02.07.10

Palin admits she doesn’t believe in the U.S. Constitution

Posted in Liberty, Society at 20:11 by RjZ

Of course Ms. Sarah Palin gets too much press already, but with her new job at Fox News that’s not likely to stop any time soon. Speaking of Fox News, she responded on “Fox News Sunday” to chants of “Run, Sarah, Run” that she would consider a 2012 run for president “if it’s the right thing to do for our country.”

Later in that interview she also explained “We’re at war and these are acts of war that these terrorists are committing and we need to treat them differently,” she said. “I don’t think terrorists are worthy of rights that people like my son fight and are willing to die for.”

It’s surely a populist view, but what the real headline here is that she doesn’t believe in the freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and for which her son is fighting. Any not-yet-convicted terrorists are innocent until proven guilty. Under the leadership of George W. Bush, and perhaps Sarah Palin, they are not guaranteed any such rights. They are guilty, and sit in prison, regardless of their actual status. With their freedoms, so go our own.

President Obama has attempted to remedy this situation. Some wish he would do so faster, while in these efforts to respect the constitution, Ms. Palin sees an opportunity to strike a populist blow and ignore human rights.They’re terrorists, you say! Maybe. Probably, even, but that’s the point. One of the foundations of the great constitution of the United States is that we don’t presume guilt, rather innocence. They’re not citizens you say. Nope, and they may not deserve every right and privilege of American law, but due process seems the only way to even arrive at the truth of their guilt or innocence. Americans didn’t come up with this system; it predates our union; but we have successfully employed it for over 200 years, and it’s part of the strength of this nation.

I don’t know what Ms. Palin actually thinks her son is fighting for, unless our ‘way of life’ really does just mean Church and snow mobiles.

112 views Permalink Comments

09.17.09

Who’s side are you on?

Posted in Liberty at 18:19 by RjZ

Conservatives are usually closer to libertarians than democrats are when it comes to fiscal policy. That’s why it’s so surprising for me to see them coming out so strongly in favor of tort reform. Their idea, like this guy writing in to the Durango Herald is that the bulk of the ills in the United States’ health care system stems from doctors paying too much in medical malpractice insurance. Not only that, they’re prescribing ‘defensive’ medical procedures and worse, there are huge, headline grabbing, payouts costing the United States insurance purchaser “in excess of $100 billion” each year.

Mr. Aldrich doesn’t cite any sources for his price tag, and there are many more experts who disagree with him. The Washington Post cites quite a few in this piece, where they also mention the estimated $2.3 trillion that Americans spend on health care each year. Let’s give Aldrich the benefit of the doubt and assume he knows more than dozens of university professors and professional economists around the nation. Still, his frightening $100 billion would still amount to amount to a paltry 4.3% the year expense.

Tort reform hurts the individual. When I was 17 years old I was cleaning a balloon printing press after a day’s work. (Hey, it was a job.) The machine suddenly switched on, thanks, it turned out, to a faulty relay and poor design, and dragged my hand between two geared drums. Fellow workers were able to help me extract my smooshed hand after an excrutiating few minutes.

Two surgeries and a year of nasty physical therapy later, after everything had healed as much is it was going to, I sat in a lawyers office as he opened a large book and scanned the pages. Noting my age and my disability (1 finger, pinky, 90%, permanent; one finger, ring, 30%, permanent) he scanned the tables and compared the information in the rewards column and then arranged to have a check written to me for $2,200. (My medical costs were paid for as well.) The owner of the business had been at fault. He’d not only not maintained the presses, but he had been involved in their custom, not so awesome, design. California, however, is a no-fault worker’s compensation state and the rewards were fixed in this book. My hand still hurts sometimes when it’s cold out and the extent of his punishment for negligent design and maintenance? He had to continue to pay worker’s compensation insurance and I wouldn’t be coming back to work for him, thank you.

I should also mention, that had I come to work drunk that day, and fallen into the machine head first, worker’s compensation insurance would still have been required to pay (I wonder what the value of a crushed head works out to be?) And that’s how folks (usually liberals) defend no-fault insurance and other tort reform. It protects people, even when they’re at fault and saves money at the same time. I am glad I was able to contribute to the welfare of those who don’t have the sense not to come to work drunk.

But while you read about all those giant awards and, without knowing all the facts, and you cringe at what juries award some ignoramus who cries about the pain and suffering he endured when he had a hang nail removed from the wrong toe, ask yourself how you would feel if you were the unfortunate victim of some real, negligent mistake from a doctor or surgeon? Is it really worth less than 5% of all of our health care costs? Will this money really go to the taxpayer? (According that that Wash Post link above, Texas, which caps pain and suffering damages, didn’t save much after all.) Is this really the low hanging fruit that will rescue our health care system?

Limiting damages hurts individuals who actually deserve compensation and removes incentives to avoid accidents. It fails to address the problem (if there really is one, some of that $100 billion is rewarded for damn good reasons!) of juries and judges making unreasonable rewards and strips them of the freedom they once had by making the decisions even before the case has been heard. Libertarians seek to increase individual rights and freedoms, not limit them. I suppose Glenn Beck and friends are only Libertarians when they’re waving the flag, and not when it comes to actually promoting individual rights.

130 views Permalink Comments

08.04.09

The benevolent dictator paradox

Posted in Liberty at 17:28 by RjZ

Dictatorship is bad. Democracy is good. Everybody knows that. Free market guy that I am, I feel much the same way about control economy (like dictatorship) compared to capitalism (like democracy.) That’s why my trips to China have really thrown a wrench into works of my brain. I’ve spent some time trying to pull that wrench out. Here’s what I think it looks like.

China is a dictatorship. Actually, it’s an oligarchy, but what it’s not is a democracy. The social contract that the Chinese have signed with their government goes something like: we’ll let you make all the political decisions so long as you leave us alone to make money and buy things. And the government has heartily agreed. For the most part, people are allowed to pursue what looks quite a bit like free market capitalism and the government is allowed to rule by fiat and to make long term social and infrastructure decisions that even when the people don’t much agree, they keep quiet about it.

Most Chinese people don’t like things like the Three Gorges Dam, or the lack of a free press, but they do like their dramatically improved standard of living over the last thirty years. Of course there are a great many poor in China, but, today there’s more than a United States full of people, that is 300 million of them, who live, more or less, pretty much just like we do in the west. They have computers and cell phones, Nike shoes and Chinese MTV. They’re more interested in fads then federal government and they’re hoping to try the new mediterranean restaurant that opened up down the block sometime soon. Day-to-day life is fine. They’ve got software that sneaks around the government censors for internet and they speak openly about how they feel to friends and even tourists. They’re fiercely (and justifiably) proud of the great and varied nation in which they live.

How is this possible if dictatorship is so bad? It’s kind of like Microsoft Windows. Microsoft may be (or even have been, if you like) a monopoly, able to control everything in its market like a dictator can in his country, but as long as they make good decisions and make relatively good software that works and does what most everyone needs, there is little reason to complain. Macintosh users may (or may not) have it better, but the whiny minority (of which, in the name of full disclosure I belong) is losing out on all the advantages that centralized power truly brings.

In China, when the government puts its mind to change something, it is incredibly effective. Compare a simple example. Recently, they decided that all these plastic bags at grocery stores were a bad idea. And, by edict, all grocery stores were banned from giving them out. It’s a great idea and the people quickly adapted. Meanwhile, forward thinking San Francisco and a few Alaskan villiages are some of the few in the United States to do the same.

During a business trip to China I was struck by government authorities I met. Mid-level people who are clearly competent technocrats and nothing like politicians I’ve met in the U.S. I can’t even call them politicians. They spoke about items of substance and understood the topics as well as any of the technical people in the room. These technicians of government do not have to ask their constituents for approval, but they’re highly educated people who have been, by and large, making good decisions for the past thirty years and China’s ascendance is undeniable proof of their success.

All this is a huge dilemma for me. The whole concept of a control economy run by a small oligarchy is anathema to me. Were George Orwell, Ayn Rand, and Anthony Burgess wrong in all those books I read?  I struggled to find flaws in the system and prove myself right. First idea: even the Chinese will lament the lack of a free press. We have a free press in the United States. I run little risk of arrest by writing this blog. Except, that we Americans seem unwilling to pay for the press that we have and barely value what’s left of it. Newspapers are closing down at an alarming rate and editors are forced not to seek out the news that we need to hear in favor of what we want to hear.  Far from being biased towards the left or the right, the U.S. media is biased towards keeping its job, which means making money, which means whatever it guesses will sell the most ads. If the people love George Bush, the papers do to. If they hate him, so does the evening news. If the polls love Obama, then NPR thinks he’s the power of change. If they turn against him, CNN will join the fray. Whatever sells papers and justifies ad revenues is what gets the most attention. Who can blame them? We have a free press in the United States, we’re just not using it.

So what’s wrong with these benevolent dictators then? During a recent discussion in China, and Chinese colleague put it succinctly and it finally answered my dilemma.

China is governed by people, not laws.

The Chinese model has been successful because of the people in power. Apparently, they’re honestly talented and well-meaning, and they are not required to kowtow to special interests at every turn. The Chinese people are in good shape…so long as they have good people steering the ship. But what if they don’t? What happens when someone not so benevolent comes to power?

Being governed by people instead of a system isn’t just dangerous, it suffers from a limited attention span, too. The Chinese oligarchy is, indeed, very effective. Beijing was cleaner for the Olympics and those pesky plastic bags are gone, but there is only so much bandwidth for the authorities to enforce regulation and address new concerns. Pollution is a serious problem in China that no one denies, but little is done so far. The people and the government are both troubled, but frankly, they have bigger fish to stir fry. Three hundred million people may be living middle class western lives, but that leaves another billion in a falling apart shack.

The Chinese have every reason to be proud of their beautiful country and amazing progress. There is much to enjoy and appreciate and, even if it pained me to admit it, their system works far better than I would like to give it credit. My worry for them is if it’s sustainable. Can those billion people rely on replacing great technocrats with new ones who also make the right decisions? Is it even possible for a system which depends on the vagaries of people to even effectively address all the concerns and needs of the people they govern and the society they guide?

Continued success in China will depend on the tradition of government being passed on to the next generation of leaders. Each of those leaders will face greater and greater challenges with the same limitations on bandwidth that their predecessors faced. No one would describe the United States as a flawless gem, (alright, some right wing nuts might) but, even in the face of economic crisis and adventurous wars, we can be confident that we are not at the mercy of a few individuals, and that our system of laws, like a good user manual, guides the country forward, even if people sometimes forget to read it.

Whew. I almost had to delete this old post .

232 views Permalink 1 Comment

03.23.09

Simple math and world domination

Posted in Liberty, Society at 15:53 by RjZ

Alright, the modern world is based on a service economy and knowledge is a valuable export, but just the same, the 2008 import/export numbers published by the World Trade Organization seem pretty discouraging if you’re an U.S. citizen. While the U.S. is first in imports, it is third in exports.

Maybe much of that could be attributed to currency fluctuations. Too bad a some simple math (exports divided by imports) tell such disturbing story. China: 1.27; Germany: 1.22 and the United States: 0.60! Just looking at how much we buy and how little we sell, it’s pretty easy to see how we could be in such an economic crisis.

During my recent visit to China, it was pretty clear that United State’s economic system catching a cold ends up being highly contagious outside of the borders. And the Chinese aren’t too pleased about it either. Although, in our defense, I’d like to point out that these numbers were no secret around the world. The Chinese are as guilty of investing in Team America as anybody else who’s seen assets dwindle in the last few months of stock market crash correction. We all should have read the signs.

The Chinese trip raised another question. Namely, why would anyone, without an ego to protect, really care whether the United States remains the foremost economic, and therefore political, power? Actually, I’ve often wondered that. I am proud to be an American, but am not exactly sure that means everyone else enjoys our power, or that they should be expected to. Despite the propaganda to the contrary, China seems to be a pretty nice place, and at least as free as most Americans would ever actually notice anyway. (True, there is no free press in China, but would any Americans really miss it if our free press were gone? Have you heard about all the failing newspapers or Jon Stewart’s comedic railings against poor economic reporting of the past few years?)

A few surprising conversations with some, not necessarily representative, Chinese did give me some insight into just why we just might care where the U.S. is in the world pecking order. It seems many in China believe that the only thing stopping them from some serious border skirmishes, or worse, with traditional enemy Japan is the strong alliance between the Japanese and Americans. In spite of the Chinese party-line which preaches peace and non-intervention, as soon as China could neutralize retaliation from the United States, so goes the argument, they would be free to act without consequence on some deep seated (and justified, if outdated) anger still harbored for their neighbors.

Regardless of how credible we find this scenario, one fact remains true. The United States has transferred power 44 times without significant impact to the rest of the world. We’ve stuck our noses in countless country’s affairs but generally, the majority of countries have grown to trust that, even if we go astray (see for example, 2000 – 2008) we have a working system that kicks bad guys out and brings in new ones (hopefully better). It could be a new United States marketing slogan: Dictator -Free for over 225 years!

This track record may be the best argument for maintaining the United States preeminence. Unfortunately, it takes only some simple math to see how tenuous that position might be.

166 views Permalink Comments

02.04.09

Financial advice

Posted in Liberty at 11:32 by RjZ

Here’s a bit of financial advice. If your money or investments are in a bank that is receiving federal bail-out money, find another bank. That’s easier said than done right now, but I predict there will be a few popping up in near future. Among other bad omens, President Obama has decided to cap salaries for banks getting federal aid. I can see his point and it’s a populist move that I am sure will earn him favor but some unintended consequences are that any bank with a salary cap won’t be able to attract and keep the best people.

Here’s how it goes; if you’re on the board of a bank and the CEO retires, or gets hit by a car, how do you attract a new one just as good as the last? The other CEOs are already getting the top salary you can offer, so there’s no reason for them to leave their current positions and help you out. As a result, you get less than top quality executives at a critical time. Is this the best way to handle U.S. citizens investments? What sounds like a good idea has the unintended consequences of making sure we don’t have the best people watching over our money.

The good news is, once those smart folks can get their hands on some capital, which, admittedly, isn’t easy just now, they’ll start their own investment institutions, free from this government regulation, and also free to attract the best and the brightest. Investors looking to maximize their money after such a painful recession will flock to them, and the Obama administration’s plan won’t even have accomplished what it was intended to do in the first place-keep people’s money safe by regulating banks.

The fact is, government has to either control every single thing, a plan we’ve seen doesn’t work in places like, say, the Soviet Union, or we leave a loophole for clever people to get around the regulations and they don’t help in the first place. I wish we could have been avoiding credit default swaps and bad home loans in the past decade; it sure would have helped out my money, but if it hadn’t been these problems, it would have been something else.

184 views Permalink 2 Comments

11.24.07

What she’s really saying is this:

Posted in Liberty at 14:54 by RjZ

I’ve been learning about the candidates a bit. I’ve never thought much for or against Hillary Clinton. All I ever hear is that evangelicals don’t like her because they won’t vote for a woman, and I assume, because she had the gall to actually try to keep her family together. I thought evangelicals we’re for that sort of thing. Meanwhile, I was reading her website, and imagine she might write the following letter:

Dear business owner,

You know, I’ve had it with you. For more than fifty years I’ve asked you for a service and you’ve provided it. You’ve improved efficiency in your efforts and competed with others in the market, but the demand has been strong and you’ve been profitable. How dare you! What’s worse, is that even though demand is increasing for the goods you supply, you refuse to stop producing even when what you make is bad for us! How can you wantonly give us exactly what we ask for?

How you dare to invest money, year after year, just so that you can be successful at giving us what we want, without ever taking a moment to decide what’s best for us; to stop selling exactly what the market demands of you and drive yourself and all those who trusted you with their savings in to ruin, because you should know better.

I thought you knew, that in the United States we don’t have enough sense to know what is best for us. We want to be able to do as we wish. Ah, thank the Lord, I the government, am here, to ensure you do what is best for us all. No doubt, you’re excellent at what you do, and I am impressed. That you have made so much money is proof of your excellence; all you have to do is invest in something else, something you ought to be just as successful with. Sure there are small companies out there developing the technology on their own, but you, you’re a big and successful organization and I know that you can do it again, so long as you receive a bit of my help and advice.

So, this letter is to inform you that I hereby make you an offer you cannot refuse. Not legally anyway.

In 2005, Exxon Mobil’s CEO told Congress that his company’s investment in alternative energy technologies over the prior decade was “negligible.” Hillary believes it is time for oil companies to do their share in funding clean energy technologies. She would give oil companies a choice: invest more in renewable energy technology or pay into a Strategic Energy Fund. The Strategic Energy Fund would also eliminate oil company tax breaks and make sure that oil companies pay their fair share in royalties when drilling on public lands. This fund would jumpstart a clean energy future by injecting $50 billion over ten years into research, development and deployment of renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean coal technology, ethanol and other homegrown biofuels.

---

Hillary’s got a different way to show that she loves corporations just as much as Bush does. Where the Bush administration maintains handouts to oil companies earned over democratic and republican administrations; the future Clinton administration will rightfully eliminate the handouts, but only by extorting corporations to fund programs she deems best. The tried and true method where companies were required to earn their success in the market place; the pattern that’s been successful for generations of industrialists, from railroad tycoons to today’s oil companies, is clearly a tired old model. Today those companies who are already successful will be forced to re-tool in the hopes that if they’re good at drilling oil, they’ll be equally good at building solar cells. All the while, companies who’ve plied their technology for decades aren’t even given the opportunity to make the money they’ve worked so hard for.

At first glance, taking from the rich oil companies to help fund a green future sounds like a great idea to get votes. But it’s anti-American to take fairly earned profits from companies just because the government doesn’t think what they’re doing is such a good idea any more, and it’s inefficient to expect those same companies with no prior experience to be more successful than the upstarts who already have the expertise to finally make renewables viable. It’s a clever plan, because she’s pandering both to the those folks who think profits of the rich are theirs for the taking simply because they don’t have them and at the same time, the rich corporations know that if they buy in to her policy (whether they want to or not) at least they’ll be protected from real competition, because the government will use their own money to fun their new “clean energy initiatives.” It’s just unfortunate that the ill gotten governmental gains won’t be better spent on companies that are better suited to success.

340 views Permalink Comments

08.20.07

Hang up and drive and other myths

Posted in Liberty at 15:53 by RjZ

Most likely you’ve seen the bumper stickers: “Hang up and drive!” It’s such a common sentiment that several states (and nations) have laws banning individuals from operating a cellphone while driving. Typical nanny-state attitude; control what people do and they won’t hurt themselves. It’s also entirely inconsistent. We don’t ban smoking in cars, even though a dropped cigarette is an accident waiting to happen. We don’t ban radios or iPods although fiddling with them has gotten me into some close calls (and I am sure I am not alone). We don’t ban screaming children in the back seat or puppies in the front.

Worse still, while many think cellphones contribute to accidents, new evidence doesn’t bear this out. According to the New York Times, a University of Berkeley study shows no increase in accidents in spite of the great increase in cell phone use.

I saw another bumper sticker once: “I drive like you do.” We all make mistakes out there. It’s your responsibility to drive carefully and pay attention to those who are not. Let’s hope everyone else does when you’re the one not paying attention.

273 views Permalink 2 Comments

06.25.07

I don’t care what you wear, unless you want to buy something

Posted in Liberty, Society at 13:50 by RjZ

I remain perplexed about what is right and reasonable for religious and cultural practices. As I wrote here, in cultures such as Egypt where it is the standard, women don’t actually abide very strictly by the religious tradition that motivates wearing a veil. All across Europe, however, while the number of women wearing the niqab (full face covering) is dramatically fewer than in Cairo, the impact is greater. Particularly in Britain, where no laws have yet been passed restricting this behavior, many people on both sides of the debate are feeling the challenges.

What do you think? Should women in Britain, or the United States be entitled to wear the niqab if the so desire? Sounds like an easy question. Perhaps you think: of course they should, it’s their right in a free country to express themselves. It’s freedom of religion! Even the most conservative amongst us have a hard time justifying making the headscarf illegal simply because these people ought to fit in and integrate just as they ought to (whatever that means) learn English. Oh sure, they ought to; like our grandparents did, but must we have a law restricting clothing?

On the other hand, we already do! People may not claim that it is their religious rights to walk around naked, because, that right would offend the prude majority. Satan worship is allowed, but virgin sacrifice isn’t, regardless of your religious persuasion or beliefs. But what’s the harm of women covering their faces? In a society where women are discouraged or prohibited from closing contracts without male family members, there really isn’t any problem not being able to identify them. In the west, women are provided with rights to buy cars and houses, so it’s not unreasonable that those closing those deals might wish to verify the identity of their business partners.

What about teaching, withdrawing money from a bank, being caught speeding, using a credit card? It disturbs me to limit someone’s freedom, certainly their religious freedom (a theme on which the United States was founded) and especially for such a trivial notion as clothing, but the customs, and economic function of Western society make it difficult to do otherwise. At some point during nearly all of these transactions, we’ll need to see her face.

Women must be allowed to dress anyway they wish (men too) whether they are motivated by religion or mere style. It’s just that the government and business partners have a reasonable expectation to expect to see more than eyes behind a veil. Do what you wish, but don’t expect to participate in society at large without some compromises.

What do you think?

272 views Permalink Comments

12.28.06

Snowglobes prohibited: do you feel safe now?

Posted in Liberty at 12:16 by RjZ

The TSA has added snow globes of any size to its list of items prohibited as airplane carry on. Do you feel safe now? Does it help you to know that the alleged “‘Terror Plot’ foiled on the morning of Wednesday, 10th August 2006″ of jihadists bringing down planes destined for the United States armed with a sports drink, nail polish remover (acetone) and an MP3 player has not amounted to convictions, or even proof of a real plot?

Most of the media has been pretty silent about it, but NBC news did report that a “an attack was not imminent” as had been suggested by police. This commentary discusses various sources and revelations about the likelihood of this latest terrorist attack. It’s very interesting reading, so I won’t repeat it here. Not only was the attack not imminent, it wasn’t plausible. If that doesn’t convince you, here’s another source, (with still more links) that explains that the suggested explosive, TATP, would sooner kill the alleged terrorist than bring down a plane.

So why all this attention on inconveniencing air passengers when the supposed plots aren’t feasible, reasonable, imminent, or even likely? Simple answer: politics. Elected officials have a better chance of winning if they’re doing something that keeps you safe. Even if we don’t agree, well, at least “he’s doing what he can.” It isn’t true only for elected officials and it isn’t true only in the United States. When NY Subway officials said they would perform random searches, travelers did not cry out about the stupidity of it all (they’d catch 1 in 10,000, even there were terrorists boarding the New York subway.) British authorities raised the “threat level” to critical after the alleged plot in August, even though there turned out to be no threat at all, and they didn’t retract their warnings after the investigation proceeded, because, well, it’s safer if people keep vigilant.

Lobbyists chasing after ever growing Homeland Security dollars, aren’t motivated to search out the truth of their claims that Red Bull and nail polish remover are the next major threat–it might endanger something more important than the freedom to travel: their jobs. A system where we reward politicians for the appearance of safety and action in spite of their effectiveness costs us more than inconvenience. It strips us of liberty, privacy and money.

The TSA isn’t cheap. They requested $5 billion alone for aviation risks in 2006. Compare that with $69 billion for the United States mandatory and discretionary budget for education. It seems strange to me that education is only seven times the budget for people who won’t allow us to bring shampoo or snow globes on planes which, of course, does nothing for our safety. But at least we feel safe, don’t we?

So why aren’t we complaining? Because there is a huge disconnect between those demanding our toothpaste and those making the policy. When we’re about to step on a plane we have no choice but to endure the indignity of removing shoes and showing off our “personal lubricants” in “a clear one quart zip-lock bag” we can’t really complain because they have every authority to keep us from flying if we do. Meanwhile, the policy makers are keeping us safe and hording Homeland Security dollars at our request.
Keep this in mind when politicians tell you they want to keep you safe and protect you from terrorists. Ask them not only what they’re going to do, but how they’re going to see if what they’re doing actually works! If your auto mechanic said he was going to change your oil every 50 miles because it’s better for your car, you’d question his motivation. It’s probably not bad for your car to change oil every 50 miles, but it’s not going to make it last any longer either. And it is going to cost you a fortune and loads of inconvenience.

There are hundreds of ways to blow up a plane, and hundreds other terrorists plots that could scare us, but we let our governments do the scaring instead. We really are letting the terrorists win. Keep this in mind while you shuffle through airport security getting your socks dirty. Snow globes are hardly our biggest threat.

323 views Permalink 2 Comments

12.11.06

Boulder liberals can be scary

Posted in 2¢, Liberty at 16:51 by RjZ

During a recent interview, the creators of South Park had this response to Reason Magazine:

Reason: When you say libertarian, what do you mean?

Stone: I had Birkenstocks in high school. I was that guy. And I was sure that those people on the other side of the political spectrum were trying to control my life. And then I went to Boulder [Colorado] and got rid of my Birkenstocks immediately, because everyone else had them and I realized that these people over here want to control my life too. I guess that defines my political philosophy. If anybody’s telling me what I should do, then you’ve got to really convince me that it’s worth doing.

I think they may have a point.

333 views Permalink 5 Comments