The Political Teen moved

The Political Teen turned twenty last week, and so changed his website's name to "Expose the Left." My link has been changed accordingly.

SRS

P.S. I'm just kidding about the age thing. I have no idea how old or young the guy is. But I'm pretty sure it is a guy, because his name is Ian.

P.P.S. Occasionally Ian has some misleading transcripts/descriptions for his videos. For example, he wrote that Chris Matthews said in a clip that "the president is horny for those pictures" (of Jack Abramoff), when he actually said "the press is horny for those pictures." I don't know if the mislabelling is intentional or not. I do not necessarily endorse any of Ian's views, I just think it's a good resource among many.

Let the states compete!

Almost a week ago, I wrote that I supported Oregon's right to have a right-to-die law. "Libertarians" would say that the law is right, but I'm not going even that far. I just think that Oregon, as a sovereign state, has the right, under the Constitution, to have such a law. And I also think that it is good for states to have various laws, not only laws that I agree with, but also laws with which I disagree.

"Why would you want states to have laws you disagree with?" I can hear you ask. (And by the way, your sentence looks silly with a preposition tacked on!) I'll tell you why. Because states should compete for your business.

"Whoa!" you exclaim. "States are not a business!" Why not? If we had a small federal government, like we should, then all the states could have their own laws, their own levels of tax burden and collectivism, their own business environment: they would be almost as diverse as the different states of the world. They'll compete for your tax dollars on the basis of whose laws, ability to attract employers, and tax code all seem like the best fit for you. And don't think they wouldn't do all they can to attract the most (and best) taxpayers.

"Is that really what you think a state government should be about, you greedy, capitalist pig?" Hmm, maybe I should think about this more: what if the state was so concerned with getting money that it allowed crime to run rampant? But then again, that would scare the taxpayers, so they wouldn't do that. What if the state allowed horrible pollution to fill the skies and the water and the ground? You don't suppose that would bother the voters, do you?

Maybe the federal government could have laws restricting the environmental impact one state could have on another - and when it gets to bad in one state to continue living there, people move their tax-paying wallets to a more environmentally-friendly state, and the state government would have to do something.

The way it is now, the people of Massachusetts and the people of Alabama, through the various branches of the federal government, are fighting over what takes place in Iowa. Or Kansans and Californians are going head-to-head over something happening or not happening in Wyoming. It doesn't make sense. It's like millions of people are being nosy neighbors on a whole new level. Can't we let freedom prevail? Let each state do its own thing, according to the will of its people, and if it gets to be too much for some, they can move to the state that suits them.

SRS

[Note: I fixed the link to the Constitution. Apparently congress thought it too ironic to have a direct link to the Constitution on their website, but I discovered the problem and fixed it. However, it cease to work at any time, due to circumstances entirely out of my control. If that happens, please let me know so I can fix it again.]

Google takes a principal stand

Can someone explain to me why Google, Inc. is a 1st Amendment hero? Because they're not providing a judge with some anonymous search data? Is it because they stand in defiance of government to protect their users from infringements on their rights?

Why aren't they defying China's government, when it asks them to help censor the internet for Chinese users? Why are they selling out for that almighty yuan? Maybe if Google, Inc. were to take a principled stand, some of the leading search engine/web browser/email service/software companies would follow, and maybe China would have to choose between offering its people a free internet (in the important sense, not the pricing sense), and offering them no internet at all. Instead, Google (and Yahoo!, et al.) decided it would be more expedient, and profitable, to just let the tyrants of Beijing have it their way.

But feel free to search for porn.

SRS

Definitions: part hana

People play around with definitions and stretch them, tease them, rend them from their bones, even. So I'm going to start posting definitions to various things. I've already thought of three, but in the time it took me to type this, I've forgotten one. I hope it comes back to me.

The definition of the difference between the political right and left: the former believes in equality before the law, and the latter in equality after the law.

SRS

Why would a conservative support a "right to die" law?

Here's why: because each state has the right to make its own laws. As James Madison put it: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." That includes, for example any law which does not violate the Constitution directly. So, if Oregon wants to legalize theft, rape, and murder, it may. The alleged harm that would come of this is no greater than the harm that would come of allowing a company to become a monopoly apart from government protection. Quite simply: no one would live in Oregon, just as no one would patronize a company offering inferior products at inflated prices.

"Yes, but, well, people will still live in Oregon if they have a right-do-die law!" Quite true, my able-minded reader. Some people do, in fact, want to die. They will no doubt flock to Oregon and avail themselves of this service being offered. While it is sad and tragic that people commit suicide, much as it is sad that people fornicate. Adults are allowed to do that in many, many states. In fact I defy you to show me one state or locality inside the U.S. that actively prosecutes fornication cases. So we have indeed reached the point where in the U.S. not every government enforces God's laws, right on down the line.

Is it a bad thing to have bad state laws? Surprisingly, there are good reasons to doubt that it is a bad thing for there to be states with very bad laws (or conversely, that lack very good laws). "How can this be?" You well might ask. The answer is shocking, but true. If Oregon were allowed to pass all the laws that its people want to pass, and if Kansas passed all the laws that its people want to pass, and so forth for Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Washington, Nevada, Mississippi, and all the other states, you'd find that there would be at least one state that suits you quite a bit better than the one you live in now. Even to the extent that you would move there. People who hold views nearly diametrically opposite yours would have their own state too. Like Oregon. And they can move there and commit gay-porn-drug-high tax-suicide, and live it up. Or die it up. Or whatever.

Okay, yeah, I know that my federalist utopia is crazy, considering that the court, though 7-2 Republican, is 6-3 nutjob anti-federalist imperialist. And the suicide rights, gay rights, drug rights, porn rights rulings have nothing to do with states' rights, and everything to do with suicide, homosexuality, drugs, and porn being "in vogue" with the elites who rule us from the supreme court. Still, I think it would work.

SRS

NBA to Antonio Davis:

"You are a basketball player, not a human being. You violated league rules by entering the space reserved for the humans. Basketball players interacting with humans will not be tolerated."

SRS

America's "education" system

Read this article from John Stossel, and follow it up with this one, both of which I found on Townhall.com. They're sad, but you must heed their message. For the children.

SRS

Employment tip

If you're thinking about taking a job somewhere, and the company promises you something (for instance, a pension) but isn't under a legal obligation to pay it, don't count on it being there when you need it. I guess I should say: don't need it. If you would work for company A, but company B has a nice pension plan... go with company A. It's that simple.

As for the CEO's making millions, billions, or gazillions of dollars, what is that to you? If company A offers you $50,000/year, and B offers you $40,000/year, and benefits are the same, working environment the same - are you going to work for company B because the CEO there makes only half as much?

I get so sick of hearing people talk about how CEO's are overpaid and congress should do something to stop it and help the little guy whose pension is being raided or whatever. Yeah, the government really helped us out a lot in 1930's. The government's help turned a market correction into the Great Depression. And the government sure solved the gas crisis of the 1970's. The solution was gas lines and another major recession. So what will the government's help be in making CEO's more fair to their workers? Smart money's on unemployment, but nationalization of industry offers nice-looking odds.

How about this: solve your own problems! Find another company to work for. Or if there isn't one that suits you, make your own! I know it's hard, what with all the regulations and red tape that (who was it again - oh yeah!) the government imposes. But you can do it. And you can make yourself the CEO. And if you can make your company compete successfully with the big boys, you can pay yourself whatever you want. And live happily ever after.

SRS

I liked this editorial cartoon...

so much that I hunted it down on the 'net and to provide you with this link. I may provide a permanent link to this cartoonist in the future. His other stuff looks really good too.

SRS

A sickening story from MSN

This is one of the most discouraging and disgusting things I have ever read. I wouldn't be too surprised if two or three people do this (because there will always be two or three extremely deranged persons here and there), but the story makes this sound common. Is this common for the youth of our nation? Please, someone tell me this is an isolated incident.

SRS

Pigs, levels, and stooping

Someone questioned the appropriateness of my use of the word "pigs" to describe Rep. Murtha and Sen. McCain. I would like to point out that the word "pig" is accepted to mean "greedy or disgusting person" as well as to mean "mammal of the family Suidae." I firmly believe that McCain's and Murtha's actions are driven by greed for partisan acclaim, political gain, or both, and I find them disgusting. The venerable printing (1981) of the OED at my disposal informs that "pig" is applied "contemptuously or opprobriously, to a person," and I fully intended to convey contempt and opprobrium, both of which are richly deserved by McCain's and Murtha's words and actions.

The same person asked me if I wanted to stoop to Murtha's level. I don't, and I haven't. To do that, I would need to do something to undemine national security and troop morale while holding a position of trust in the U.S. government, or something similarly vile. No, I'm still honest, humble, and supportive of my country and its soldiers. I suppose if I mugged someone, beat and robbed him or her, that would be about Murtha's level (though down a totally unrelated path of opprobrium), but I haven't done that either, nor any of the myriad similar hypotheticals one might think of. So I still have not stooped to Murtha's level. And no, I don't want to.

SRS

Invasion of privacy

Drudge links to a fascinating story about cell phone records being put up for sale, no questions asked. It's an immoral practice, and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) is rightly proposing legislation to ban it.

But soft! Isn't this the selfsame man whose agents, just this past July, absconded with the private credit history of one Michael Steele, Republican candidate for U.S. Senate? Why, I do believe it is! Apparently Chucky Schumer sees a big need for privacy when the one potentially invading it is a private citizen or business. But Chucky Schumer apparently believes "no controlling legal authority" (in Al Gore's infamous words) should tell him, big-shot Democrat senator, what to do or not do with others' private information.

Keep an eye on your cell phone records and your credit histories, ladies and gentlemen.

SRS