Almost Classical

I'm really tired of the canard that money suddenly has an outsized influence in politics. Plenty of studies show that money follows likely winners, but doesn't determine the winners of elections. More importantly, this September 7, 2014 column by Senators Tom Udall of New Mexico and Bernie Sanders of Vermont ignores the most basic of all questions… http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/09/the-threat-to-american-democracy-110683.html In 2010, the Supreme Court issued a disastrous 5-4 opinion striking down major parts of a 2002 campaign-finance reform law in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. This case and subsequent rulings, including McCutcheon v. FEC, have led to the explosion of outside money in elections through so-called super PACs. In the 2012 election, we quickly saw the results — 32 major super PAC donors combined to give more money than the millions of ordinary Americans who donated less than $200 each to Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. More than 60 pe...

While the Citizens United case has ignited righteous indignation on the political left, the Supreme Court ruling last week removing most caps on campaign advertising was not only the correct decision but represents a return to how our founders approached politics. Every newspaper, magazine, and "news" outlet was exempted from corporate finance restrictions even before this ruling. Why? Because you cannot limit the free press. But why should that logic apply to businesses? When our nation was founded the political parties, various organizations, the wealthy, and even many in the merchant class set about publishing "newspapers" that were little more than campaign ads. Printing was a huge business as a result. A single sheet newspaper could be prepared simply and distributed for a reasonable cost. Newspapers were named the "Middletown Press Democrat" or the "Anyville Republican Gazette" for a reason. Media bias was a given. Even small towns ha...

I realize having a dedicated “political” blog is a risk, since some people are bound to be offended. However, there are things that need to be said by as many people as possible. We need to speak up in the name of freedom. We need to defend true liberalism. This is a response to the “Nanny State” mentality that tries so hard to protect us from all risks. This first post is merely to relaunch this blog. Much more will follow when I have the time. I did relocate some older posts and have now reposted them to this site. I am not going to repost all older blog entries, though.

A lot has happened in the last few months, and even now I don’t find myself particularly motivated to write on most of the events. Instead, I like to see patterns and comment on those large, inescapable patterns politicians and the public would rather ignore. Islamic radicals have been a “pattern” since the start of the religion. I don’t mean that every Islamic individual or even Islamic nation has been a problem, but I do mean that Islam seems to have a fair number of radical believers unwilling to enter the modern world. I’m tired of the excuse that Christianity was “just as bad” in some way. I’m not a Christian, and I’m not about to defend any religion or Colonialism, but I also don’t think we should be comparing a current problem to the sins of humanity over the last six thousand or more years. Yes, the Crusades were terrible — but the Muslim nations won! Yes, the Ottoman Empire fell and European powers sliced up the Middle East, but Arab leaders sided with Hitler; not exactly ...