So way back when, government provided geographical monopolies to big telecommunications companies for building their infrastructure.  The result of this past government intervention and regulation is that there are now only a few corporations that, in essence "own" the internet.  Now, this isn't necessarily a bad thing - they were the ones to provide the resources, and assume the risk of construction.  Sure, it would've been nicer if the government hadn't gotten involved at all, but, hey - it is what it is.

But this whole "Net Neutrality" movement has me a little confused - it seems like to me, that Net Neutrality proponents are calling for government control and intervention, to prevent the rightful owners of the infrastructure that provides the communications of the internet from setting prices for using their infrastructure.  Now, this seems pretty cut-and-dried to me - big telecoms own the infrastructure in the Locke-ian sense.  The internet's communication infrastructure is not, and has never been a public resource.  Net Neutrality is just another lib attempt to stick it to corporations, tear down capitalism, and look like Robin Hood in the process.  But hey - I'm biased. 

So I watched a few of the videos available on YouTube that are pro Net Neutrality, to get an idea of how they're framing the argument and why it's such a big deal to them - here's their argument in a nutshell:
 
1) The internet is a "two-way" content providing system, where individuals can produce and provide content (like their vlogs and stuff) to other individuals.
2) If we don't pass laws that prevent ISPs and telecommunications companies from charging different amounts of money for different amounts of usage of the internet, then the internet will become a "one-way" content providing system, like TV or radio, where only a few media giants provide all of the content.
3)  Therefore, if we don't pass these laws, then the big companies who own all of the equipment will, effectively be "censoring" the voices of individuals.
 
A lot of the "scare-tactic" videos supporting Net Neutrality like to use a clip from AT&T's CEO, where he says, "Net Neutrality?  I don't even know what that means..."  Their intent is to make it look like these evil corporations are either stupid, or they're trying to hide their nefarious plans to censor the internet.  The argument *for* Net Neutrality is made as though the owners of the internet's infrastructure are, just now, trying to pull a fast one and ruin the internet.  They make it seem like the big evil corporations have just recently come up with some nefarious plan, and are trying to enact it, and that their evil plan (that, remember, they just recently came up with, according to Net Neutrality proponents) is somehow illegal.
 
But there is no "new" evil plan.  Net Neutrality proponents are simply trying to disrupt the way that the business of the internet has been conducted, since there was an internet.  And what better way to drum up interest in their fascist cause (fascism means nationalizing certain big industries) is there, than to lie, and make it seem like Net Neutrality is a reaction to something evil, unethical, and immoral that the telecoms have just cooked up.
 
Net Neutrality isn't a reaction to a crisis - it's a manufactured "crisis" that's being used to try to inject more government control over an industry.  Ironically, the very problem that they're trying to combat (via government intervention and control) was caused, in the first place, by government intervention and control...  Is there no end to their hypocrisy?
 
I think that a great conterargument to anyone who claims Net Neutrality is necessary would be to just ask them exactly what they think will happen, in a detailed fashion, if it is not enacted, and how the big companies will "censor" everyone.  Don't accept any vague, hand-wavy scenarios - require details, like, "ISP X charges Y to Z," etc.  Then pick their scenario apart, because it'll be full of holes and inconsistencies.  For starters, one big inconsistency is that they claim that individuals will not be able to publish content, because only big websites will be able to afford to publish content...  Um.  OK, and you're posting this "OMGZ - EVIL COMPANIEZZZ!!!" video on your own web server?  No, you're posting it on YouTube.  Which is a big website.  Freaking duh.

Anyway, there's a bright side to this situation.  If Net Neutrality laws are enacted, that lays the groundwork for *my* personal cause:  Cheeseburger Neutrality!  Instead of those greedy corporate fat cats charging me by the cheeseburger, I will propose a law that McDonald's, Burger King, and any other burger joint, has to sell me a "cheeseburger eating session," at the same price that they charge to anyone else, regardless of if I eat fifty cheeseburgers and that other person might only eat one.  I mean, it's only fair, right?

Hedge Fund Manager:  OMG, i snorted how much blow last night? and then crashed my Bimmer into *what*?  OMG LOLZZ!!1!

Junior Investment Banker:  duderz, it was a homeless guy, plus you probly got AIDS from that hooker!

Hedge Fund Manager:  im still drunk, and its 11:30am and im at work LOL!  howd i get home>?

Junior Investment Banker: u drove home - EPIC WIN, FOR GREAT JUSTICE!  im on like my 8th martini now!

Ask a lib to explain their favorite Obama policy.  Go ahead, ask them.  Then once they're finished elaborately complaining about how "eight years of failed Bush policy" caused the mess we're in, then ask them to explain it again, but this time without talking about Bush.  Don't worry, they won't be able to do it.  That's because modern American liberal ideology is nothing more than repackaged, watered-down Socialist drivel:  "Spread the wealth."  "The Government is our only hope."  "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs."  This is the ideological basis of Obama's vision for the future of our country.  But as well-intentioned as it seems, we know that Socialism doesn't work. 

So now that Obama, the mainstream media, and the American left don't have Bush as their whipping boy to draw our attention away from actually talking about their fundamentally flawed ideology, what are they going to do?  We already know the answer - all we have to do is look at the modern American liberals' playbook...

Saul Alinsky, radical liberal and political mentor of many prominent Democrats today, including the Clintons and Obama, wrote the liberal playbook, "Rules for Radicals."  In his book Alinsky describes methods to effect political change by any means necessary, no matter how despicable or sleazy, as long as the end result is what you want.  We've seen this sort of reasoning in our history before:  A book, "The Prince," written by Niccolo Machiavelli around 1513, contained the same sort of advice about how to gain power, and keep it.  Alinsky's book provided the tactic that Obama and the left used against our last President to win the election:  "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."  In other words, if you can't win based on ideology, then make it a popularity contest.  But now that Obama's the Prom Queen, and there's nobody left to pick on, what's the left going to do?

Their solution is easy, and they've already done it:  Pick the most prominent Republican icon, focus lots of negative attention on that person, and most importantly, blame the failures of government on them.  Any guesses as to who the new target of the libs' Machiavellian trash-talking is?  Here's a hint:

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,"
    -- President Barack Hussein Obama

According to the Alinsky playbook, the intent is to move the debate away from your unpopular ideology (i.e., Socialism), and keep the dullards (i.e., you and me) focused on the "Ooo! Shiny!" things (i.e., the interpersonal conflicts, arguments, and scandals), so we don't start asking the important questions, like, "Sooo where does all the money for the stimulus come from?" and,  "How exactly does spending get us out of a mess that we got in to by spending?" and, "How, exactly, do you 'cut' taxes for someone who doesn't pay any to begin with?"

Just watch.  Rush is about to become the new Bush.  If Republicans don't toe the Socialist Party line, it'll be blamed on Rush, because he's been brainwashing them.  If some unconstitutional, lib's-pet New-New-Deal bill doesn't get passed, Obama or Pelosi or Reid will blame Rush for muddying the waters and preventing true "bipartisanship."

Modern American liberals and the Democratic party are ideologically, intellectually, and morally bankrupt.  Their only hope is to turn our government into a reality-show farce so we don't realize just how dangerously wrong their vision for our nation is.

Obama economic advisor Robert Reich recently made a few comments about economic stimulus.

At one point, he advocated paying out stimulus money for jobless relief in...  Food stamps.  Yes, as Reich calls it, it's "a two-fer."  Because people need food, and we need to make sure they spend that money, so we'll pay them in food stamps.  Here's the quote:

"Food stamps. Talk about a way of getting money to people they will spend, they will spend -- you know, the more people are in need the more likely they are to turn around and spend whatever money they get. Again, a two-fer."

No seriously, how about we pay people in "_____" stamps?  That way the government can totally control everything we buy.  There's no "saving" anymore, just "stamps."  Need shoes?  Well, just spend your "shoe stamps."  Need a high-definition TV?  Well, just pool your family's "LCD TV stamps," and get one.  Forget "money" or "gold," or "objective value."  It's all stamps.  Stamps, stamps, stamps.  Need to mail a letter?  Go to the Post Office with your "Stamp Stamps" to buy some stamps.  Need to buy some of those ink-stamps for your office?  Well, just go to Office Depot with your..  uh..  "Stamp Stamps..."

OK, so there are still a few kinks to be worked out, but this system is genius, and so is Rob Reich.  All Hail Obama the Emperor.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/01/22/obama-adviser-stimulus-shouldnt-only-aid-white-male-construction-work

Here's an example of Obama showing his true, tyrannical, colors:  When talking to members of Congress about "working together in a bipartisan manner to... (blah blah blah)" about tax legislation, a Republican senator essentially asked our Emperor-in-Chief, "Hey, wait a minute...  Your tax ideas are just plain wrong."  His response? In so many words:

"Shut up, I won.  Do not question my supreme authority."

So, in other words, according to Obama, his victory is a supreme, eternal victory for Marxism and the left.  We may no longer question leftist ideology, or even debate ideology at all because, in his own words: "I won."

Here's the quote from the article:

"Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., said Republicans believed cutting income taxes would do more to stimulate economic growth than providing a $500 per person payroll tax refund for individuals earning less than $200,000. The president said, according to those present, that this was an important philosophical divide between Republican and Democrats and that it had already been settled -- and would remain settled -- because he won the election."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/23/obama-says-view-taxes-prevailed-won/

Great.

Apparently for the first time in fifty six years and fourteen presidents, President Obama chose not to attend the official Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball.  Half of the surviving Medal of Honor recipients were there, but I guess Beyonce, P. Diddy and Queen Latifah were less boring than those crusty old "heroes," so Obama went to the "Neighborhood Ball" instead.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2009/01/the-one-blows-o.html#comments

Priorities, priorities...

So I got on a rant in an email exchange with a like-minded uncle of mine.  We were commiserating about the election, the state of the nation, and the world in general. 

A little bit about him:  He makes stuff and provides for his family with his own two hands.  He doesn't go to the Government and get "unemployment benefits" when he has a bad year.  He doesn't apply for healthcare handouts like Medicaid, or use the "ER-as-primary-care" strategy - he pays for it out of pocket.  He doesn't apply for taxpayer-funded "workers' compensation" when the daily stresses of his labor cause him pain.  He just does what he does because that's what he needs to do.  Maybe most importantly, he's the one who influenced me to pay close attention to politics - I was a typical, ignorant, college student "lib-by-default," when he convinced me to think rationally about politics. 

He's the kind of guy we need more of in this world.  This is a compilation of the last few emails I wrote to him:

============================================
Muzz:

This thought was compelling enough to make me wake up and write it to someone...

This is the core of the lib ideology:

"I never want to worry about how I'm going to put food on the table."

"I never want to worry that my job might disappear."

"I never want to worry about paying my mortgage."

"I never want to worry that I might be evicted from my home."

...and so on.

Modern libs are all about feelings of security and safeness.  They never want to have to deal with the consequences of their failures.  But the problem is that the only people that are able to provide that security, are people who are willing to risk and accept the consequences of failure.

For every hundred "glorious workers" who demand "job security" and "living wages," as a  "fundamental right," there must exist a greedy capitalist pig, who risks his and his family's well-being to provide that opportunity for them (that would be you).  For every mob of coddled, "intellectual," "anti-disestablishmentarianist" radicals,there must be some poor, glorious b.astard of a warrior who risks his life to fight, using violence and deadly force, in mortal combat, to provide that mob its freedoms (that wouldn't be me, personally, but it *would* be the people I trained and worked with).
You said: 

"It's almost like we need a "union" of people like us that can revolt against them,"

right?  Well, the last time a group of rational, truly free-thinking people revolted against a confederacy of idiots like the ones we're facing now was when the U.S. Constitution was created.

Except now there's no geographical location to escape the creep of lazy, stupid, needy people that have, once again, attached themselves like barnacles to the last ship still sailing.  Either we  educate the stupids, or we succumb to them.  Or maybe we stop producing and let the leeches starve.  This discussion is actually the subject matter of that Ayn Rand novel (Atlas Shrugged) I was trying to get you to read.  The idea is that, no matter how insanely popular social welfare programs that try to shield us from our failures are among the irrational, emotionally-manipulated sheep-people, none of it can exist (none of it!) without individuals willing to take economic and personal risks to create things.

The story really drives this point home - productive, risk-taking, entrepreneurs are taxed, crippled, and hounded to support the laziness and incompetence of everyone else until they all, one by one, decide to just stop working.

It's an astounding concept, and I still think it'd be worth your time to read through it once.  In modern-day terms, what if that top 5% of income-earning individuals and corporations who shoulder, what, 75% of our national tax burden, as well as provide the vast majority of our GDP just... quit?

See, this book is actually even more pertinent today:  Nobody can claim that Socialism works - it doesn't.  Its failures have been spectacular and horrifying.  So the axioms of the modern socialist (or "liberal") are that profit-motive is evil, heartless, and greedy and that without "compassion," free-market capitalism is just plain bad.

But they're stuck, see, because without that "greedy," "evil" profit motive, nobody would have any incentive to actually work and create value, which they require to further their social programs.  For example, when was the last time *you* earned money for expressing "compassion?"  Oh, that's right - you earn money by physically making bricks, yourself.

Last time I checked "crying" and "demonstrating" didn't put money in your bank account.

Keep an eye on this one.  It appears that the closely-contested Senate race in Minnesota between far-left court-jester Al Franken and Republican Senator Norm Coleman is getting weird.  The initial election results put incumbent Sen. Coleman ahead by 725 votes, but since the final tally was within one-half of one percent, it triggered a recount.

Now, election officials have been tasked with double-checking their tallies before the official recount, and something strange has been going on...  All the mistakes that are reported?  They all come from liberal enclaves in MN, and they all, inexplicably, break 100% in favor of Al "Stuart Smalley" Franken, reducing Sen. Cole's lead to only 206.  In fact, WSJ has a great article about this - you should read it, but here are a few good ones from it:

In a normal audit, these mistakes could be expected to cut both ways. Instead, nearly every "fix" has gone for Mr. Franken, in some cases under strange circumstances.

And this:

Mr. Franken's gains so far are 2.5 times the corrections made for Barack Obama in the state, and nearly three times the gains for Democrats across Minnesota Congressional races. Mr. Lott notes that Mr. Franken's "new" votes equal more than all the changes for all the precincts in the entire state for the Presidential, Congressional and statehouse races combined (482 votes).

And the clincher:

This entire process is being overseen by Democratic Secretary of State Mark Ritchie ... an ally of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, of fraudulent voter-registration fame.

Everywhere ACORN and Democratic power are combined, there's the whiff of voter fraud.  But no, no, they didn't cause it - in fact they condemn it!  It just seems to inexplicably follow them around wherever they go. 

A favorite bugbear of the American liberal is that Republicans are always a hair-trigger away from reinstating the draft, and forcing citizens to serve in the military.  But who really supports conscription?  Which party has historically supported it?  Which party ended it in the 70's?  And most importantly, which party wants to reinstate it today?

Unsurprisingly, the president who signed the first, modern draft into law (the Selective Training and Service Act (STSA) of 1940) was none other than the big-government Democrat who helped worsen the Great Depression, and was the architect of many other spectacular failures that just now are coming to fruition, including Fannie Mae and the subprime lending crisis, Social Security, a precedent for federal government bailouts, and "Public Works Projects," Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  So there's one question answered - Democrats created the draft.

Now, who has supported the draft since then?  Here's a brief summary:

1948: Democrat, Harry Truman reinstates peacetime draft, this time including medical personnel.

1951: Democrat, Harry Truman signs the Universal Military Training and Service Act, a new draft proposal, into law when the STSA expires.

1969: Democrat, Lyndon B. Johnson, oversees as President the first draft "lottery" since 1942.

(*1973: Republican, Richard Nixon, as he promised during his presidential campaign, signs a bill ending the draft.)

2003: Democratic Senators, Charlie Rangel (D-NY) and Ernest Holling (D-SC) introduce a bill requiring two years military service for every male and female aged 18-26.

2008: President-elect and Democrat Barack Obama and his nominal Chief of Staff, Democrat Rahm Emanuel, propose compulsory "civilian defense force" training and service for all eligible citizens.

That's another two questions answered:  Democrats have supported conscription throughout modern American history.  (A Republican president ended it.)  Recently, Democrats, including our President-elect, have tried to reinstate it, or have stated that they plan to.

So, how do we reconcile this with our understanding of modern American politics?  Aren't the Republicans supposed to be the warmongering fascists?  Don't the Democrats want peace-through-polite-conversation?  Don't liberals have a proven track record of demonizing our military as stupid,  village-bombing baby-killers?

The answer, as always, is that Democrats don't understand basic economics.  A military draft represents an artificial price ceiling on a Soldier's work.  In other words, it forces individual citizens to do something that they would not normally do at prevailing prices.  In a free market during a shortage of some scarce resource (in this case, the willingness of citizens to work as Soldiers), prices rise, increasing supply.  However, the market for Soldiers is controlled solely by Congress, and they must set prices.  When faced with a shortage (which is a function of price, not actual scarcity), Democrats chose, again and again, to use force to compel U.S. citizens to conform to the will of the government instead of the simple solution of paying more so that more individuals would freely choose to volunteer.

Wow - they're starting, and just in time, too.  Just in case The Chosen One loses, we're already seeing the, "Republicans stole the election!!" news coverage.  This one is especially marvelous:

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/754952.html

The title is what did it for me:

"Computer expert denies knowledge of '04 vote rigging in Ohio"

Seriously?  Don't idiot journalists know that we're on to their rhetorical tricks yet?  Here, lemme write a few headlines that, while (probably) true in fact, would "imply" a totally different story:

"Obama denies that he murders homeless people for fun."

"Biden denies stealing taxpayer money for personal uses."

"Pelosi denies that she is an active member of the Communist Party."

"Barney Frank denies receiving over $10 Million from Franklin Raines in exchange for protection from regulation."

...

Hey, mainstream media, when did you stop beating your wife?

Under Clinton, responsible lenders were accused of discriminatory practices, such as "profiling," and "redlining."  Clinton's own pitbull (sans lipstick), Janet Reno, threatened U.S. Justice Department investigations of lenders who didn't ignore their statistically-based, time-proven lending criteria.  So they did what Democrats forced them to do and loaned money to people who might not be able to pay it back.

When the failure of a critical mass of those people to pay back the money these beleaguered financial institutions loaned them under duress caused a worldwide economic meltdown, Democrats claimed it was the greed of the lenders (not the fact that they, themselves, had threatened them to lend, "or else") that caused the problem.

So, now, lenders are being more cautious about who they lend money to.  Even credit card companies are reticent about handing out credit cards, and some have started to reduce credit limits of their existing customers.  This is a good thing, right?

Not according to NPR:  Their spin on a resurgence of responsible lending practices is that these companies (who have been burned twice already) are, 'engaging in credit-line profiling.'  (Emphasis mine.)

This is a partial transcript of a NPR story from today about this horrible practice of "predatory responsible lending":

Dennis Perry lives in Lacome, Louisiana ... At the beginning of this year, he had a credit card with a $40,000 limit.  Then he says it was cut to just above what he owed:

"And then I paid it down to about $32,000 and they dropped my credit limit again, to $33,200 now, this time."

Perry says the company told him it didn't want him to get into trouble.  But he feels like he's just being 'chased down.':

"Lemme ask you this:  What is my incentive to pay down my credit card now?  If I make extra payments to bring down my balance, what's going to happen?  They're going to penalize me by, um, dropping my maximum!  You know what I mean?"

Consumer advocates say that this practice of 'following customers down' as they trim their balances is unfair.

I don't know anything about Perry, except what he said in this brief interview.  But based on his understanding of economic "incentive," I wouldn't loan him a dollar!  If the fact that he borrowed money that he agreed to pay back isn't incentive enough to, well, pay it back, then I pity the people he owes!

This NPR story tries to make credit card companies look like the bad guys for lowering credit limits, and making rational judgments about extending credit, calling it "credit profiling."  How far behind can accusations of "racial-credit-profiling" be?  How long before these lenders are called "predatory non-lenders?"  Let's take a look at the Democrat "narrative" on lending in recent history:

1993:  "You're not lending money to these people, and it's because you're racist.  Lend money to them or we'll 'investigate' and legislate you into the ground.  Your intolerance is causing so much suffering!" 

2003-4:  "There's nothing wrong with our system of lending money to those who those intolerant, short-sighted lending institutions wouldn't lend to.  It's all sound."

2005-6:  "Why are you so worried?  There's nothing wrong with our government influence on the lending market!  Who cares that nobody's seen their books in decades?  We trust them!"

Mid 2008, post Fannie-Mae/Freddie-Mac meltdown:  "You're so greedy, for lending money to these poor people who couldn't pay you back!  Your greed caused all our problems!"

Now:  "Why aren't you lending money to people?  You're profiling based on credit-worthiness!  How non-progressive of you!"

Seriously?  We've been through this, we know how it ends, and we're still, in fact, dealing with the consequences!  We haven't even had enough time to fix the problems that Democrats have caused, and already, the fringe media is crying, "Discrimination!  More credit!"

I understand that history, for most libs, begins "this morning," but this is ridiculous, even by their own standards.

American liberal Democrats adapt quickly, I'll give them that.  Ever since John Edwards was effectively laughed off the stage in 2004 during a Vice Presidential debate, where Cheney schooled him on why it's a really bad idea to increase taxes on small business, Obama and leading Democrats have modified their talking points in an attempt to obscure their Marxist (yeah, I said it) ambitions.

Unfortunately for them, anyone who pays attention to recent history can easily see through their laughably transparent facade.  Even worse, anyone who's paid attention to actual history (you know, all that "old stuff" that happened, like forty or fifty years ago) knows what happens to nations when they use Obama's proposed economic policies of, 1) income-quintile-based (i.e. "Class"-based) antagonism and, 2) "spreading the wealth."  The most recent and spectacular failure of a nation run by Obama's proposed policies would be the USSR, who managed to, in total, starve and/or murder over 100 Million people in the name of "equality" and "fairness" before it imploded.

In fact, to observe great examples of the ongoing collapse of Socialist-run economies, one has to look no further than western Europe, where citizens die of cancer while waiting to see doctors thanks to "Universal Health Care."  Entrepreneurs limit themselves to maybe one or two employees at best (if any at all) because if they earned any more, it'd all be taken away in taxes.  Your ability to get and keep a job is based not on your ability to create value, but on your ability to charm individuals on the local Works Council (these are common in European nations, especially Germany - think Labor Unions, writ large) into liking you, personally, enough to give you favors.  This is not ancient, irrelevant history.  These are current events, and they are evidence that the modern American left's plan of "Spread the Wealth," and their focus on "fairness," and "equality of outcomes," leads to personal suffering, economic stagnation and national despair.

Early in the presidential race during his appearance at Orange County's Saddleback Church, Obama was asked to define "rich."  Without hesitation Obama said, "I would argue that if you are making more than $250,000, then you ... are doing well.”  Obama, in effect, declared that there is such a thing as "enough" money, that he knows exactly how much "enough" is, and God help you if you make more than "enough."

When it was pointed out that taxing those Obama felt were "rich" would hamstring our economy because most of those individuals were actually small business owners (the creators of 70-80% of new jobs), Obama enlightened his narrative to say that his tax plans would only tax the upper 5% of "small businesses," leaving the less successful 95% relatively tax-free.  When it was pointed out that the upper 5% of those small businesses were the ones that created the vast majority of new jobs and that Obama's policies regardless of their sophomoric number-mangling, would still hamper America's economic growth, the left reacted strangely.

Rather than providing further enlightmenment of the Obama narrative, the Democrat Party Official Press Office (i.e., ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, the Associated Press, Reuters, The View, The New York Times, etc.) claimed that Obama's detractors were accusing him of being a Socialist.  The American Socialist Party immediately declared that, despite the fact that Obama's economic policies are manifestly Socialist, Obama isn't a Socialist.  (Oddly enough, according to their statements in the article, they're all still voting for Obama).

How remarkable is it that when we as a nation have finally muddled through Obama's smokescreen to expose him for the Socialist he is, we start hearing claims from the mainstream media of "Red-baiting?"

To the uninitiated, the accusation of "Red-baiting," is the last-ditch defense of Socialists.  Once you've managed to reduce their convoluted words and speeches to their actual ideology, and realize, "Wait a minute...  This system of economics is fundamentally flawed.  I can explain why.  In fact, I can not only explain the flaws in an abstract manner, I can also provide recent concrete historical evidence that 'Spread the Wealth' policies just don't work, like in the Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela, China..." you're guilty.

The Obama political machine's current denial of Obama's naive Socialist tendencies is, "Oh-ho-ho, certainly nobody could possibly support a Communist economic policy.  Even though Obama's economic policy appears to be the same in nature, it's actually more, like, totally Change-oriented.  If you point out the fact that Obama's totally Change-oriented economic policy is actually just a rehashed, revamped version of Socialism, then...  Well, you're clearly anti-Change."

As a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet, a Socialist by any other name would govern just as badly.

The purpose of an economic system is to optimally allocate scarce resources to fulfill unlimited demands.  Economic systems that do this well improve quality of life and minimize human suffering among the individuals who participate in such an economy.  In fact, the success of entire nations is based not on the resources they possess, but on their ability to match those resources to their most valued uses. 

Economic systems from total anarchy to socialism to the free market exist solely for the purpose of allocating resources.  The ability of an economic system to minimize human suffering and improve quality of life is a secondary, but important, characteristic of that system, that can only be accurately evaluated when it is left to operate according to its own rules and provided the necessary preconditions.

A free market requires government regulation that ensures that individuals can conduct economic transactions free from the external artificial influences of force, fraud, and price control.  Provided these protections and otherwise left alone, a free market exhibits an astounding array of emergent, self-organizing behaviors that solve the problem of how to allocate scarce resources to fulfill unlimited needs.  Among the varied economic systems that have been tried over the course of human history, there exists no better system of optimally allocating resources, and therefore maximizing quality of life and minimizing human suffering than a free market.

The way that a free market economy distributes information about supply and demand is through prices.  Prices are not arbitrary numbers;  they are an indicator of both global and local realities, whose accuracy is a critical.

The problem with prices is that, while they convey critical information, they also have real impact on individuals and their choices.  Higher prices prevent individuals from having the things they want.  It's very easy to get popular support by giving people the things they want, and a common method for politicians (liberal Democrats, mostly) is to artificially influence prices so that people can get things they want, but normally wouldn't choose to buy at their natural prices.  Democrats also have a track record of artificially raising prices when by doing so they can get more votes (and then later providing bailouts to those industries failing due to their previous attempts at artificially manipulating price).

What they don't realize is the terrible impact such artificial price controls have on a free market and its participants.  Democrats frequently mistake "regulation" with "control."  The argument that the free market has failed usually goes something like this:

"Our efforts to artificially control the economy resulted in a tremendous failure.  Those efforts would have been prevented in a properly regulated free market, but we prevented any regulation that might have mitigated the consequences of our artificial meddling.  The answer is to further violate the preconditions of a free market by introducing more extensive price controls." 

This is the same logic that would lead firefighters to try to quench a fire with gasoline.

A successful free market requires five preconditions.  Each of these preconditions requires government regulation:

First, individuals must be free to engage in any transaction they choose.  In order to ensure this, a government must not infringe on the fundamental rights of the individual - life, liberty, and property, and it must prevent others (including itself) from doing so.

Second, individuals must be protected against being forced to conduct a transaction against their will.  In order to provide this guarantee, a government must prevent the use of force in the market by empowering the executive with the authority and resources to find and punish robbers, thieves, and extortionists.

Third, individuals must be protected against entering into a transaction under fraudulent pretenses.  In order to provide this protection, the government must enforce proper and transparent accounting procedures, and identify and punish those who utilize fraud as a means of doing business. 

Fourth, the market must be protected from attempts to artificially control prices from within.  In order to prevent artificial price control from within the market, government must, in the true spirit of the laws that exist to prevent monopoly and collusion, use those laws to protect individuals.  It must also prevent the abuse of those laws by failing corporations who would use, and have used them to further their own corporate interests to the detriment of individual citizens.

Fifth, the government must prevent itself from attempts to artificially control prices.

Capitalism is defined as:  "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market."

Since capitalism requires the existence of a free market, and the existence of a free market requires government regulation, then capitalism necessarily requires government regulation.

This refutes the straw man argument of "unregulated capitalism," which is commonly used as the basis of arguments opposing the theory of the free market economy.  There is no such thing as an "unregulated free market economy."  An unregulated market economy is most definitely not free (i.e., Road Warrior-style anarchy, where the only rule is "Might-is-Right").

The ability to engage in trade in a truly free manner requires the existence of some overarching framework that provides that freedom through the creation and enforcement of regulations.

Let me ask all you McCain supporters out there a few questions:

1) Do you support McCain, even though he supports abortion rights, including partial-birth abortion?
2) What do you think about McCain's policy of imposing a strict timeline for the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, and the fact that he opposed the surge?
3) What do you think about McCain's choice of Joe Biden for Vice President?

...

I'm going to guess that you're shaking your head in confusion.  Fear not, there was a reason for those questions.  Here it is:

As far as talk radio goes, I love listening to Howard Stern almost as much as I love listening to Rush Limbaugh.  I came across an audio clip from the Howard Stern show where they interviewed people who support Obama.  But Howard's correspondents pulled a little trick during their interviews:  They replaced Obama's policies with McCain's, and asked if Obama supporters support them.  They even replaced Obama's Vice Presidential candidate with McCain's, and also asked if Obama supporters support her (yes, "her!").

You would think that a person who said, "I support candidate X because I agree with their policies!" would know what those policies were.  You would think that a person who supported a particular candidate would know who their Vice President was going to be.  But if you applied this litmus (i.e., "idiot") test to the supporters of Barack Obama, you would also be wrong:

Hear for yourself.

I don't know exactly how to react to this.  Apparently, Obama's supporters don't care what Obama does, just so long as he's elected.  I'm guessing that Obama voters like this would go into a McDonald's and order a Personal Pan Pizza with a side order of Nachos BellGrande, and then wouldn't complain when they get a Big Mac with fries.

...

All joking aside, the downfall of modern American conservatism is the fact that modern American liberal ideology (i.e., the repackaged, slickly-marketed remnant of Global Communism), is more easily communicated due to the fact that it's primarily emotion-based, and doesn't require a lot of (or any) thinking.  It would be easy to redirect our efforts towards "repackaging" conservatism in a form that's more easily digested by the 30-second-sound-byte crowd, or "marketing" conservative messages targeted at various demographics.

But the core values of modern American conservatism require respect for free thought and rationality - in other words, "Make up your own mind!"  In order to replicate the Hollywood-style success of the Obama campaign, we'd have to ignore the very principles on which our nation was founded.

I'd rather we lose an election than win one by tricking people into voting for us.