What was Fast And Furious? Who is to blame for the death of Brian Terry? Should Attorney General Eric Holder be impeached? Was Obama in on the conspiracy? You won’t find those answers here; that’s not the point of this blog. I’m here to discover and report on the arguments driving political opinion in the United States. The “Fast And Furious” scandal is becoming a divisive issue with many of us lining up on different sides to vent our anger at each other. Before we begin, it would probably be helpful if we were first aware of what the counterarguments are, and to question whether we really know what happened ourselves. There is a conspiracy theory out there that the operation was designed to increase gun violence as a pretext for increased gun control rules. Preaching this theory without hard evidence is reckless, dangerous, bad for the reasoned political debate essential to democracy, and sets us against each other needlessly. It has much the same effect as the conspiracy theory that elements of the US government were in on the 9/11 attacks as a pretext for war. There are also accusations out there that those trying to get to the bottom of the scandal are motivated solely to hurt President Obama politically, or even by racism. These accusations aren’t much help either, and only serve to divide us.

Gridlock Forever

As is always the case with these things, I am skeptical of the methodology, but if this is true, it is disturbing.

Nature Makes Her Own Laws

Ah, the futility of environmental regulation…

Declaring Independence From The Republicrats

It’s about time.

Corporate Government

It seems that lobbyists are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to corporate influence over government. Campaign finance reform won’t fix it. The entire system needs an overhaul. The question is: to what?

More Alike Than You Think

We are told that the Tea Party is “conservative” and Occupy Wall Street is “liberal,” but are they really that different? It makes you wonder who the moderates are…

No, They Can’t

John Stossel has written a brilliant, interesting, easy-to-read book. I recommend it to anyone who wants to understand why libertarians think the way they do about economics, health care, education, drugs, the “marketplace of ideas,” and more. I leave you with this anecdote from page 178 of how some governments take censorship in the name of protecting us to ridiculous extremes.

“I wish future lawyers understood that America is a special country because we have free speech. In Ecuador, it’s illegal to criticize the tax system. In many Islamic countries, enforcers wander the streets on the lookout for blasphemous conversations. China’s Communist Party not only limits criticism of the government, but recently they even banned stories about time travel. A party official explained that such stories ‘have monstrous and weird plots, use absurd tactics, and promote feudalism, superstition, fatalism, and reincarnation.’”

It can’t be real. It’s like something from a Monty Python skit…

Restoring Love

I keep hearing that believers in limited government are selfish and don’t value community. This is far from the case. In fact, many recognize that it is selfishness that leads to crony capitalism, which leads to lobbyists, which leads to big government, which leads to the loss of liberty and prosperity for everyone – and they care about the liberty and prosperity of others. Glenn Beck’s audience is planning on strengthening the community by donating food (which is against the law in some cities).

Well, this is a tough one to explain. At first glance it seems to be yet another example of Republican hypocrisy and political flip-flopping, but the Republicans do offer an interesting explanation that makes me wonder.

Everybody is talking about the new soda rules in New York. It seems you are no longer allowed to serve sodas of more than sixteen ounces, though you may serve more than one soda at a time. The reported aim of this rule is to decrease soda consumption, which theoretically will decrease the incidence of certain health problems. Unfortunately, I believe this rule will actually cause an increase in consumption.

I just came across a very interesting article in Yes Magazine that describes a way to meet everyone’s needs, achieve financial independence of individuals and communities, and halt (or even reverse) the growing concentration of effective wealth in the hands of the very few – and it does all this without erecting a supersized government or engaging in economic terrorism. This is an economic paradigm that virtually everybody of all ideologies should be able to get behind – and I almost missed it. Why, you ask? Well, it was packaged very poorly.

By now, you should have heard that the Affordable Care Act was declared constitutional in a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court with generally considered “conservative” Justice Roberts siding with the “liberals” to write the official decision. The decision has been very controversial, to say the least, with many both for and against it, but that isn’t what has caught my attention this month. Instead, I noticed that even among those against the act, not all of them disagreed with the Supreme Court’s decision.

I have some points for us all to ponder to aid us in understanding why some people were against the health insurance mandate from the beginning and why relabeling it a “tax” doesn’t change the underlying issues people have with it.