Yesterday’s Pictures of the Day at the WSJ were particularly fine, including a US soldier in Afghanistan who didn’t have time to put on his uniform and gets caught by the camera taking up a defensive position in pink I [heart] NY boxers and flip flops.

LG wanted to collect royalties from a company that had purchased a full licensed product from Intel, who is one of LG’s licensees.

Forget the fact that there is rising demand all over the world and exporters are shipping less. Let’s just blame the “failed” Bush energy plan and come up with silly ideas like a “gas tax holiday”.

Gas Prices around the country — Source: GasBuddy.com

For African-Americans, that would be the perfect answer to the question: What has the Democratic Party ever done for you, except raise taxes, make some dependant on social handouts, and perpetuate a failing school system?

This election could very well be the end of the Democratic Party and possibly start moving this country in the right direction.

“Each month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics gathers 84,000 prices in about 200 categories — like gasoline, bananas, dresses and garbage collection — to form the Consumer Price Index, one measure of inflation.

It’s among the statistics that the Federal Reserve considered when it cut interest rates on Wednesday. The categories are weighted according to an estimate of what the average American spends, as shown below.”

This stuff isn’t terribly useful, but some interesting things can be seen. For example, the Flesch-Kincaid grade level of the address has been going down. There are multiple explanations for this. The first being presidents are getting dumber or the second being that as more people are becoming involved in politics, politicians are trying to lower the difficulty of the material. In 1790 a few hundred people watched the State of the Union and yesterday there were 62 million viewers.

Play around with it when you have some free time. The site is located here.

This ruling is a situation in which the reading of the constitution is taking grossly out of context. The role of the judicial system is to interpret the constitution and all other laws that we use to govern society and judge their applicability to a present situation.

The idea of the “separation of church and state” was created by the founding father in light of the religious wars that have plagued Europe for centuries before the United States of America was even an idea. The phrase, “separation of church and state” is never mentioned in the United State Constitution but comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. The only reference to religion comes from the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment that states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. The intention of the separation of church and state was to ensure that the government did not support a state church or establish a national religion which could be used alienate and/or persecute a minority. The separation of church and state is related to freedom of religion, but the two concepts are different. It is incorrect to infer that countries with a state church do not necessarily have freedom of religion and vice-versa.

Coming from a strongly religious family my views on this are slightly biased. Most parents use god, as a form of checks and balances while teaching their kids what is “right” and what is “wrong”. The argument is an atheist student is forced to be in an public environment in which religion is pressed upon them. However, a student does have the right to remain silent, and not repeat the pledge. Making the recital of the pledge of the allegiance mandatory in my opinion is unconstitutional yet prohibiting the recital in a classroom setting is not the intention behind the idea of “freedom of religion”.

I am pressed to ask what is next? Will “God Bless America”, “America the Beautiful”, and even the official text of our national anthem, which has the phrase “this be our motto: ‘In God is our trust’” be eventually banned? Will the treasury be ordered to reprint new bills and coins without “In God We Trust”?

If voting is truly our greatest right one must consider the implication. Our other rights—freedom of speech, freedom of property, and even our freedom to exist as rational human beings—are dependent on the whims of the masses and their elected leaders. Our country on this view is not a society based on freedom and our individual rights, but rather on unlimited majority rule.

Examples of the consequences of unlimited majority can be found throughout history: In 1932 when the people of Germany democratically elected Adolph Hitler to bring the country on its knees; Modern day India where the democratically elected officials forgave farmers debts and provided free electricity to them; or Ancient Athens where the masses exercising their “greatest right” elected to kill Socrates for voicing unpopular ideas.

History has shown what the masses are capable of doing, yet people claim that as American’s our greatest right is our “freedom to vote”? Does dare anyone claim that America is fundamentally similar to these regimes, and that is acceptable to slaughter six million Jews or kill unpopular philosophers, so long as it is done by a popular vote?

Contrary to popular belief, America was not founded as a “democracy”, but rather a republic where government is bound by a written constitution to protect individual rights. “Democracy” dosen’t mean holding public elections for government officials; it means a system in which the minority are held to the decisions of the majority, and in which an individual as no right. James Madison in the Federalist Papers wrote, “there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention [and] have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.”

So then what is the right to vote? The right to vote is the belief that a person is a rational independent being, who is responsible for this own life and should therefore freely choose a person to represent him in the government of his country. That independence is violated if a majority of the voters are allowed to do whatever they wish to an individual or group of persons. The right to vote is not a legal sanction for the majority to deprive individuals of their freedom. Rather, because a free society requires a certain type of government—to protect that very freedom—the right to vote is means of electing officials who will protect the right of every individual citizen.

What makes America great is not that is has elections—even Iraq had elections—rather that its elections take place to protect individual rights. From our Declaration of Independence which declare the “unalienable rights” of every individual to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” to the Constitution which protects freedom of speech, religion, and property—the respect for the individual—is what makes America great.

Unfortunately, with the passing of every election, more and more Americans view elections as a means of getting favors or handouts from government at the cost of other Americans rather then and opportunity to protect the freedom that make America great. Every politician we elect promises to violate the rights of some Americans to benefit some other Americans. They promise subsidizes for farmers—by forcing non-farmers to pay them; they promise liberty for the world—by forcing Americans to pay for it; they promise prescription drugs for the elderly—by forcing the young to pay for them; they promise housing for the homeless—by forcing the non-homeless to pay for them; they promise a better life to the unproductive poor—by forcing the productive rich to pay for them. They promise liberty by violating liberty.

Thus this Election Day we must realize that neither Bush nor Kerry are ideal champions of liberty, yet we must vote for the one which will protect our liberty to the greatest extent. The choice cannot be made for you, yet the answer is self-evident. The more democratic we become—the more we let the majority suck the blood of the minority—we violate the fundamental root of greatness in America: freedom.

In reality, there will always be differences in the incomes of the wealthiest and poorest individuals, just as there will always be differences in the physical strength between people. And just as the strong can become weaker by not being productive, the weak can become strong by increased productivity; the rich can lose their shirts and people in rags can earn riches.

The left forgets that wealth is created through rational thinking and productivity. Instead they regard money as a static amount; a fixed pie. Anti-capitalists impose “progressive” income and capital gains tax on the wealthy to redistribute this imaginary “pie”. In fact these measures actually create the difference between the income levels of the wealthy and poor. Government enforced wealth distribution policies encourage non-productivity and dependence in their recipients. Furthermore, taxation discourages business from investing their money to expand companies and create new ones.

A proper economic policy should not attempt to narrow the inevitable gap in the income levels however encourage the opportunity — the freedom — for each individual to raise his/her own standard of living. What is noteworthy is that capitalism raises the standard of living for individuals of all classes, so that today’s poor are always better off than yesterday’s wealthy.

The draft is used because the salary the military offers isn’t high enough to get the necessary number of people to volunteer. I’m sure if the military offered a compensation package of, say, $50,000 to $100,000 a year, it could get all the soldiers it wanted. Thus the truth is whenever there is a draft, you know that the salary is too low to entice enough people to voluntarily supply their labor to the armed forces.

Waging war requires much more than soldiers. You need tanks, bombs, bullets and aircraft. Have you heard a call to draft $15 million F-15 fighter jets or $4.3 million M1 Abrams Main Battle Tanks? I haven’t. The reason is that the government pays the kind of prices which entice producers to voluntarily supply these products. Of course, if the Pentagon were willing to pay McDonnell Douglas only $5 million for an F-15 and General Dynamics only $1 million for a tank, it would have to “draft” jets and tanks.

Supporters of the draft fail to recognize one central truth: a proper government exists solely to protect the individual rights of its people. You can not claim to defend these rights while one violates their most important section: that a person has a right to his life that may not be violated.

This idea that politicians purport of the “common good” and “sacrifice for one’s country” is incorrect. Human beings are inherently and rightfully selfish, and the only rational way to justify a public army is paying them with public funds at a rate which can be considered market value. Thus, the only effective way to have an effective military is to pay military personnel salaries that make military service attractive.

To sum it up eloquently:

“If the state may force a man to risk death or hideous maiming and crippling, in a war declared at the state’s discretion, for a cause he may neither approve of nor even understand, if his consent is not required to send him into unspeakable martyrdom–then, in principle, all rights are negated in that state, and its government is not man’s protector any longer. What is there left to protect?” — Ayn Rand

“Names?”

“Tim and Jim Jones.”

“Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance.”

“Yes, we’re brothers.”

“Brothers? You can’t get married.”

“Why not? Aren’t you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?”

“Yes, thousands. But we haven’t had any siblings. That’s incest!”

“Incest?” No, we are not gay.”

“Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?”

“For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don’t have any other prospects.”

“But we’re issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who’ve been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman.”

“Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have.

But just because I’m straight doesn’t mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim.”

“And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?”

“All right, all right. I’ll give you your license. Next.”

“Hi. We are here to get married.”

“Names?”

“John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson.”

“Who wants to marry whom?”

“We all want to marry each other.”

“But there are four of you!”

“That’s right. You see, we’re all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship.”

“But we’ve only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples.”

“So you’re discriminating against bisexuals!”

“No, it’s just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it’s just for couples.”

“Since when are you standing on tradition?”

“Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere.”

“Who says? There’s no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!”

“All right, all right. Next.”

“Hello, I’d like a marriage license.”

“In what names?”

“David Deets.”

“And the other man?”

“That’s all. I want to marry myself.”

“Marry yourself? What do you mean?”

“Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return.”

“That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!”

–
A little comedy, but it’s a good way to explain why I have contradictory idea about gay marriage. The questions really isn’t whether we should allow gay marriages or not, but rather where we should draw the line.

The Telemarketing trade group, the Direct Marketing Association, has already filed suite on the grounds that the law inhibits free speech. As far as I’m concerned this is a completely bogus argument. Free Speech is not about advertising. Advertising is not “free”, you have to pay for it. It is also not political nor is it the expression of an individual, it is commerce and as commerce can be restricted.

It will be interesting to see how effective this list will actually be in reducing the number of telemarketing calls, but it’s a good first step if nothing else in establishing the idea that advertisers do not have unrestricted access to individuals using a service that those individuals pay for.

Now all they have to do is fix the Spam problem.

Besides the fact that this is little more then a clever bit of propaganda it brings up the issue of “boycotting” various products made in countries that are not supporting the US in it’s efforts to invade Iraq. People say they are going to stop buying things made in France and Germany. But what about China? For crying out loud, how would it be possible to boycott goods made in China? Everything is made in China.

Sometimes I wish that the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council could be chosen like the starting five for the N.B.A. All-Star team – with a vote by the fans. If so, I would certainly vote France off the Council and replace it with India. Then the perm-five would be Russia, China, India, Britain and the United States. That’s more like it.

Why replace France with India? Because India is the world’s biggest democracy, the world’s largest Hindu nation and the world’s second-largest Muslim nation, and, quite frankly, India is just so much more serious than France these days. France is so caught up with its need to differentiate itself from America to feel important, it’s become silly. India has grown out of that game. India may be ambivalent about war in Iraq, but it comes to its ambivalence honestly. Also, France can’t see how the world has changed since the end of the cold war. India can.

How the World of Order deals with the World of Disorder is the key question of the day. There is room for disagreement. There is no room for a lack of seriousness. And the whole French game on Iraq, spearheaded by its diplomacy-lite foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, lacks seriousness. Most of France’s energy is devoted to holding America back from acting alone, not holding Saddam Hussein’s feet to the fire to comply with the U.N.

Mr. de Villepin also suggested that Saddam’s government pass “legislation to prohibit the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction.” (I am not making this up.) That proposal alone is a reminder of why, if America didn’t exist and Europe had to rely on France, most Europeans today would be speaking either German or Russian.

Although the essay is in fact an attack on the French position in regards to Iraq it does beg a serious question. Why keep the Permanent members of the Security Council we currently have? What justifies their status?

The United States is a “gimme’”. The US is, far and away, the biggest baddest Mother F—-r on the block. China, not hard to answer, she is well on her way to rivaling the US in bad ass stature. Russia, a former bad ass that still possess’ a lot of really nasty weapons. England, the US lap dog. The US is so big it gets two votes, but since the rules governing the Security Council only allow for one Nation one vote the US gets a second vote by proxy, the UK. – I’m sure this pisses off any Brit’s who might be reading this, but the truth hurts. If you don’t like the situation then quit voting for sycophants. – Then we come to France.

Friedman’s question really is a good one. France is a low level nuclear power with enough economic clout to send small ripples through the world economy if it try’s really hard. France loves to play the geopolitical spoiler, but its efforts rarely come to much. So what is the justification for Frances continued presence on the Security Council? The fact that it was victimized by the German’s in WWII and not swallowed by the Soviet’s?

Friedman’s right, it may well be time for a change.

On another note, space travel will continue, and should continue. I mainly see a redo of the entire shuttle, starting from scratch. I think the life of the current space shuttle is over. A tidbit of knowledge, there were 6 American’s onboard and one Israeli. One of the 6 Americans was a woman of Indian origin.