Ben Easton: 2010

Should Incumbents be Allowed to Campaign? – Word4ce.com: "Prohibit incumbents from campaigning for other candidates. Incumbents have a job to do, and they should damn well be doing it, instead of jetting about with entourages … spending their “war chests” like prima donnas, mafia bosses, and in-bred royalty.

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Thursday, October 14, 2010

Why the State Worries about Declining Fertility – Word4ce.com

Why the State Worries about Declining Fertility – Word4ce.com: "- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Altruism: an Idea Whose Time has Gone – Word4ce.com

Altruism: an Idea Whose Time has Gone – Word4ce.com: "- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Meet the New Boss - Same as the Old Boss!

I recently read an article in The Atlantic magazine - July/August 2010 issue: "The End of Men," written by Hanna Rosin, with illustrations by John Ritter. This lengthy article had one of the most depressing and insidiously sinister tones I've ever come across in journalism. The strides that women have made relative to men - primarily through their own efforts, but certainly with the help of many rationally "feminist" men - in the past century, and especially in the last 40 years, have been well-documented and are now obvious to anybody with eyes and ears. What makes this particular article so insulting is that this progress was not reported and described in a positive and celebratory fashion, or in a humble and cooperative fashion, or in an objective and mature fashion.

The astonishing fact is that Hanna Rosin chose to present her case with a snide superiority and smugness that is from the same chauvinistic mold of patronizing and demeaning attitudes against which, presumably, she and her fellow women have been battling! If this was the stance she was directed to take by the editor, James Bennet, then shame on him. Shame on the magazine in general.

This issue of Woman vs. Man is very similar to the decades - no centuries - of abuse, enslavement, and subordination of blacks by whites. In recent decades, blacks have finally moved into, fought for, and been elevated or elected into positions of power, prominence, prosperity, etc. Now that they (blacks) have serious representation in the general array of media outlets, have positions of management (low, medium, and high) in commerce and in government, have the majority and superior position in many sports and certain facets of the entertainment world, one would think that they might consider halting the "pendulum" at the center: balance.

Perhaps some are endeavoring to do this, but, alas, many of them are not. Otherwise, we would see the dissolution of the NAACP and the BET network. Maybe their work is not done. Okay. What criteria must be achieved in order to signal that BLACKS have arrived?

Oh - wait a second! I began this post with a condemnation of an article in The Atlantic magazine ... about WOMEN. Yes, it seems that women such as Rosin, and quasi-feminist editors such as Bennet, have taken it upon themselves to encourage another giant pendulum swing to just cruise right on by the center - i.e. the optimal balancing point - perhaps to slam to the other side, just like many BLACKS are doing.

Is it any surprise that I, a white man, am feeling targeted? This doesn't do me or us (humans) any good. Why don't we - the concerned citizens that we are - call a spade a spade and work together to achieve fairness and balance? What I'm talking about is a shock absorber placed on the chassis of a vehicle that has, in fact, been run into the ground by many, many WHITES, ... by many, many MEN. Isn't it more prudent to slow the pendulums, once we've identified them of course, and help them stay at or very near the "center"?

Look again at my title. This is a quote from The Who's classic rock hit, written by Pete Townsend, "Won't Get Fooled Again." The meaning here is that when blacks find themselves in a position of parity, or equality, or even superiority, they don't do themselves any favors by playing the same worn-out card of ignorance made famous by short-sighted, mean, and just plain stupid whites in our past and, unfortunately, our present. Of course, the same reasoning goes toward the substantial, if not phenomenal, progress made by women in recent years. If prominent women, and editors of national magazines (male or female), allow the framing of this movement in "Us vs. Them" terms, a la redneck chauvinists of Ye Olde Guard, then don't be surprised if a true gender war erupts. It won't be pretty.

My hope is that emerging genders, emerging races/ethnicities, emerging nations, etc. will look around and do their damnedest to continue to work hard, to be respectful, and to pursue ideals of justice, truth, fairness, and respect. These ideals are the shock absorbers that will help the vehicle of our (global) society travel the bumpy road ahead in the smoothest and most comfortable manner.

Perhaps the next issue of The Atlantic will include a follow-up article, a more humanitarian and objective treatment of the fact that many men (not all!) have, to a very real degree, stepped aside, given up, or been outclassed by women. This article might help point out ways that men in general can get back to mid-field and stand arm-in-arm with their "better halves"!

My sincere hope is that such a follow-up would not include a side article of such irredeemable toxicity as "Are Father's Necessary?" This piece (I refuse to call it journalism) by Pamela Paul, that was tucked in to the larger article mentioned above, ended with a Molotov cocktail of an insult, hurled at the family structure itself, and towards all fathers: "The bad news for Dad is that despite common perception, there's nothing objectively essential about his contribution. The good news is, we've gotten used to him."

This paragraph is so blatantly snide, malicious, and corrosive that I am appalled that it got past even the third-string assistant editor - man or woman. If this was done to stir controversy, to trigger debates, and to evoke rebuttals such as this, it is a childish and wasteful ploy. It must have been a MAN who assigned this crap. It must have been a misled and unenlightened WOMAN who played the role of weak-minded provocateur!

Yes - try to dismiss me as just a complaining white guy, surpassed by clever and superior women. BUT wait - - - consider my final point. The author (or editor) magnanimously included a poem by a well-known representative of the Men's Movement, Robert Bly. I was pleased to see the hint of an oasis in the midst of the stultifying spread of negativity. Why the editorial staff chose the particular poem, "The Ant," I have no idea ... unless! Maybe I'm proving my lack of literary understanding, but this poem has nothing to do with the power of men, the virtue of men, or the importance of men. This poem has nothing to do with the power of women, the virtue of women, or the importance of women. Its placement here looks utterly pointless ... which I believe proves my thesis. The explicit claim put forth by The Atlantic is that the work of men is pointless. More simply, the magazine is saying: men are pointless.

So, Editor of The Atlantic, please retract this article. Please apologize to English-speaking and English-reading men and women everywhere. Please let us know that you want to help us (humans) evolve, improve, and progress. If this is the product that you are marketing, woe be unto you. Woe be unto the society that condemns and demeans such a significant portion of its own body. Surely, such a society is doomed.

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Glamorizing Wineries vs. Villainizing Marijuana Growers

This evening while eating my dinner, I flicked through the news channels, hoping to find that rare little bit of actual fresh, "new" information for which the news media are presumably named. CNN didn't supply it, nor did CNN Headline, Fox News, or MSNBC. These were spewing the usual rubbish of statist blather. Anderson Cooper, at least, was earnest in his attempt to get to the bottom of the British Petroleum fiasco on "AC 360."

Meanwhile, CNBC caught my eye with a special on the rapidly growing marijuana trade in California - the exact title escapes me, but something like "Marijuana, Inc." The decriminalization - or, as we libertarians like to say, the "relegalization" - of growing, possessing, and using small quantities of this herb has led to quite an economic boom in certain California towns. There is a small war going on in middle and northern California, between entrepreneurs, who see this opportunity as a simple supply and demand function (with supply being massively outstripped by demand), and a conservative contingent (law enforcement and family values crowd). Already, the financial allure, with actual profit-making by both individuals and family organizations, has already produced small fortunes for quite a few in more than one small town economy.

Of course, some don't like it. They see this as the Devil's playground - moral decay ... with organized crime not far behind. I was frankly surprised though at the appearance of most, if not all the interviewees. They were just regular folks, people with pets, mortgages, carpools of kids going to soccer games and gym tournaments.

QUESTION: What if America still viewed the wine industry in the same way as the general media and government would have us view the marijuana growers? As a sub-class of losers and decadent, drug-running thugs and washed up Hells Angels. It would be ludicrous, wouldn't it?

Between the previous paragraph and this one, I clicked over to the Wikipedia entry for "Vineyards." It was a very extensive entry. Holy Cow! Wine is BIG! It is chic. It is classy. It is an art. It involves science, culture, and it has spawned books, poems, movies, legends.

POOR Marijuana. Cannabis sativa ... cannabis indica. Wow - the Wikipedia entry for this is quite extensive as well! Hmm ... I guess there is interest in this resource.

So, why the bizarre double standard? We all know that wine sometimes causes ... well, winos. These are also referred to as drunks, or just bums. We know that drunk drivers kill hundreds, if not thousands, annually in the USA. Abuse of alcohol, of course, includes beer, wine, wine coolers, champagne, liquor, whiskey, etc. And, when people mix lots of different types of alcohol with mind-altering drugs of various flavors, trouble is sure to follow.

What is it, do you suppose, that gives reefer such a bad reputation?! Is it the criminal mystique - the lure of the unknown, the forbidden? Is it the fact that it represents rebellion? Does it really drive the youth (and the aged, the infirm, the visually-impaired, the medically terminal) of America to be "bad" people?!

To see what the future of full-scale legalization of this horrid drug would look like, we only need to look at the dreadful effects of a society that has already been compromised and savaged by the wine industry. You can see that ... wait a minute! All I see are lovely estates that attract lots of attractive, adventurous, wealthy folks. These are people who like to slow down, to enjoy life, and to experience the synergy of good food, good wine, and good company.

Hmmm.

A fly of a memory is buzzing around ... I'm pretty positive that there was some big issue back in the 1920s and early 1930s, when Uncle Sam outlawed (i.e. criminalized) alcohol. The results were - - - [The Administration is looking for a flyswatter! Aah, ... here come the historical revisionists.]

Hold on! It's coming back to me. Can you say "Prohibition"?! This misguided legislation - by way of Amendment XVIII to the U. S. Constitution (ratified in January 1919) - is what originally attracted the Mafia to the United States. This giant crime syndicate wanted to take up the slack for the unmet demand of a resource that had been a fundamental diversion and essential cultural ingredient of the Human Race for 10,000 years. And, this bizarre lapse in logic and statecraft was remedied only after gang wars (via machine guns) had bloodied the urban centers of our nation. Eventually, somebody flipped the "Stupid" switch OFF, and the law was repealed via Amendment XXI (ratified in December 1933)!

So, we Americans learned from this lesson - right?

RIGHT?!! I mean, we learned ... we do learn from our - - - We can learn, sometimes, can't we?

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

BP & The Oil Spill

A friend asked what my views were re: the OIL SPILL. Is somebody responsible? What is the government's role in all of this? Can this be considered "an act of God"? Can nobody be held liable? Good questions. Here was my response.

Mother Nature is never "held responsible." She just IS. She just DOES.

On the other hand, MAN (i.e. sentient/volitional beings) must always be held responsible ... even when there is just an accident, or if there is lack of intention ... or a lack of mal-intent. Responsibility means that we do our best to assign effects to causes, and we get those who initiated the causes to pay for the clean up of (or resolution for) the effects. Responsible people, businesses, and nations do their best to put things back the way they SHOULD have been before things went south.

So - OF COURSE British Petroleum is responsible - at least in part - for the big oil spill of 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico. I don't know what that specific responsibility is, for I'm not an expert. The drilling company who was in charge of pumping BP's reserves from the ocean floor is, OF COURSE, responsible - at least in part. Perhaps there were other responsible parties or agencies: consulting engineers, shippers, platform designers, etc. This is an extremely complicated business, and there will have to be quite an extensive investigation. But, when all the responsible parties' degrees of responsibility are added up, guess what! These will add up to 100%.

That is - in the Libertarian world.

In the Democratic world, responsibility is shoved off and mangled, ... doubled here, tripled there, assigned to some wealthy "bastards," and then forgiven in the next Immigration Amnesty bill.

In the Republican world, responsibility is massively diminished by legal rhetoric, legalistic bullshit, shell corporations who went out of business, Martian foreclosures, credit card small print ... and cigar-smoking sons-of-bitches who run off-shore tax-exempt F-63-V14s!

By the way, the "blame game" that is fostered by all of the major networks and "news" media outlets is different in kind, fundamentally, from the scrutiny that gun makers and airplane manufacturers commonly face from the Demublican Socialists. The anti-gun lobbyists can try to convince Earthlings all day long that Smith & Wesson is at fault for the thugs who robbed the innocent convenience store clerk and then shot him/her. But any Earthling who can still add 2 and 2 can see that this is dimwit crap. Smith & Wesson has sold an excellent, quality, time-tested product for decades. This company is totally innocent of the crimes that are committed using their guns. Generally speaking, pilot error, shoddy maintenance, or terrorist bombings are the reasons for the occasional crashes of Cessna, Boeing, or Airbus airplanes.

In contrast, the BP incident is a case where strict liability needs to be applied. This multi-national corporation is in the business, daily, of taking gigantic risks - in order to find, develop, produce, refine, and deliver to the world oil and gas. This company, and others like it, stand to EARN humongous profits - which they well deserve!!! I don't know how to do what they do, and I'm glad they and other companies find oil that I can put in my car at such an incredibly cheap price, without even getting my hands dirty. Thank you, British Petroleum, Shell, Exxon-Mobile, et al.

However, when things go south (and unfortunately north - into the delicate wetlands of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida), this company and its partners MUST step forward to maintain their integrity, and to repair the integrity of the affected ecosystems and the businesses that are reliant on those ecosystems.

What BP and their off-shore drilling platform specialists and designers are involved in is NOT a perfect and consistent ballistic system, as the Smith & Wesson .45 is. This is deep ocean, sorcerer's apprentice, theoretical, cutting edge stuff! These entrepreneurs, scientists, drillers, shippers, scuba divers, helicopter pilots, geologists, caterers, etc. stand to make COLOSSAL profits - AS THEY SHOULD - for taking gigantic risks!!! But, now we see the down-side of that risk/return curve. Now, they must eat their losses.

There is no way that they and the other complicit parties should be allowed to walk away without paying for their collective responsibility ... with money, thoughts, and deeds. And it all must add up to 100% ... and it must put things aright for 5-10-20 years down the road! Without demonizing anybody, this is the time for the (fair) economists and insurance companies to step in, so that we/they can properly plot the extent of the legitimate damages.

The government's role in all of this can be minimal - but ONLY IF British Petroleum and its partners remain utterly compliant, open, willing, and cooperative on every level. The proper role of the government, as always, is to be an impartial judge and enforcer when disputes get out of hand. So far, frankly, BP seems to be dragging its feet on this one. But I'm not an expert. If the third party experts come to a consensus that BP and its partners are NOT fully disclosing the facts, and that they are not FULLY taking their responsibility in remedying this gigantic toxic mistake, then it will be appropriate for Uncle Sam to step in and enforce some massive fines - to pay for the stupendously laborious and ugly and time-consuming job of cleaning up this mess.

Monday, May 24, 2010

Where Rand Paul Went Wrong

Rand Paul should have told Rachel Maddow what she asked him, without all his efforts to avoid the spin that he knew she would put on it. He was brave to go on her show in the first place, but he should have preempted her "leftist" socialist slant by bravely stating the truth:

He believes, as any rational political philosopher must, that people (all people) have the right and moral obligation to exercise their powers of discrimination in their affairs - private and public. The owner(s) of a business has(have) the right to conduct the business as he(they) see fit. This all assumes safe, healthy, non-threatening, non-violent goods and services, by the way. If said owner wants to serve whites only, and not blacks (or gays, or obese people, or Muslims, or Mexicans, or "overly" tattooed people, or nerdy white boys), that is his/their prerogative and right. What is to stop the blacks (or others) from walking out (of Woolworths in 1964) and taking their business to another establishment? I submit that what the Rachel Maddows of the world, and the blacks themselves (and other "targeted" or discriminated groups), are angry and indignant about is not the petty rejection of service, but the frequently awful and hideous violence that was (and, unfortunately, still is sometimes) committed against them.

So, why is this violence not the focus of the debate? Nobody would argue that whites have the right to beat the crap out of blacks, or hang them, or spit on them, or burn crucifixes on their lawns. This was ugliness of the purest form ... and criminal behaviour. This is what the blacks marched against primarily - for their very lives, for their safety. I don't blame them.

The big, fat problem was that the do-gooders and the fuzzy-thinkers (i.e. the "logically challenged"), got over-ambitious and formulated a "well-intentioned" law that went TOO FAR. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 contained 10 sections. It was Rand Paul's criticism of Title II that incurred the wrath of the Media. A brief of Title II reads: Outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private."

For the record, Rand Paul is correct and right on this issue! To the extent that Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forced private action to abide by certain "moral constraints," in order to fit somebody's picture of what society ought to look like, was unconstitutional. To force a man/woman to act a certain way, when that person is NOT initiating force against another, is illegitimate use of force, and is, itself, reprehensible.

Thus, the Government of the United States of America is in breach of contract. The sloppy over-reaching of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is just one of many, many cases of sloppy, ignorant, un-American thought. It's a shame that speaking out against these misapplications of the Constitution are seen as bigoted and mean. Interestingly, it is the other way around.

So, it's too bad Rand didn't go this route. He probably still would have been misquoted and taken out of context, but at least he could have gone to bed with the knowledge that he hadn't stumbled and given away the fight.

Friday, December 31, 2010

Friday, December 24, 2010

Thursday, December 23, 2010

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Monday, December 6, 2010

Friday, December 3, 2010

Thursday, December 2, 2010

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Monday, November 22, 2010

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Friday, November 12, 2010

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Monday, November 8, 2010

Friday, November 5, 2010

Thursday, November 4, 2010

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Monday, October 25, 2010

Friday, October 22, 2010

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Monday, October 18, 2010

Thursday, October 14, 2010

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Monday, May 24, 2010

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me