I'm not much of a Dick Morris fan, but he said something that I always think about, but couldn't put into just a few words. In talking about his move (real or not) from the political left to the right.

"But you realize that the way to achieve [ideals] is not the straight-ahead path that the left suggests, but the smart path that the right suggests."

First off, I don't want to quibble of the use of the word "smart". I don't think the left is dumb and the right is smart. Misguided maybe, but not dumb.  But my main point is this, both sides, in deal terms, want poverty not to be a problem, want healthcare not to be a problem people endure, want education to be excellent, but clearly the right and left come to different solutions to the same problems.

What I like about Morris' comment is the notion of the "straight-ahead path." I can't read his mind, but to me that means tackling a problem with the easy, obvious answer. Here are some examples (simplified for effect):

Poverty. Curing poverty by giving the poor more money will solve the problem of them not having enough (e.g. welfare, food stamps, etc.)

Healthcare. The solution to people not being able to afford healthcare is to give it to everyone for free.

Education. More money, more government programs, higher pay for teachers.

Racism. Give preferential treatment to blacks over whites to make it "even."

World Peace. Just get rid of all of our weapons, the military and just don't pick any more fights.

I could go on, but you get the point. It's certainly counter intuitive to say that you would fix poverty by "punishing" the behavior that makes people poor, but that is what I view as the better alternative - to a point of course. The simple fact is that if you reward poor people by giving them money two things are going to happen: 1) that person has little reason to change their behavior and 2) other people are going to figure out that it would be easier to live off the gov't than have to work to try to make a little more money.

Consider healthcare. A friend of mine who is in favor on nationalized healthcare once said, "free healthcare isn't like free beer. people aren't going to go to the doctor just because it's free." Actually, he's completely wrong. I personally have gone to the doctor more just for that reason. I've had various sports related injuries for which I (and my insurance company) have spent thousands and thousands of dollars (physical therapy, cortison injections, MRIs, surgery, etc.). None of these problems was a major health risk, but it prevented me from performing my triathlons at a high level. If I had to pay for those services out of pocket, I would have just quit racing and slowed down on the training instead. If we move from our already broken, pseudo-socialized medicine that we have now to full-fledged nationalized healthcare, it would only get worse.

My point, is that while the straight-ahead approach may seem like the right, compassionate way to solve a problem, it often makes the problem worse. The better approach, which can seem callous and will in fact make it tougher for some (especially at first), is actually the better long-term approach. For example:

Poverty. Do not reward poverty by making it easier. Make it harder so that people have to look within themselves for solutions such as not having any more kids, maybe finding a marriage partner or roommate, going back to school, working harder, etc. For those that need help, temporary help is absolutely fine - a lot of people get in a pinch at time, but for people to live their lives on welfare makes no sense.

Racism. The solution to racism - and I don't mean a 100% color-blind society because that will never happen, nor should it - is to avoid race in decision making, not to cater to it. It does not help a black person to give them an opportunity they didn't earn 100%. The black person will wonder if they deserved it. The white person will question the black's capabilities knowing that affirmative action could have played a role. All it does is perpetuate the roll of victimhood. It's not racist to expect blacks and whites to play under the same rules and expectations. It's racist not to do so. The surest way to keep racism alive is to continue to practice it in the name of equality.

Consider the role of parent - which I happen to be 3 times over. Say my 16 year old wants to have friends over to our house and drink beer. I could be the "cool" parent and let them drink a little and "monitor" them so that no one drinks too much or tries to drive home. Or, I could be the responsible parent and say no. Sure it sucks to be the "mean" parent, but one day the kids grow up and understand why that's a bad idea.

The role of gov't acting as the "cool" parent is exactly the wrong approach. Period.

We live in a free society. The more freedom we have the more personal responsibility we have to have. We can give up our freedoms in exchange for less freedom and we have in many cases already. But at some point too many people in this country will be reliant on gov't and too few people paying for it and the house of cards - the ponzi scheme - will fall apart.

How do I know this. It's already happening in Europe. What's the proof? France, for example, needs immigrant workers to support the aging population and retirement entitlements. England needs to import doctors from less developed countries because it's not worth it to the native population to go through medical school to work for the gov't. Our own social security system will fall apart as we have too many people collecting compared to too few contributing.

I'm not suggesting that the country will fall to ruin in my lifetime or even my kids'. But it will eventually, and when it gets worse, it will lead to tyranny eventually. We are heading in the WRONG direction by solving problems using the straight-ahead approach. 

When I read this, I just had to laugh out loud:

"The outcome [of the UN Climate Conference in Bali] may help determine how high the planet's temperatures rise for decades to come."

I'm laughing again as I post this 'cuz it's just so damn funny! Thanks to AP "Special Correspondent" Charles Hanley for making my day just a bit brighter!!

First of all, the supposition that a U.N. agreement will have any impact whatsoever on anything is a complete joke. No one has paid any U.N. resolution any attention for decades. Not to mention, none of the Kyoto countries are meeting their CO2 emissions goals anyway.

Then, to suggest that we can "determine" the planet's temperature through management of CO2 is complete lunacy. Uh, the Earth's climate is never static and has changed drastically over vast periods of time. It's been warmer and it's been colder and it's had nothing to do with  us. So, while we might be able to slightly impact the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, that doesn't mean it will affect the temperature in a linear manner. DUH!

And EVEN IF we could control the temperature through managing CO2 emissions, it's still pure folly to think that we can manage CO2 levels. We've heard doomsday talk of global warming for at least 10 to 15 years and emissions have only gone up. Most of us have hardly changed our CO2 habits and what changes some of us have made are meaningless.

By the way, funny tidbit on Al Gore. Apparently, Al has made his house "green" by adding solar, thermal heating, rain catching, etc.. Basically, he's copied George Bush who was green long before Al. But I have a question. Why did Al feel the need to do this when he was already buying carbon credits to make his house "carbon neutral"? I guess he's admitting that buying credits is in fact the big joke that we already knew it was.

I applaud Al for making his house green, but he's still got a LONG way to go. I researched solar and I can tell you that using solar energy for his mansion may reduce his electric usage by no more than 10% to 20%. His house is too damn big - he'd need a few acres of solar panels to make a dent - and it's in Nashville (deserts work better for solar!). So good for Al, but now if he truly cared, he'd live in a smaller house and start flying commercial. No, his efforts will never be enough for me to stop calling him a complete fraud and hypocrite. But nice try!

UPDATE: Kyoto Progress ( from the American Thinker and census.gov)

The Kyoto treaty was agreed upon in late 1997 and countries started signing and ratifying it in 1998. A list of countries and their carbon dioxide emissions due to consumption of fossil fuels is available from the U.S. government. If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following.

* Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
* Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
* Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
* Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.

I guess we should sign on so we can get on with the CO2 increase. Merry Christmas!! HO HO HO!!

The FairTax has been receiving more attention of late, in part due to Mike Huckabee's meteoric rise to a top GOP Presidential contender. In fact, it has gotten a lot of negative press from several conservatives suggesting it's a whole lot of crazy.

One of the common arguments against it is that the tax is 30% and not the 23% that is specifically outlined in the FairTax legislation. The argument goes that the sales tax is "usually" quoted as a price, plus the tax percentage. And so the critic usually is able to scare people off with the idea that prices will be 30% higher than they are today. That argument is in fact, a whole lot of stupid.

I've explained before, as have FairTax advocates, that the tax is quoted as "inclusive" and that prices will not just go up 30% because of the embedded taxes already included in the price of goods. But those defenses don't seem be as easy to understand as the overly simplistic attack on the FairTax. So, consider the following comparison of the FairTax to today's income tax:

Assuming that you would pay the exact same dollar amount in taxes, which tax would you rather pay:

1. An income tax where you have to fill out several forms where you catalog the whole year's income and expenses and tax deductions according to a manual that consists of about 50,000 pages of rules which is then reviewed by a government agency which can at any time come into your home and demand proof of various entries on the forms and/or forcibly remove you from your home and place you in jail for less than 100% compliance with its rules? And by the way, the tax is already withheld from your paycheck so that if your income is $100,000, the employer keeps 23% of that and you get the remaining $77,000.

or

2. A sales tax where when you pay $100 for an item, the business has to send the federal government $23.

This is NOT a free lunch. Not everyone's tax burden will go down. The government will not see an increase in tax revenues. The idea is that the 23% creates a tax revenue neutral situation. It may hurt middle class people more than rich people, it may not. I believe it really depends more on your personal purchasing habits, standard of living and other factors that differ among people of the same class. It may not be fair to people who have already amassed their wealth or the retired living on their savings. It may have some complexities in terms of the rebate check.

BUT good grief, if you had to devise a tax system today from scratch, which one would you choose? If it's so much better than our current income tax system, then can't we find a way to make the switch if we'll all be better off in the long run (and I don't necessarily mean we are all paying less taxes, just better off for the better tax system)?

There are lot of other great reasons to consider the FairTax from reducing tax cheats to broading the tax base to improving the economy and keeping American jobs in America, but none of that can happen until the critics get past the 23% vs. 30% and associated price increase scare tactics.

My children attend the local public school. All public schools have a zero-tolerance drug policy, which in addition to the requirement to completely ignore any common sense also means two things:

1) my child cannot so much as bring an aspirin to school

2) the school nurse cannot administer an aspirin to any student at any time unless a parent specifically supplies the pill and instructions for a specific day.

So, to find out that a middle school - kids aged 11 to 14 - in Maine is providing birth control pills to students WITHOUT letting the parents know and now my head is going to EXPLODE!

here's my list of how the gov't infringes on our freedoms. I explicitly chose not to use the word "rights" as we don't have quite so many as people seem to think sometimes. Nonetheless - in no particular order, and not all of which I agree or disagree with - here's what I got...

1. Income Taxes.

There is no right to NOT be taxed. The 16th Amendment makes it legal for the federal gov't to tax our income. However, it obviously goes counter to property rights, by confiscating our property. More importantly, it is the single most intrusive gov't invasion into our private lives by collecting a vast amount of information on our wealth, family, activities and other areas of our life. Further, it is used to PUSH the government's will on us through specific tax breaks and tax penalties. And last, but certainly not least, talk about an impediment to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the planning, preparation and payment of taxes is the single most stressful, annoying, costly and painful effort that I undertake year after year after year to obey the law. There is no other law that affects me and every other American in the way, in terms of breadth and depth, than this law - and I mean EVERY law.

And whenever I speak of taxes, I have to mention the Fair Tax (www.fairtax.org). The Fair Tax bill (HR25) would repeal the 16th amendment and replace the income tax with a consumption (sales) tax. I don't care if it means I would pay more in taxes or less - it matters not. The key benefit of the Fair Tax for me is that I would never have to worry about planning or preparing for taxes again. The gov't would be almost entirely out of the business of gathering some of my most personal information and I could actually start to worry about silly little things like wire-tapping.

2. Sunday Alcohol Sales

Sad but true, this is the second most annoying infringement on my freedom. Of course this varies by county and state, but living in the south, one can have a very hard time finding a locale which allows beers sales on Sunday. I can't tell you how many times I've been grocery shopping, grab a six pack or bottle of wine and end up at the checkout counter only to find out I was about to break the law. What a joke.

Over the last few years, Georgia has considered repealing the Sunday ban. I've been on blogs and such that have locals discussing the pros and cons. Those that oppose it have absolutely NO good reasons for the ban. Here are some lame examples:

• shouldn't drink on Sunday - church day you know
• those who drink should just plan better
• alcohol sellers already make enough money
• will lead to increase in drunk driving and more people will DIE!
• One should have at least one day off from drinking a week

None of those rise to the level of the gov't preventing me from BUYING alcohol on a Sunday. These are all "Nanny State", religious zealot grievances that could be applied to everything from alcohol to overly fatty foods. If you think the gov't should regulate what we eat, then you are part of the problem.

3. Public Schools

Two of my 3 children are currently enrolled at the local public school. My choice in the matter is quite limited, but I readily admit there are choices. We could choose to home school, but given the ages of our children and the time commitment, we did not feel that option made sense. We could send our kids to private school. There are several private school options in our area that range from about $6k to $15k per year per child. With all 3 of mine at school at the same time, that's somewhere in the range of $30k minimum of pre-tax salary just to pay the tuition. So, at the moment, we have "chosen" the public school. Mind you, we don't choose which public school, rather we MUST go to the one that the gov't tells us to go to based on our address.

At the Federal level, the gov't created a bloated, unnecessary and likely detrimental bureaucracy called the Department of Education. Combing lack of school choice, Federal oversight and the teacher's union, you end up with substandard schools with no incentive for excellence. In addition, the school, by being tied to the Federal Government, infringes on our freedoms in a variety of ways:

• Forced purchase of "healthy" foods and restrictions on other foods. Whether you bring or buy, our children have restrictions on food "for their own good". Not for the safety of others (such as a peanut allergy), but for the "health" of our children. Never mind that about 50% of the purchased food is literally thrown into the trash without a sip or a bite taken.
• No prayer or discussion of religion or moment of silence or moral discussion whatsoever. Most of that, I'm okay with, but it gets pretty silly when schools - including ours - have to change the words "Christmas Holiday" to "Winter Break".
• Issues of evolution versus any discussion whatsoever of the possibility of supernatural assistance.
• Sex education curriculum dictated by gov't.
• Social Studies dictated by gov't.
• Mandated "sharing" of school supplies.

Just remember, Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto included public schools run by the centralized government as a key component of a successful socialist state.

4. The FCC

The Federal Communications Commission is, in part, an attempt to regulate the "dangerous" and "public" airwaves used by radio and television broadcasters. First, the idea that gov't is necessary to license these airwaves and thus the ability to regulate what goes across them to its liking is ludicrous. When the commission was created, I believe it was as much about guarding against monopolistic broadcast companies - NBC and CBS in particular. However, over time, it has become the censorship arm of the president for stifling free speach on radio and television. The director, who is appointed by the president, has the authority, without additional legislation, to define and then fine and-or intimidate broadcasters regarding their content.

To give you an example of how it might be different, let's look at the unregulated internet in comparison. If the FCC is tasked with having two major functions: protection against monopolies and maintaining decency, how does the internet stack up against TV and Radio.

Monopolies: Can you even envision a way where 1 company could create a monopolistic situation on the internet? The next internet GIANT is probably something no one has even heard of yet. What was Google in 1995, eBay in 2000 and MySpace in 2003? Why won't there be a monopoly on the internet? because there is a low barrier to entry. Any one can get on the internet. In contrast, the FCC and it's licensing and restrictions have made the barriers to entry so high that it is unlikely to see upstarts in Radio or TV.

Decency. While it's impossible to argue that the internet is 100% "safe" or "decent" as compared to television, look at the way the free market is handling it. Virus software, pop-up blocker software, porn filtering software and so on. The free market is responding to the public's desire for the ability to at least protect themselves from unwanted content. While the FCC has certainly kept some bad words and porn off of the "public airwaves", look at the relatively low diversity of content on broadcast radio and television. Would you rather have the ability to control what you see and have a greater diversity of content to choose from, or be told by the gov't what you should and shouldn't be able to see?

I think it's an easy choice.

5.  Seatbelt and other "Nanny" laws

6. McCain Feingold Campaign Finance Reform

7. Eminent Domain abuses