Tack one more nail in the American coffin. The rights-trampling frenzy continues with restaurant and bar owners being the latest victim burnt on the collectivist mob-rule stake as The People’s Republic of North Carolina has finally passed their precious smoking ban.

A similar attempt failed a few years back, but the statist yearning to rule by force is insatiable. This debate emphasizes the typical degree of concrete-bound, irrational thinking that consumes most of our population. If we were to extract the essentials from the average opinion supporting this law, we’d discover a criteria template that could justify any law imaginable. However, when the facts are considered, the silly, evil, and obtuse nature of this law is abundantly clear.

Relevant Facts:

1. Freedom: In a rational, civilized society, individuals are free to choose which establishments they patronize. Virtually all supposed justifications for this pathetic abuse of power evade or ignore this fact completely.

2. Property Rights: In a rational, civilized society, property owners are free to determine their own smoking policies. This is the core issue at hand.

3. Role of Government: In a rational, civilized society, the proper role of Government is to protect individual rights from forceful encroachment. Instead, this law relies on initiation of force by Government.

4. Objective Law: In a rational, civilized society, laws and legal enforcement thereof should be based on rights. If an action doesn’t forcefully encroach on an individual’s right to life, liberty or property, or doesn’t objectively convey intent to do so, it shouldn’t be illegal. Whenever considering any law or regulation, justice demands we ask “whose right to what is being forcefully violated?”, and if there is no clear and objective answer, then justice is not the motive at hand. In this context, where smoking is permitted by the owner and other individuals are free to leave, no one’s rights are forcefully violated.

Irrelevant Misconceptions:

“The issue is smokers vs. non-smokers…”

This issue is about the rights of property owners. The owner of a restaurant or bar has the right to determine his own policies regarding smoking. This law imposes on the property owner, not the customers. See #2.

“When you serve the public you forfeit your property rights.”


Perhaps in a collectivized, mob-rule nation ignorant of the concept of rights, but not in a free country. Individuals conducting commerce are traders - not servants. They are offering a value in the form of a product or service that other traders can choose to consume or not, depending on whether they find the value offered as beneficial in proportion to the cost. These two individuals, the traders, are the only two who should rightly decide on the details pertaining to their barter. If a consumer is unhappy with the product or service offered they are free to seek consumption elsewhere, and the seller must adjust his offering to remain in business. The only proper function of Government in the barter is to enforce contractual obligations breached by force or fraud. Any other Government intervention in this voluntary transaction is illegitimate and a violation of one or both of the trader’s rights. Only the competition of a free-market can rightly and justly promote change in the seller’s offering. In a rational and just society, this rule applies to any and every aspect of the business and barter. The fact that we’ve set precedent for such encroachment with OSHA, FDA, zoning, wage and countless other regulations does not justify yet another blatant disregard for the sanctity of property rights. See #1-4.


“Smokers don’t have the right to smoke anywhere they choose.”

This is correct, but the decision to allow or prohibit smoking is up to the property owner and no one else. See #2.

“Do you smokers have the RIGHT to harm other people just because you think it’s ok to smoke around them?”

Of course not, there is no such thing as a right to harm others, but this question evades the fact that the “victim” is free to leave an environment where conditions (including second-hand smoke, noise, temperature, food quality etc.) aren’t suitable. See #1.

“This ban is guarding the public safety.”

See #1 and #4.

“It’s a darn shame that a law had to be passed to prevent the inconsiderate nicotine addicts from spreading their disease and stench while ruining ones meal.”

If their lack of consideration offends you, you’re free to leave. See #1 and #4.




“Studies show that {insert any fact supporting the negative impacts of second-hand smoke} is harmful.”


See #1.

“An owner that accepts non-smokers does not reserve the right or choice to put the life of the non-smokers family in danger of death due to lung cancer to satisfy the addiction of a smoker.”

Their lives are only in danger if they choose to be present in such conditions. See #1.

These are only a handful of the common justifications used by advocates. As I hear new ones I’ll add them to the list along with a proper debunking.

Conclusions:

There is no just basis to support a smoking ban on private property - only emotion-driven rationalizations that undermine the rule of law, and scoff at the American essence. Objective law requires for an individual’s rights to be forcefully violated. So long as one’s presence in such establishment is voluntary, force is absent, and any legal intervention represents an injustice.

If all private restaurants and bars closed their doors (the appropriate response to this and any other meddling in business), how many days before this fascist tripe would be repealed? The first day they’d call their bluff. The second day they’d call an emergency session with expedited Governor sign-off so all the statist thugs in Raleigh would have a place to grab lunch, and this wretched idea would never be brought up again.

Do I look forward to the first Sunday morning I enjoy a completely smoke-free breakfast at Cracker Barrel? You bet I do. But, for that reality to come into fruition through an anti-American, rights-stomping, emotion-driven law is hideous. I’d rather endure smoky meals for the rest of my life to hang on to the smell of freedom than condone such a contemptible mob-rule measure. Precisely because this is happening in America, the first nation founded on justice and freedom, we truly are in the golden age of injustice.

There was a point in my life where her writing was almost therapeutic, but disgusted sympathy is the only response I can muster to this luke-warm call to arms by Peggy Noonan.

Like a basketball team which never identifies which goal to shoot for, or a football team who narrows it down to a only a few plays in the huddle, conservatives have no unified goals or principles. Philosophy drives ideas and any group based on an alleged ideology void of explicit principles will be ineffective. Noonan understands that unity within her party is non-existent and makes an attempt to define some basic tenets. Just like other pragmatists, the prescription is a call to abandon principles.

The poles that keep up the tent are the party’s essential beliefs. Republicans over the next few years should define what each of their tent poles stands for—a strong defense being an obvious pole, a less demanding and intrusive government being another, a natural affection and respect for tradition and for life being a third—and how many poles there are.

I can’t argue with the first, which is about the only position of the right that stands to reason. After the first, however, we get the same vague, implicit notions that the republicans have coasted on for decades.

Less demanding and intrusive? In what manner should we seek less demands and fewer intrusions? Should a proper government in a free society be demanding at all? Less intrusive? Should it be intrusive at all? In what way might it rightfully intrude?

Affection for tradition? To what aspects and to what extent? The American tradition imparts a shift to statism, should that pattern be upheld?

Respect for life? Absolutely, but in what sense? I can only guess this means violating the rights of women to their own lives by banning abortion.

In summary, here we see the same worn-out bromides that have defined the right for the last 50 years:

• The mixed economy is proper, so long as men can still produce.
• Uphold the status quo, whatever that might be.
• Tie it all up with theocratic underpinnings.

Noonan, like the troops she’s trying to rouse, shares the same moral base as the left - altruism. Hers is only decorated by trivial subtleties, tinted by religion, and hued by an implicit “common sense” provided by a foggy understanding of how freedom equals prosperity.

The ground is shifting. It’s hard to get your footing in an earthquake. As Republicans on the Hill try, they must also try to steady their party. It needs a greater sense of realism about its predicament. It needs less enforcement and more encouragement. It needs to inspire the young and the politically unformed not with bloodlust but with ideas.

Right, but which ideas? There’s not a single mention of the proper role of Government, individual rights, or any supposed alliance with the founding principles of this nation.

A great party allows everyone in, and allows prospective members to self-define. If they say they’re Republicans, they should be welcomed and helped to find a place where they fit. A great party has a lot of such places. A great party is expansive. A great party has [to] give. [emphasis and edits mine]

Abandon principles (which have yet to be defined), be flexible, give in, cooperate, compromise - the only thing that matters is what group one professes to belong to. So long as the jersey has an ‘R’ on it, they’re on the team!

By her prescription, not only will the conservatives remain pathetic in the defense of rights, freedom and Capitalism, they’ll continue to shift further towards the statism of the left - leaving America to choose only between two variants of the same collectivist nightmare.

You’ll be hard-pressed to find a more eloquent tribute to the superficial nature and impotence of the republican party.

Unfortunately I stumbled upon this gem by Alan Blinder, which is either satirical journalism at its best or just another delusional leftist rant. His purpose is to challenge the purportedly mouth-breathing notion that Obama is socialist.

Considering an objective summary of Obama’s words, positions, history and actions, how anyone could question this fact is perplexing.

Ever since President Barack Obama released the budget last month, we have been hearing a fusillade of criticism claiming that the president, contrary to previous advertising, is not a centrist, but a “leftie” intent on leading the country down the path of socialism.

Let’s see. Socialism means public ownership and control of businesses, right? So which industries does the president propose to nationalize?

The short answer is all of them - I would venture to guess. But, he’s smart enough to know that such a transition cannot be thrown on the country in one fell swoop, so he’ll push just up to the point of chaos, back-peddle a bit, reposition, repeat. This is the standard tactic of prudency for aspiring tyrants.

Right off the bat we see Mr. Blinders obtuse definition of Socialism which he seems to be using in an extremely narrow sense. Are we to assume that by his standard a nation that is fully Socialized save one Grocery store in some American town is not Socialist?

A more accurate gauge is to evaluate the extent that a nation considers individual rights as sacred pillars of freedom.

Socialism is the sacrifice of the individual to the collective. To the extent that such notion is a nation’s guiding premise, that country is Socialized. No, America isn’t fully Socialized. And no, Obama hasn’t yet prescribed full Socialization, but the very nature of such a society is recursive and self-perpetuating. Controls breed controls - and once the the footing is compromised, the path is downhill unless the fundamental philosophical thrust of the nation is altered.

Banking? Well, no. Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner has made it clear that he opposes nationalizing banks, despite much outcry from the political left — and even some from the right — to do just that.

Again, no - banks aren’t fully nationalized, but the wedge is well in place. This, and the most recent administration have redistributed looted wealth in the form of subsidies to corporations. The subsidies came with invasive stipulations. The subsidies weren’t optional, but mandatory. Even if a slave owner limits his restrictive tenets to only a few prohibitions, he’s still in control.

What about health care? Doesn’t Mr. Obama want “socialized medicine”? No. He wants to reform the current system so that it costs less and covers more people. Disgracefully, the United States is the only advanced nation in the world that fails to cover every citizen — even though we spend vastly more on health care than other nations.

Some reformers want the U.S. to adopt a single-payer system like other countries, such as “socialist” Canada and England — which run firmly capitalist economies, by the way. But regardless of whether single-payer is a good idea, it’s not Mr. Obama’s. His health-insurance reform plan emphasizes choice (keeping what you have if you like it), greater efficiency (partly by utilizing information technology), and portability (your health coverage will follow you from job to job). Which part of that is socialist?

Exactly how can he reform it without violating the rights of all parties involved? What’s disgraceful is that America has sunk into the altruist-collectivist abyss so far as to condone and prescribe threatening one man’s life to support another - by force. And exactly why do you think we spend more? Because we’re already subsidizing the parasites in this country who won’t support themselves. Doing so on a wider and more explicit scale will only drive costs up and value down, not to mention the crippling effect that nationalization will have on the competitive and creative forces of innovation. To the extent that a man is rational, he will not work under compulsion.

As far as England and Canada (or any country in the world) being Capitalist, surely you jest Mr. Blinder?

As the law now stands, when a family that does not itemize deductions on its tax return donates $100 to its favorite charity, the donation costs the family $100. But when an itemizing family in the 25% bracket donates $100, it costs them only $75 after tax. And when an itemizer in the 35% bracket donates $100, the after-tax cost is only $65. Thus the richer you are, the less it costs. Is it socialistic to say that seems a little backwards?

Not necessarily socialist, but it’s preposterous to imply that an individual who diligently complies and attempts to wrangle our nightmarish tax code shouldn’t be rewarded. This is the same line of thought that claims it’s an injustice for an individual who doesn’t pay taxes to not get a tax refund.

So where does all this leave us on the road to socialism? If Mr. Obama is able to get all of these proposals through Congress, the U.S. will have a fully private banking system, propped up with temporary government support; a uniquely American health-care system that covers virtually everyone; and a somewhat more progressive income tax.

If this is socialism, then let’s make the most of it.

Fully private eh? Except for thousands of pages of regulations, a mandatory phony currency, and that pesky Federal Reserve pulling the strings that drive the whole show. Temporary huh? Would that be “income tax” temporary, or “public education” temporary? Uniquely American? Except that it’s rooted in the same poisonous altruist-collective nonsense that leads every subscribing country to stagnant mediocrity, poverty and ultimately destruction. Our particular blend of the freedom/statism concoction may be non-essentially unique, but the course will lead to the only possible destination - misery.

Mr. Blinder, if you prefer not to call our president a Socialist, how about this? He’s a collectivist thug that stands to contradict and trample every founding principle of America. Does not using the “S” word make you feel better?

His ideals, like yours, represent the cloudy, contradictory fog of nonsense that has the greatest nation in the history of mankind circling the drain.

The anti-freedom monkeys are in another flinging frenzy. They just can’t accept the notion that freedom enables individual variance in lifestyles. Couple this with complete ignorance of individual rights or economics and the result is their attempt to regulate existence.

I’m amazed at how quickly people will condone the trampling of others at whim. This little gem is one of the most offensive justifications I’ve heard.

Statesville resident Eric Lamberth, a smoker, said he supports the ban because he believes it would help him kick the habit. [emphasis mine]

Unbelievable - the condonement of Government tyranny as means to compensate for his lack of self-control and discipline.

Restaurants are private property. The property owners are the only individuals who can rightfully determine the smoking policies for their property. The purpose of Government is to protect individual rights from being forcefully violated. Since customers are free to choose whether they accept the smoking policies of a particular dining establishment or not - no rights are being forcefully violated. Any law that trumps an owner’s smoking policy prerogative is an unjust slap in the face of America’s essence.

Your rights end when you are unable to keep your smoke away from my nose.

Only if we’re on your property.

The typical debate surrounding this non-issue rests on a fundamental error. This issue is not about the rights of individuals to smoke, nor about a supposed “right” to fresh air; but rather the right of property owners to set the terms for acceptable behavior on their premises. There is no “right” to fresh air. The only right that applies to consumers in this scenario is your right to not be forced to be exposed to air quality that you find unacceptable. So long as an individual chooses to enter the property of others (as opposed to someone forcing them to be there) they do so under the acceptance of the owner’s terms.

This, like all economic issues, is one that a free-market would solve far more effectively. If consumer demand for smoke-free environments rose to the point where such an offering were profitable, then the market would supply such. Instead, our culture is oblivious to the concept of rights and their fundamental role in making America the most prosperous country in the history of mankind. Rights equal freedom and freedom has a brilliantly clear historical record of raising man’s standard of living. To the extent that we chip away at freedom by violating real rights in favor of supposed rights, we destroy what made America.

As Don Watkins of ARC put it:

This widespread war on smoking [sic] is infecting America with a political disease far worse than any health risk caused by smoking; it is destroying our freedom to make our own judgments and choices.

Well said.

America’s recent Olympic mega-hero Michael Phelps is in the spotlight for apparently committing an atrocious act, one that Richland County, SC Sheriff Leon Lott finds offensive enough to consider legal repercussions.

“This one might be a lot easier since we have photographs [sic] and a partial confession. It’s a relatively easy case once we can determine where the crime occurred.” - The Sheriff

Did Phelps forcefully violate any other individual’s right to life? No.

Did he forcefully violate anyone’s right to liberty? No.

Did he forcefully encroach upon anyone’s right to property? No.

According to photo evidence, Mr. Phelps is guilty of consuming a particular substance that society doesn’t approve of.

Sure, his physical body is his property. Indeed, we are a supposed nation of freedom. Yes, his life is his responsibility.

However, America has now deteriorated into a luke-warm slosh of laws and regulations based on subjective whim. Considering how routinely our culture passively dismisses revolutionary ideas as platitudinous clichés, should there be any surprise in our betrayal of principles? John Adams’ optimistic vision has nearly met its full inversion by our continual descent towards a government of men and not of laws.

For reasons that no human can rationally articulate, our cannibalistic society has determined that regardless of where, how or when, Michael Phelps doesn’t have the right to his own body, and can only consume items which meet the state’s approval.

The arguments typically fall into two categories. The increased risk category, and the immorality of behavior category. Both are flimsy attempts to rationalize the initiation of force by Government.

The claim by the increased risk camp contends that under the influence of certain substances, an individual’s capacity to reason is inhibited, which increases their potential likelihood to encroach upon the rights of others. The statist answer is that we must mitigate this increased risk by regulating or restricting the behavior. This constitutes a wholesale violation of rights. Based on this logic, why not mandate regular sleep patterns, diet and exercise regimens and make the emotions of anger, jealousy and resentment illegal? Wouldn’t all decrease the potential likelihood that a man would violate the rights of others? If this should be our guiding premise, why not lock men in cages or crank up the slave labor camps? Wouldn’t such measures even further reduce the potential for man to offend? Yes, but doing so would constitute an initiation of force against man by government, which is contrary to both the founding principles of America and to reason and justice. Additionally, there are already numerous laws in place to punish every conceivable way an individual can violate the rights of others. Burglary, trespassing, assault, armed robbery, speeding, reckless driving, extortion, kidnapping, arson, manslaughter and murder are already codified into law. Any action an individual could do under the influence, he could do otherwise. Consistent enforcement of these laws is far better suited for a country bent on the cause of freedom, as opposed to continual erosion of man’s freedom to act in an attempt to make it impossible for him to breach the legal code.

The second, even flimsier, justification for drug laws is the claim that such behavior is immoral. When faced with this justification one must ask according to what standard of values? If the justification is based on religious tenets, which is commonly the case, we should remind ourselves that America was founded as a safe haven from religious mandate, where one was free to pursue any spiritual cause, or none at all. To introduce religious premises into a secular legal system is contrary to the essence of America. If an individual deems consumption of particular substances as immoral, they are free to abstain from such actions. They are not free to enforce that abstinence on others. Coincidentally, the notion to establish religious ethics by legal mandate is the also the root of controversial blue laws, which are clear violations of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Supreme Court rulings notwithstanding - as no valid secular justification has even been conveyed.

It stands to reason that man has the right to take any action he chooses so long as it doesn’t objectively encroach upon any other individual’s right to life, liberty or property - by force. No force, no offense. Until American culture reverts to one that considers individual rights as the cornerstone to freedom and prosperity, we’re in a steady decline towards statism - which history illustrates as a bloody and miserable path.

While I have consumed substances which subjective law would deem illegal, as a general rule, I refrain from doing so because they inhibit my ability to reason and perceive reality. To condone any initiation of force against those individuals who do choose such consumption is unjust, immoral and precisely contrary to the proper role of Government.

I adamantly wish Michael Phelps would use this episode to publicly and proudly proclaim his right to use his body as he chooses - including consumption of any substance in any amount at any time.

I’ve become firearm enthusiast. I like the engineering, I like the power, I like the security. Firearms are a tribute to the focus of mans mind on the endeavor to protect his life.

A particularly uncomfortable confrontation in the street out front of our rental house in 2006 prompted my official foray into the world of firearms. We were building our current home and had the opportunity for very cheap and flexible rent through a colleague of my wife. Every deal is a tradeoff and in this case the trade was cheap rent for a somewhat shady locale. There are areas in most towns referred to as the wrong side of the tracks - this home would have been built on the tracks. One side of the street was warm and pleasant, the other dark and risky.

I grew up like many guys with BB and Pellet rifles. We lived on several wooded acres so plinking targets, cans or birds out in the back yards was no big deal. Growing up in a small rural suburb meant I had family and friends that were avid outdoorsman, and through them I gained experience with shotguns and rifles. My father had both and a revolver, but I never really paid much attention to them. He instilled a healthy sense of fear, both in the inherent dangers of guns and especially the dangers of me tampering with his guns. I remained very distant, if not isolated from deadly weapons from my early teens until a few years ago.

A few hair-raising stares in downtown Charlotte on dark early mornings as I walked in from the parking lot initiated my curiosity. The booming, lowered and tinted thug-mobile pugnaciously blocking my driveway at the rental house one late winter night was the deciding factor that led me to a serious approach to self-defense.

I have a tendency to take on new endeavors in a very dedicated manner and this one would be no exception. I very quickly recognized that a firearm in incompetent hands is a liability that can ruin lives. I joined a few ranges, one near work, and one near home and began training a few days per week. I soaked up as much info as I could find. I tapped into a new realm of industry, culture and controversy. I also started to really enjoy shooting and the mechanical aspects of maintenance and part upgrades. I learned that like any market, there were niche offerings for specialize purposes. There are pistols small enough for effective concealment, there are those with upgraded components and tailored for accuracy, there are those optimized virtually every situation one could be in requiring such power at their disposal. As a natural progression I started to look into the rifle market. There are traditional bolt-action rifles and there are the modular, military inspired tactical rifles. The latter are far more interesting to me. The AR-15 platform is a very innovative and flexible weapon. In addition, it’s also the weapon of choice for those who’d prefer me not have the ability to defend myself with deadly force. It’s a powerful, customizable, all-purpose and pleasantly engineered source of anxiety for the irrational - I’ll take two of those.

I must get to the point.

I’m going hunting this year for the first time in 20 years. I’m excited - not necessarily about killing an animal, but about the exercise as a whole. The excitement of being outdoors, gearing up to face the weather, acting covert, relying on the technological masterpiece in your hands, the rush of the kill, and the reward of food to show for it in some cases. Depending on the game, there are some I’d actually prefer not to kill. Deer, I appreciate, but if we’re talking about an undeniably ugly and unappealing beast such as a bore, fox or coyote - I’ll have absolutely no reservations about their elimination.

I carried a vague awareness of restrictions around hunting. I knew there were certain times of the year that hunting with particular types of weapons was common. What I had been naively insulated from was the tyrannical invasiveness of our game laws. Given the overreaching club of Government in all other areas of our lives, why would it surprise me that essentially I have to ask the state permission to act within my proper role on the food chain?

I’m required a license to hunt or fish. I can’t go kill a varmint without paying a fee to the State. Even after which I’m only privileged to kill so many, and only during very brief time periods. What weapon I use to kill is restricted. What caliber I use is restricted. What time of day I do so is restricted. The sex of the animal I claim is restricted.

Does the state own all the animals? Or, do animals have rights? What a brilliant concoction of Environmentalism and Gun Control! And consider the potential revenue stream - subjective law always proves to be an adequate means to control men and loot their pockets.

The animals are either property, or they have a right to life. Which is the State implying? All arguments supporting these laws are founded in one of these foundations, neither of which can hold their weight on either moral nor practical grounds (the moral always is the practical).

Laws should be based on rights.

• There is no specific right to have an ample supply of game for hunting.
• Animals have no rights.
• Man has a right to his life, liberty and property.

Who’s right to what am I forcefully violating by hunting according to my own terms? Men have the right to their lives, their liberty and their property - all three of which are violated by this perversion of justice. Hunting to eat, freedom to do so at my discretion and the right to do so unchallenged on my on land are all three dependent on the consent of the State. Once again, another sick inversion of the proper role of government. The supposed protector of rights is the violator.

Anyone surprised?

Can you imagine our founder’s response to the notion that what was a staple of survival in their time has now been criminalized? America, as they envisioned and died for, no longer exists.

Via Boortz, I came across one gem in response to another.

Oh boy, where to start.

The first (bad cop) is a fine tribute to how small a grasp most voters have on what really matters about an individual, especially one who’s seeking to rule you. A few citations:

“He’s too new … and he needs to put some meat on his bones,” says Diana Koenig, 42, a housewife in Corpus Christi, Texas, who says she voted for Sen. Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary.

“I won’t vote for any beanpole guy,” another Clinton supporter wrote last week on a Yahoo politics message board.

Instead of judging based the candidate’s stance on freedom, sovereignty or justice, these people are more concerned with petty physical details, which are more easily integrated attributes that require much less thought. They feel an unnamed urgency to be involved with the election, but don’t have the slightest clue where to begin. So, they resort to the most basic means of judgment - evaluation of physical features - as a way to “get involved”. Man’s mind, his intellect, his philosophy -the only import aspects of a candidate- aren’t even a blips on their radar.

The article then tries to speak out to the more scientific minded drones with an appeal to authority, and departs with a hint of suspicion.

Dr. Scheiner didn’t disclose his patient’s exact weight, but medical observers estimate that the 6-foot-1.5-inch-tall senator appears to weigh at least 10 pounds less than the roughly 190 pounds that the average American man of his height weighs. The Obama campaign declined to comment for this article.

We then get to a curious proof of Obama’s ‘keepin’ it real’ side immediately followed by the transformation of such (supposed) vice into a tribute to his near deitous status.

Sen. Obama is not without vices. According to Dr. Scheiner’s medical report, he has quit smoking “on several occasions and is currently using Nicorette gum with success.” People close to the senator say he began smoking nearly three decades ago and smoked about five cigarettes a day.

Some voters say that even this adds to Sen. Obama’s somewhat superhuman persona. “I mean, really, who quits smoking and doesn’t gain any weight?” says 30-year-old Stella Metsovas, an Obama supporter in Laguna Beach, Calif.

[emphasis mine]

This article strives (in appearance) to be a candid insight into the diet, physique and eating habits of politicians in general and Obama in particular. There’s no mention as to why this topic is relevant or should be interesting. It’s written by, directed to and about those who seek the fast-food drive through election - where a brightly colored, yet simple icon will suffice as qualification for their support.

However, I think there is another motive that I’ll get to below.

So, we have irrelevant chatter.. and now an “insightful” response to it.

Timothy Noah (good cop) thinks all this skinny talk is nothing more than a facade for the real agenda - RACISM.

The promise of Obama’s presidency, in many people’s minds, is partly that America will move toward becoming a post-racial society. It’s pretty clear, though, that we aren’t there yet. When white people are invited to think about Obama’s physical appearance, the principal attribute they’re likely to dwell on is his dark skin. Consequently, any reference to Obama’s other physical attributes can’t help coming off as a coy walk around the barn.

It might be argued that body weight differs from certain other physical characteristics (apart from skin color) in that it has never been associated with racial caricature. Chozick wasn’t asking (and, I feel sure, would never ask) whether Americans might think Obama’s hair was too kinky or his nose too broad. But it doesn’t matter. The sad fact is that any discussion of Obama’s physical appearance is going to remind white people of the physical characteristic that’s most on their minds.

Race certainly seems to be on Timothy’s mind.

The problem is that ‘Race’ is an indicator or ethnicity. ‘Skinny’ is an adjective describing relative body mass. Yes, Obama has a particular race. Yes, he is skinny. For Timmy to grant correlation the upgrade to causation is a major stretch. By his standard, apparently picking any physical attribute of Obama could be cast as a racial metric.

These articles are perfect examples of the “titanic deck chairs” aura of our media. Two pundits chattering about misguided and totally irrelevant topics. The former a superficial ad hominem. The latter a smearing straw man. Both come across as underhanded variants of the vicious goal - to renounce an opposing stance not by reason and logic, but by evasion, diffusion and distraction.

I think they both are on the same team. Sure they’re both collectivist, but I mean on a more concrete level.

I think these stories are supposed to be legitimate and unrelated topics - however, I think the WSJ piece could very easily be an intentional lob designed to be knocked out of the park by an accomplicing lefty pundit.

What better way to kill two birds with one stone. They know that most of their audience think and operate on a superficial level. What better way to glorify Obama’s looks as virtues in once sense, and paint anyone as bigots who consider such as meaningful in another.

This is “Good Cop - Bad Cop” journalism.

I used to be a Del McCoury fan… I really did. His latest endeavor and the surrounding stench has changed that.

Modern day bluegrass patriarch Del McCoury adds a new dimension to his role as a musical leader on July 8, 2008 when his family owned McCoury Music label, distributed by powerhouse RED Distribution (a division of SonyBMG) releases Moneyland, a timely multi-artist collection that offers a hard-hitting look at today’s economic injustice through a thoughtful selection of six new (or newly recorded) songs, mixed with eight neglected gems and classic favorites. Framed by excerpts from two of Franklin Roosevelt’s Depression-era “fireside chats,” Moneyland revitalizes country and bluegrass music’s connections to the lives of hardworking people in ways that honor the past, look to the future and challenge listeners to act in the present.

…….

That is what the project is all about. Some have called it “a call to action for rural America.” Me, I’m just trying to follow the Golden Rule. Thank you for your support. I hope this music moves you to find a place where you can help–even if it’s just at the voting booth.

I find the premise of this album, website and competition offensively laughable. The fact that Mr. McCoury is capitalizing on the movement generated by his work reveals the flimsy nature of the very premises it’s coasting on. For him to denigrate our remnants of Capitalism, the only system that allows talented individuals like himself to objectively prosper, is a humorous spectacle. The only reasonable conclusion I can draw from Del’s many ‘calls to action’ is that he’s supporting the cause for more government meddling in the economy, more income redistribution and more sacrifice of individuals for the sake of the collective. Doesn’t the ‘Golden Rule’ lose some of its splendor when it becomes compulsory?

He thinks rural America has it bad now? Just wait until what’s left of our economy is suffocated by more regulation - when those corporate “non hard-working” types stop providing what jobs are left.

Thanks Del, that’s just what America needs… more patently un-american progress. Stick to music, when it comes to philosophy and economics, you’re in over your head.

“economic injustice…” - what a joke.