoods forcing people from their homes. At least the governor has that amount of decency left.

Let’s discuss what a responsible politician should have said. The storm is extremely dangerous. If you decide to remain in the area, here are some are some websites that show you how to properly protect your house. Here is a list of items you should purchase based on the size of your family. Emergency crews are going to be overwhelmed and cannot be counted on to rescue you in a timely fashion if the worst predictions come true. You are in charge of your own life, not me. You have all the information available and I trust you to make the best decision possible.

The danger of Governor Scott’s proclamation is there is certainly going to be another hurricane in the future. The fact that many people hunkered down and survived makes it clear his proclamation was fear-mongering idiocy, those people are likely to ignore warnings in the future. Those stupid politicians are always preaching disaster and it’s never as bad as they say. The reality is sometimes the worst predictions do come true. Sometimes there is horrific danger. If politicians create an environment where they are considered overreacting fools, people stop listening to them when there is real danger.

One of the main Libertarian mantras is that the job of government is not to save us from ourselves. I have no problem with the government issuing warnings, explaining the dangers that confront us, but I draw the line at hysterical nonsense like that Governor Scott spewed. You, Governor, do not know what is best for me. Even if you did, it’s not your responsibility to force or frighten me into doing what you want. I’m an adult, treat me accordingly.

Tom Liberman

 

Trump: Tweet in All Caps and Drop the Stick when Challenged

Posted on by

president donald trumpPresident Theodore Roosevelt was fond of what he called a West African saying, Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick. It largely meant policies designed around negotiation, openness, forethought, and careful proclamations but backed by a willingness to fight if the people on the other side of the table are not willing to treat you with equal respect. President Trump seems to believe in the polar opposite of this strategy. He Tweets loudly, rudely, in all caps, with brazen threats, but when presented with real opposition backs down.

There are two important aspects to Roosevelt’s political philosophy and the Speaking Softly is a critical element of success. It is this idea I would like to examine today. If you’ve ever watched an action movie, we almost universally see the humble hero trying to avoid a fight and working towards reasonable solutions while the villain uses brute force, taunts, and bullying to get her or his way. The reason for this is obvious and a diametric visualization of the difference in styles between Roosevelt and President Trump.

The problem with President Trump’s abandoning the Speak Softly part of the equation is that it largely destroys the Big Stick. When you antagonize and attack anyone that opposes you, they have several options. They can back down before your threats, they can ignore your threats and carry on with their business, or they can become belligerent back at you with their own sticks.

The Tweet in all caps strategy ensures that more and more nations and domestic opponents of President Trump are going to test the big stick. There is no doubt the United States has the biggest stick on the playground; that being said, the more you use the stick the better chance there is that it will break. You don’t want to resort to such unless it becomes absolutely necessary. President Trump relishes in threatening to use the stick. Whether he carries through with the threat or not; the stick inevitably becomes smaller and weaker.

Another problem occurs when your stick isn’t nearly as big as you think it is. President Trump doesn’t have many, if any, good options in dealing with North Korea. His bluster simply emboldens them to do things like shoot ballistic missiles over Japan. This is everything except a declaration of war. Trump promised the stick if North Korea continued firing missiles and not only did they do so, but they did it in a much more dangerous fashion, actually crossing over the territories of Japan. Imagine if Russia fired a nuclear capable ballistic missile that crossed over part of the United States!

Another problem arises from the fact that Japan, and other allies, begin to see us as impotent. Japan has the ability to become a nuclear nation with an aggressive military. The fact that they should take such steps is something they must consider seriously at this point. If we can’t be counted on to protect them, they must do it themselves. Some might argue that as a good thing but there is a history of Japan as a military state that you might want to consider.

Turkey is currently angry at us over the arming of Kurds in the attack against ISIS in Syria. Without the Incirlik Air Base our options in the region become severely limited. Russia is currently courting Turkey in hopes of strengthening relations.

I don’t want to get too far afield from the point I’m trying to make here. To summarize; the Big Stick part of the equation doesn’t work nearly as well if you are unwilling to Speak Softly. President Trump appears to be incapable of Speaking Softly. It’s all bluster and threats. This has dangerous repercussions. Either he is forced to use the Big Stick far too often or he backs down from the inevitable challenges.

In either case it cannot possibly be a foreign policy that will result in safety and security for the citizens of the United States or the world.

Tom Liberman

Mercenaries in Afghanistan

Posted on by

mercenariesThere is an interesting proposal percolating at the White House in which the United States would withdraw our formal military operations in Afghanistan and use mercenaries as a replacement. These private contractors would support the government in its war against the Taliban. Naturally, there are a lot of strong opinions about this idea.

I’d first like to dispense with the idea of private contractors. What we’re talking about is mercenaries, plain and simple. These are people hired to participate in a conflict who have no national motivation but are simply in it for the money. We can use all the euphemisms we want in order to paint a particular picture, but reality is clear to see.

The United States has been fighting the war in Afghanistan actively since 2001. It began supposedly in response to the September 11th attacks against the United States. The war has had its ebbs and flows but by no measure is the United States winning. The Taliban controls large swathes of the country and our soldiers largely act to support the Afghanistan government rather than taking an active role in combat.

One of the major reasons officials are considering switching to a mercenary force is the cost savings proposed by doing so. It is estimated it costs about $1 million per soldier per year to continue the fight in Afghanistan. The exact costs are unclear but it’s probably safe to say we are spending in excess of $45 billion a year on the conflict. The mercenary solution would supposedly cost around a quarter of that although I’m highly skeptical.

The two arguments for such mercenaries are they will be cheaper and they will be more effective. The arguments against them generally revolve around the idea that fighters not under the discipline of the United States military command are more prone to atrocities, that they will do anything in order to further the cause of victory. I think there is merit to all of these arguments but, to be frank, it just doesn’t matter.

The United States military is largely just one big mercenary force at this point. We don’t fight wars to keep our nation safe, we do so in order enrich the coffers of whatever contractor produces military equipment. Said contractor then pays for vacations, dinners, tickets to events, and various other luxuries our leaders enjoy.

We don’t fight wars to defend the nation but we create them in order to further what President Dwight Eisenhower called the Military-industrial complex. We don’t have soldiers in hundreds of far-flung bases in the interests of national security, we do so to pour taxpayer dollars into the coffers of allies who in return offer their political support.

There is a very good reason we’ve been fighting this pointless and losing war for the last sixteen years. There is good reason we will continue to do so for the foreseeable future, money. The Founding Fathers would not only have balked at the idea of this endless war but they would have fomented revolution of the people to put an end to it. Our soldiers are being sacrificed in both mind and body in the pursuit of money.

This push for a mercenary force is simply a tacit acknowledgement of what we already know. The United States military is nothing more than a hired gun, used by nations around the world to do their dirty work. Every soldier who volunteers for our military should do so with the understanding they are being used by the government to do the work of a mercenary at a cut-rate salary. They are being sacrificed to put money on the table of those who provide the equipment used by the soldiers.

It’s not about winning the war in Afghanistan. It’s probably never been about winning the war in Afghanistan. It’s about politics, money, and ego. To my way of thinking, there is little difference in using my tax dollars to pay soldiers wearing the uniform of the United States and paying the salaries of mercenaries.

The business is war, and it’s booming.

Tom Liberman

Time to Kill the Recess Appointment

Posted on by

Recess appointmentThe President of the United States is granted the power to fill vacancies that occur when the Senate is not in session. This is called a Recess Appointment. It’s clauses like this one: Article II, Section 2, Clause 3; that remind me why it’s so important that the Constitution has a mechanism by which it can be changed.

The Constitution orders the Senate to provide advice and consent for certain appointments. The reason the Recess Appointment clause exists in the first place is simply because, early in the history of our country, the Senate took recesses of anywhere from six to nine months out of each year. If a vacancy occurred in this period, a position might go unfilled for a considerable time.

The situation is quite different today. At most, the Senate takes a two-month vacation and usually not even that long. Any vacancy can now be filled fairly quickly. In addition, advances in communication and the speed of travel means the Senate can reconvene for an emergency session with less than a couple of days’ notice.

Unfortunately, what has happened in recent times is that various presidents waited until the Senate went on recess in order to make an appointment they felt might not pass successfully through that body. In the current situation, the sitting President is speculated to be considering the idea of creating a vacancy during a recess simply in order to fill it without advice and consent of the Senate. Both of these behaviors are clearly perversions of the original purpose of the power.

If this is allowed, it seems to me the Senate can then by bypassed completely. The President can appoint someone pleasing to the Senate, wait until just before the recess, fire that person, and then bring on whomever they desire without a confirmation. This can be continued on for the entirety of the term.

That’s why it’s time to remove that particular clause from the Constitution. Times have changed and the Recess Appointment is no longer necessary or needed. Amending the Constitution is a thing not to be taken lightly and it requires either a two-thirds majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives or a two-thirds majority of votes by the states. Yet, the power to do so is there and it is there for good reason.

The Recess Appointment clause is being abused and it must go. It’s really as simple as that.

There is one other solution. I don’t think we’ll see it, but there is some possibility the President of the United States could treat the Constitution with the respect it most certainly deserves. The President of the United States could stop looking for ways to pervert the Constitution and simply abide by its clear intent. Only use the Recess Appointment when an important vacancy comes up naturally; usually death or serious illness.

Tom Liberman

The Election Integrity Commission Spawned by Circular Reasoning Fallacy

Posted on by

election integrity commissionAh, what danger we weave when first we practice to use Circular Reasoning. President Trump believes he won the popular vote but the tally indicates otherwise. This means there must be something wrong with the count. This means we now have something called the Election Integrity Commission which will suck up millions of dollars, vast resources, and most certainly violates the spirit of the Constitution of the United States if not the letter.

I, Tom Liberman, am always right.

How do you know, Tom?

Because I said so and I’m always right.

As ridiculous as that sounds, this sort of logic is the reason we have the Election Integrity Commission.

Trump absolutely believes he won the popular vote in the election, his hubris will not allow any other explanation. He said as much on any number of occasions. Each state is in charge of how they choose to assign their Electors, as is expressly declared by the Constitution of the United States. Without exception, they use popular voting as this method.

The various states don’t believe there is any significant voter fraud. There is certainly no evidence of widespread voter fraud. Therefore, they are largely refusing to turn over to the federal government any of the information they have gathered in regards to voting. They view it as an overreach. I agree.

The problem here all stems from circular reasoning. Trump believes something for which there is no evidence. This becomes a problem for a man with an apparently unshakeable belief in his every pronouncement. When we say something that is wrong, our first tendency is to attempt to support the statement when others refute it. When the person trying to support an almost certainly suspect premise is in a position of power, we get things like the Election Integrity Commission. If this doesn’t worry you, then you’re reading the wrong blog.

A person who appears ready to violate the Constitution of the United States in a vainglorious attempt to support what is almost certainly an untrue statement is a dangerous figure. I realize that I’m stepping on dangerous legal grounds when I assume the request made by the commission for information about the voters in the various states is unconstitutional. I don’t have a background in Constitutional Law. I could be wrong about a legal violation but I’m certain I’m right about a violation in spirit.

The federal government is not supposed to be meddling in how states run their elections and for good reason. How an election is conducted is under the purview of the state.

I’m not completely naïve, I know the United States has had special commissions created not to find truth, but to spread unwarranted seeds of doubt. That being said, this is the first time I recall such an investigation being a direct attempt to prove as true a presidential misstatement. This is the first time I’ve seen Circular Reasoning from the President of the United States send so many people scrambling into action.

The danger here is manifest. If the government feels obligated to force its version of the truth on the people of the country, we are living in dangerous times. Trump, or any other politician, can say as they please, it is only when their actions threaten me that I become alarmed. What concerns me about this is not so much the Election Integrity Commission, it is certainly stupid and I’m glad most states are refusing to cooperate, but the long-term implications of a head of state who not only cannot admit a mistake, but must manufacture, via dubious Constitutional actions, a truth that fits the narrative.

I hope it concerns you as well.

Tom Liberman

 

Malaysia Steals, Australian Gifted, United States Steals

Posted on by

jho-low-malaysia-chronicleA fellow by the name of Jho Low worked as a financier in Malaysia. He is accused of taking money from a fund called 1Malaysia Development Berhad. He then used this money to buy jewelry for Australian actress Miranda Kerr. Now the United States has taken her jewelry as stolen property.

I suppose, on some level, I understand the general idea that someone who steals something should pay back what was stolen. The reality is that is not how the justice system works. If someone murders someone there is no way to give life back. The majority of crimes cannot be dealt with in an eye for an eye fashion. We have a criminal justice system that weighs the various crimes and assigns penalties based upon them. This is our attempt to arrive at justice.

I’m all for justice, but this sordid series of events is anything except. Let’s follow the trail from beginning to end. The Malaysian government controls 1Malaysia and puts money into the fund from revenue generated by taxes. This is money that belonged to people in Malaysia and was transferred to the government.

Now, the money was siphoned off to individuals like Low to be used not for the benefit of the people of Malaysia, but for him individually. He used this money to purchase jewelry from various suppliers. These suppliers sold him the jewelry at a fair market price in good faith. They received money for the jewelry. Said jewelry was then given to Kerr while she and Low were dating.

As a gift of tremendous value, it is treated as income. Essentially Kerr had to report these gifts and their worth to the Australian government who certainly taxed her at the appropriate rate. It is largely the same as earned income from a tax perspective.

Now the United States government has forced Kerr to turn over the jewelry to them. In addition to the jewelry they’ve seized other assets worth approximately $1.7 billion. Why the United States is involved at all is not clear to me, but I’m guessing the assets in question were purchased in the United States.

So, from what I can deduce, the government of Malaysia stole a bunch of taxpayer money from its citizens and now the United States has stolen the property purchased with this money.

What would be justice? Quite simple. Return the items to the sellers in exchange for the money paid for the goods and then give that money back to the taxpayers of Malaysia. Anybody think that’s going to happen?

Now, it certainly wouldn’t be a perfect solution as the gifts have likely depreciated since their original purchase but it would be more just.

The way things stand we simply encourage foreign governments to rinse and repeat. Steal a bunch of money from taxpayers, buy lovely things, pay taxes on the purchases, pay taxes if they are gifted, use them for a while, and then give them to the U.S. government.

All we’re doing is collecting money from the stolen goods at every step of the way. That money no more belongs to the United States than it does to me. The worst part is this isn’t unusual. Local, State, and Federal government steals from thieves all the time. They call it seizures but it’s nothing more than theft.

Will the United States pay back the taxes collected on those purchases? Will Australia? Will Malaysia? Will we give the original money back to the citizens of Malaysia? They are the only victims here and they are not recompensed in any way. Everyone else makes a profit and one or two scapegoats will spend a few years in prison.

That’s government for you.

Tom Liberman

Facebook to Remove Posts from when you were a Minor

Posted on by

facebook kidsThe latest nonsense from government is a proposal to force Facebook to remove all posts made prior to your eighteenth birthday. It’s making its way through the English Parliament and has the support of the Queen who announced its existence in her speech on June 21.

Fine, I think it’s a silly law, but why? Let me clarify, because that’s what people who are interested in real conversation do. We don’t just tell you you’re an idiot and move on. We explain why you’re an idiot and listen when you explain why we’re wrong.

My first objection is all about freedom and liberty. I’m free to delete any post myself. Now, I agree the current system of having to delete posts one at a time rather than in bulk by date should be updated, but there is no way we should be allowing a Facebook algorithm to delete millions of posts automatically.

Breaking news, I’m old enough that when I turned eighteen Facebook, Social Media, and the World Wide Web simply did not exist. None of my pictures are going to be deleted. It’s not a concern of mine, but if I were one of the affected parties, I’d be angry my pictures were being deleted without my permission. There’s no way the government should be in charge of that decision. And let’s not blame Facebook if this law is enacted. It’s not their fault. It is simply the government telling me any pictures I posted before I turned eighteen are potentially dangerous for me.

This leads me to my second issue with this proposed law. It is part and parcel of a mantra that makes me literally sick to my stomach: We’re doing it to protect the children. No, you’re not. You’re doing it to force your misguided sense of morality onto the rest of us. I can’t even begin to count how many times I’ve heard wannabe fascists claiming they want to take away my freedom because they are trying to protect the poor, helpless children. The children are always the excuse and my freedom is always the victim. I’m not buying it.

It also insults everyone under eighteen. Basically, the law is telling them they might do something foolish, therefore we’re going to protect you from yourself. My experience is that quite a few people under the age of eighteen are far less foolish than many adults I know. Sure, some kids post photos that might embarrass them later in life, so do many adults. The government can’t protect us from such self-inflicted damage nor should they be trying to do so. Parents should monitor their child’s Social Media posts, not the government.

My fourth objection is less philosophical and more practical. Every post that anyone makes is available to be Shared on Facebook. It is available to be posted to other Social Media platforms. It is available to be copied and stored forever. Trying to delete something that’s been out on the internet is pretty much closing the proverbial barn door after the cows are out. It is not going to work.

So, let’s recap. The legislation takes away the freedom of adults by automatically removing pictures they might well want to remain in place and which they could relatively easily remove themselves. It is an excuse for government to intrude on our lives in the name of helping children. It insults the very children it is intended to protect. In the end, the pictures will probably still be out there.

Yeah, it’ll probably pass.

Tom Liberman

Cell Phone ban for Children in Colorado

Posted on by

cell phoneThere are a number of studies indicating cell phone usage for young children can cause developmental problems and now the state of Colorado wants to pass a cell phone ban restricting the sale of such devices to anyone under thirteen.

Anyone who reads my blog well knows I’m a Libertarian and you can probably guess on which side of the issue I come down upon. However, it’s not quite as cut and dried as you might imagine. Naturally I think it’s a silly law, I hope that goes without saying. Parents have access to information indicating what is a good age for cell phone use and how much such devices should be used by children. Said parents should make the final decision about their child’s use of cell phones. It is ridiculous for the state to attempt to usurp the rights of the parents so.

That being said, the Constitution of the United States is silent on the subject of cell phone sales with the intent to distribute to a child. Where the Constitution is thus silent, it is the purview of states to do as they will. In this case, the constitution does not grant me, or anyone else, the right to own a cell phone. Therefore, the state of Colorado is free to ban the sale of such devices.

I think the passing of such ridiculous laws often results in exactly what the Founding Fathers envisioned when they tried to limit the power of government. It is when legislators try to impose such ridiculous bans on the people of our country that action is often finally taken. If the people in Colorado think this ban is insane, if manufacturers of cell phones move their business elsewhere, if a parent is denied the right to buy their child a cell phone and has to go through the inevitable black-market to get one; there is recourse. They can vote for representatives who repeal such a law.

That’s the way it’s supposed to work. I think our elected officials are obligated to pass the laws they think are best for communities. They shouldn’t worry about the number of votes they get in subsequent elections. They shouldn’t worry about what the people of Colorado think about this law, if the politicians think it’s a good law, pass it.

Then the matter goes to the voters.

This is the driving force behind our form of government. It only works when politicians care about passing laws and stop worrying about public sentiment. I think this law is ridiculous, but the elected representatives of the people of Colorado may think otherwise. Good for them.

Tom Liberman

The War Drums Beat and People Seem to be Marching

Posted on by

war drumsI see a familiar pattern in the beating of the war drums. Our enemies are readying to attack us. They are engaged in acts of war upon the United States. We must defend ourselves. It is quite similar to the mantra that came out of President George W. Bush’s Whitehouse prior to our invasion of Iraq. It seems to be resonating with the same group of people.

War is not a glorious endeavor. War means death, maiming, horrific psychological damage. Even if we are successful in various combat scenarios it entails long operations where soldiers are subject to guerilla style attack. It means families are split for years, that fathers and mothers are separated from children. And this is only for our troops, the ostensible enemy is mainly non-combatants and they will suffer the most, they always do in war.

War is sometimes necessary, this I do not deny. However, I see nothing to be gained from war in Syria or war in North Korea. I’m quite certain our military can inflict huge amounts of damage. We can kill hundreds of thousands of people. The losses of our enemies will likely be far greater than any we sustain, but to what end?

North Korea is a nation of twenty million people. It is physically adjacent to China and far from our shores. Supporting such an effort would cost trillions of dollars in addition to the money we are spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, two conflicts from which are yet fully extricated.
Syria is in the middle of an incredibly volatile region. There are so many different factions involved it’s impossible to count them all. Any ally of ours today will almost certainly be an enemy tomorrow. Our troops in Afghanistan are being attacked by supposed allies on a weekly basis and the situation in Syria will be far worse.

Russia has a strong military, certainly not as powerful as our own, but one that can inflict serious damage to our soldiers. They can sink our ships and shoot our planes out of the sky. China can do the same.

Supporting our troops in these far-flung regions is not an easy endeavor and our allies are more and more closing their doors to our support lines. Our major airfield in the region is at Incirlik but the Turks are not in agreement with our policy regarding the Kurds. We have armed the Kurds and aided their attacks. It is likely Turkey will refuse to allow us to use this base in active war. We maintain bases in Iraq, despite any nonsense you’ve heard that we fully pulled out of the country, but they are not as functional as Incirlik.

I suppose people somehow get the illusion in their head that war will be easy. That we won’t take too many casualties, that not that many soldiers will be maimed. I’m not sure how, after recent events, people can think like this, but as I read the comments it is undeniably so.
And the drums beat on, those who support them are vocal. The more people support such saber rattling, such belligerent talk, such tough posturing; the deeper we become enslaved to these policies. We can’t back down once we’ve crossed certain lines. At least that’s largely the sentiment I perceive.

Sometimes I think it is people just carrying over their feelings from the recent election, half-troll, half-serious. I see this apparent eagerness to attack our enemies, to put our troops in harm’s way, to expose so many people to so much potential harm and people treating it like a game of words to one-up their friends on Facebook.

This is war. This is lives. This is not a game. Choose your position wisely.

Tom Liberman

What do I think About Executive Privilege?

Posted on by

executive privilegeExecutive Privilege is a subject of much debate thanks to Attorney General Jeff Session’s sort of thinking about, maybe, kind of, invoking it in regards to testimony about the firing of FBI Director James Comey. I’d like to examine the principle of Executive Privilege as a whole and what it means to a Libertarian like myself.

The first thing we must clearly understand is Executive Privilege is not in the Constitution of the United States. Nope. Not a word. The President and his communications are not immune to oversight from Congress and the Legislative Branch. Both branches can and do have the right to subpoena such information if it is material to their oversight responsibilities.

The next thing we must immediately dispense with is the idea that one political party has a monopoly on using Executive Privilege. The previous three presidents have resorted to this doctrine to cover-up wrongdoing on a scale not seen in the first two-hundred plus years of this nation’s existence. President Bill Clinton used it to attempt to avoid testimony from the Secret Service during the Monica Lewinsky affair. President George W. Bush used it to avoid releasing information about the highly suspicious death of Pat Tillman and the disgusting cover-up that followed. President Barak Obama used it to prevent release of information in regards to the Fast and Furious firearms operation.

Our first president, George Washington, once refused to turn over information regarding negotiations on a treaty with England to the House of Representative believing the Senate alone had oversight responsibilities on ratification of such items. He did turn it over to the Senate.

Thomas Jefferson refused to turn over information relating to Vice President Aaron Burr because it contained sensitive information related to the security of the nation. In my opinion, and that of Chief Justice Warren Burger, Executive Privilege should be used only in the rare cases national security interests are involved. When the investigation or prosecution of a crime is underway, the agency or branch charged with oversight should almost always be able to see those documents, certainly privately and not for public release.

The first time we see Executive Privilege used to hide normal conversations between the president and anyone is when President Andrew Jackson used it in regards to his discussions about the Second Bank of the United States.

President Dwight Eisenhower invoked it in regards to Senator Eugene McCarthy and request of military information regarding communists.

President Nixon used in an attempt to prevent information about the Watergate scandal from getting to into the hands of prosecutors. Then the floodgates opened with Clinton, Bush, Obama, and as we’re seeing President Donald Trump. They are using the idea that any conversation, even if criminal, is privileged.

Point in hand is the current situation. We all know what happened. There is no mystery. Trump wanted to fire Comey. He asked Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to find a reason to do it. His real purpose was discomfort at Comey’s investigation into ties between his administration and Russia. If Sessions knew this was the real purpose, and isn’t saying, he has broken the law. He was recused from the investigation. Therefore, Sessions must go on with the charade that he had no idea that’s why Trump wanted to fire Comey. If he refuses to testify at all, citing Executive Privilege, then he will not be guilty of perjury should hard evidence of the real situation become available. This would end up with Sessions in prison.

Now, finally, as to my point of a view on all of this. As a Libertarian, I’m disturbed by the entire idea of Executive Privilege. If information is pertinent to a criminal investigation I see few reasons it shouldn’t be turned over. I understand national security and secret information must be treated with great care. Such details should be released only to the highest-level officials with oversight authority into the particular case.

What the President of the United States says to his advisors is absolutely my business. I pay all of their salaries. This is my country as much as it is theirs. If they want to talk about something then, as public officials, they must be prepared for that information to be available in a criminal investigation. If a crime has been committed you can’t simply say I won’t talk about it, Executive Privilege. If people can’t see how obviously dangerous that precedent truly is, well, I don’t imagine you should bother reading further.

Executive Privilege is a vile perversion of the very job our elected officials are supposed to be doing. If they commit a crime they must be held accountable for it. If they don’t have to give over information that implicates their criminal activities then what is to stop them from engaging in lawless behavior all the time, other than their conscience? Clearly, nothing.

If our elected officials can commit crimes without oversight, without the ability of law enforcement to conduct investigations, I fear for our nation. Holding elected representatives, all the way to the highest office, accountable for criminal behavior is vital to our national security. Far more important than the privacy of any particular conversation.

I’m virtually certain those who consider themselves supporters of President Trump will think I’m completely wrong about this now but would have totally agreed during the Obama presidency. And, of course, vice versa. That’s another big part of the problem but I’ll leave that alone for today.

Executive Privilege is a crime against the people of the United States. It should largely not exist.

Tom Liberman

 

North Korea and the Keyboard Warriors

Posted on by

Keyboard WarriorsPrior to the election, President Trump got a lot of grief and praise for tough talk in regards to North Korea and their military ambitions. This tough talk was well-received by those who like such things but reality has set in, at least for Trump, and that is a good thing. The keyboard warriors haven’t changed their attitude at all.

Those that support Trump generally believe a military solution to the problem of North Korea is on the table despite the fact such action is largely impossible because of the terrible harm that would come to South Korea and Japan and the fact that China and Russia are not going to allow us to operate in the region in an unfettered fashion.

What I find interesting is that Trump has stopped speaking about military solutions, as have his advisors, even as North Korea intentionally provokes them. This shows an understanding of the complexities of the situation and the difficulties of any solutions. Meanwhile the comments section of any article about North Korea and their various missile tests are filled with Trump supporters repeating his campaign rhetoric. That North Korea wouldn’t dare tests more missiles now that we have a tough president. This despite the obvious reality North Korea thrives on saber rattling and has ramped up their program hoping to provoke the current administration.

This disconnect interests me. Now that he is actually in power, Trump apparently understands the limited options available to us as far as North Korea and other nations are concerned. His tough talk has faded into basically the same policy pursued by previous presidents in regards to North Korea, Iran, and other nations we perceive as the enemy. Mostly diplomacy, a fair number of drone strikes, and a few raids with soldiers on the ground.

We have changed presidents but the world largely remains the same whether or not supporters of Trump choose to believe it or not.

I think this is perfectly natural. When we don’t actually have to make a decision, or take any action, we tend to have a very different reaction to situations than when we are in a position of authority. Once we come into a place where we are responsible for the outcome, our behavior tends to change pretty dramatically. It’s always easy as a keyboard warrior to utter tough words, but when the reality of the difficulties and dangers of a situation become clear, particularly the negative outcomes, we suddenly become more cautious.

Thus, I don’t really mind the disconnection between Trump and his legion of keyboard warriors. They are behaving fairly normally, as is he.
One of the few problems with this is when such banter bleeds over into real life. When people delude themselves into believing their online persona is their actual personality. Then trouble can ensue if they say the wrong thing to the wrong person. If we were to say something to a person in real life that we have no trouble uttering in an online situation we might get a fist to the face.

In conclusion, don’t get too upset by the keyboard warriors. They are probably pretty nice folk in real life.

Tom Liberman

The Relationship Between Welfare and Disability

Posted on by

welfareWelfare is a word that conjures images of poor black and Hispanic people living in an urban environment. Like it or not, that’s the image. Disability, on the other hand, brings to mind pictures of people in wheelchairs struggling to get up a ramp. The reality is somewhat different but what I’d like to talk about today is the relationship of the two entitlement plans. The two programs basically take money from taxpayers and give it to those who cannot afford to get through life for whatever reason.

We have these programs because in the United States we do not like the idea of people living in hunger. We see pictures of children in poor nations standing in line to get water, children dying of disease in fly infested hospitals and we say; not here. Rightfully so. In a wealthy country, there should be protections for people who cannot care for themselves. I have a disabled niece who will never be able to care for herself, so I’m aware of the value of the so-called safety net.

There is a general dislike of entitlement programs in the United States. This contempt is probably centered with Republicans but there are plenty of Democrats and Libertarians who find the sheer amount of money being distributed to be troubling. We, as a whole, largely think people should live within their means. Most people believe there are people like my niece who need help, but think the majority of people receiving this help aren’t trying hard enough. There is likely a lot of truth to these thoughts.

That’s where the relationship between welfare and disability comes into play. Two things happened. The first was the Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984 passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by President Reagan. It loosened the screening process by which the designation of disability was awarded.

Then came the Contract with America, Newt Gingrich, and President Bill Clinton. When the Republicans came to power in 1996 they wanted to reform welfare. Welfare, again, being imagined as poor black people living in the city. They did not, on other hand, seek disability reform. Mainly because it wasn’t much of a problem.

The result was The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act. This was passed by the new Republican majority and signed by President Clinton. It is law today. It essentially forces people to work before they can collect welfare. After a couple of years, the amount being paid in welfare went down. Success! Our plan worked! Hooray!

The reality is less pleasant. The amount of people applying for and receiving disability skyrocketed. The majority of people getting this money live in rural areas, are white, and are generally Republican. We now have generational disability families. The entire family lives off their government checks. The percentage of United States citizens on disability has doubled since 1985, which of course means a larger increase in total recipients.

There is no work requirement or time limit on receiving disability checks. Once granted, they arrive monthly for the rest of the recipient’s life.

We hear all about how the Social Security fund is scheduled to run out of money in thirty years or so. The Disability Insurance fund is scheduled to run out of money this year! People on disability are being cut off in ever greater numbers as the money runs out. Desperation, largely in rural areas, is beginning to be felt.

Our Congress is pretty much unwilling to discuss this entitlement for various political reasons. I don’t want to get into the blame game, I want to highlight the issue and the fact people often misperceive what is happening to whom and why.

Just be aware when you criticize people on welfare you are essentially censuring people who have been determined, for whatever reason, to be disabled. These people used to be on welfare and have simply switched the government agency which provides them with money.

Ask yourself, why isn’t this being discussed? Could it be political?

Tom Liberman

What Covfefe Tells us About Our Nation

Posted on by

covfefePresident Trump was attempting to write a tweet about what he perceives as unfair press coverage. He was doing so around midnight and something happened that caused him to start to spell the word coverage as covfefe. I’m not here to talk about the tweet but the sadly predictable reaction therein.

Those who do not like Trump are pointing to it as a sign of his incompetence, stupidity, and possible derangement. They are making fun of the tweet. Those who like Trump are defending it as a simple typo that he didn’t get around to fixing. That he accidently sent the tweet rather than deleting it.

I’d wager that the vast majority of people reading this article believe one of those two things. What I find sad is the undeniably reversal of reactions had it been President Obama who made the same tweet. I can say with absolute certainty those responding would almost universally change their opinions.

Those who don’t like Obama would be pointing to the tweet as a sign of incompetence, stupidity, and possible derangement. They would be using it as an excuse for impeachment. These are the largely the same people who are defending the tweet from Trump as harmless.
Meanwhile, those who are attacking this tweet would be defending the same if it came from Obama. Harmless, they would say.

There is a reason for this. It is because human beings are willing to forgive behavior from people they support. They are not willing to forgive the conduct of those they don’t like. They are oblivious to the fact the behavior is exactly the same. They will largely deny this is the case. They suppose they are thinking critically and rationally.

I guess this behavior can be classified as simply being human nature. We are generous with those we like and stingy with people we dislike. While it might be nothing more than natural humanity, I find it disturbing. It is a complete lack of critical thinking. It is turning off the brain in order to convince yourself of something. I want to like Trump so the tweet is fine. I want to hate Trump so the tweet is bad.

I understand that prior behavior is part and parcel of the criticism of Trump. Still, the consternation about this tweet is baffling. He was clearly trying to write the word coverage. He failed to do so and then proceeded to send the tweet anyway. This perhaps deserves some ridicule. The President of the United States should be careful with her or his words, but that is just not Trump’s style. He will continue to use words loosely and it’s important to understand this fact.

In any case, my main point today is not to criticize Trump, but instead those who are both defending and attacking him. Take a moment of introspection. What would be your reaction if Obama made that tweet? If you’re willing to be honest with yourself, I think we all know the answer to that question.

This lies at the heart of what is dividing the United States these days. The words, or gibberish words, don’t matter. The policies don’t matter. It’s all a matter of who is saying them. If we continue to be divided the nation is in trouble. If we cannot accept good ideas even from those we dislike and we cannot criticize bad ideas from those we generally support; it becomes impossible to govern.

We elect our politicians; therefore, they are a reflection of the people of the nation. When we give up critical thinking, we can only expect our politicians to behave in the same fashion.

I guess I’m simply saying; listen to the message, not the messenger. Not that I have much hope people will do so.

Tom Liberman

The Tangled Web of Manuel Noriega and the United States

Posted on by

Manuel NoriegaI suspect most people reading this blog will remember Manuel Noriega, who recently died, as a bad guy. A brutal dictator who trafficked in drugs and whom the United States eventually removed from power in Panama. All these things are true but they were all products of our meddling in the affairs of other countries. We created Noriega and the blame for his horrible deeds rests upon our shoulders.

I’d recommend reading the entire Wikipedia article about Noriega to get a full view of his life and our responsibility in all of it. It’s a disturbing story to be sure, but what I want to talk about is the deep-rooted nature of why we interfered and how we continue to pursue the same policies today. How we set ourselves up for long-term failure, and cheerfully do so. Not only cheerfully but vigorously and with absolute confidence we are doing the right thing.

At its center is the idea other nations in this world do not have our best interests at heart. There are theocratic regimes, communist nations, autocratic dictators, and others whose desires are not aligned with our nation. We deal with these sorts of nations in various ways. We spy on them, we support opposition parties with money and military hardware, we sanction them economically, we bomb them, we invade them. Generally speaking, these strategies are applauded by the people of our country. These foreign nations want to hurt us, so we must actively attempt to do the same to them.

Our pursuit of these policies causes tremendous harm. To the people of the nations in question, to our own citizens, and to our ethical reputation. In the case of Noriega, he was considered a powerful United States asset. We paid him huge sums of money and helped him come to power in Panama. In return he funneled money to other insurgents in Central America who were fighting against regimes we did not like. That’s the tangled web we weave when we get involved with people like Noriega.

This involvement with Noriega led us to, at the least, ignore his drug trafficking. There is credible evidence we not only ignored it, but actually took part in the manufacturing and distribution of cocaine because part of the proceeds went to support opposition to regimes we were trying to overthrow.

This is not a one-time outcome. Again and again, the United States has meddled in the affairs of other nations and had it come back to hurt us. We overthrew the Iranian government in 1953. We installed the Shah of Iran, a brutal dictator and much of the terrorism we see in the world is a result of this policy. In our zeal to overthrow the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan we gave the Taliban military hardware. We advised them on tactics. When we wanted to rid ourselves of the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad we supported paramilitary organizations that eventually became ISIS.

It can be argued that the entire Mexican drug trafficking organization that brings death and misery to so many is solely tied to a fellow named Miguel Angel Felix Gallerdo. He was heavily backed by the CIA because he helped us against the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua.

What’s amazing about all of these facts is they are well known. The people making policy decisions today understand the failure of all this past meddling. They understand how it caused so much harm. And yet we continue and extend these exact same policies. We support regimes likes those in Saudi Arabia because they ostensibly help us against perceived enemies like Iran. We destroyed the government and nation of Iraq only to see the situation grow worse.

We arm organizations like the Kurds because they are helping us in Syria not recognizing the eventual outcome of all the destabilizing of the region.

We support despotic dictators the world over. We not only allow but partake in the illegal drug trade where it is perceived to be to our benefit. To put it succinctly, we meddle. We meddle, and we keep on meddling despite the fact that it has caused nothing but trouble.

Manuel Noriega is a tangible representation of all that I have written. He is the poster-child for why the United States needs to stay out of the affairs of other nations.

I know those arguing for so-called hardline solutions mean well. I know you hope for the best. I know you consider yourself patriots and want what is good for this nation.

I beseech you, read about Noriega and the horrible results of all our meddling.

Tom Liberman