Brad Harrington’s Blog — “Time For Every Man To Stir”

The Sixth Penny Problem? That It's There To Be Taken

2012-02-05T10:23:00.001-07:00

Our backup editorial, published in the February 3, 2012 issue of Liberty's Torch.

The Sixth Penny Problem? That It's There To Be Taken

By Bradley Harrington

As could have been predicted ahead of time, yet another upcoming Sixth Penny ballot measure has introduced yet more controversy amongst the governing bodies in question as to how the plunder’s best to be divvied up and spent - and that’s a surprise? The tax, itself, guarantees that such controversies are bound to arise; it’s actually built right into the system, and little else should be expected but for such controversies to occur.

The City of Cheyenne, for instance, argues that - as the main population center of Laramie County and the source of most of the Sixth Penny revenue - it should get the lion’s share of the monies generated by the tax. With Laramie County as a whole at a population of 91,738 according to the 2010 Census, and Cheyenne accounting for 59,466 of those people by that same Census, that places Cheyenne’s share of Laramie County’s population at 64.8 percent, yet Cheyenne’s share of the Sixth Penny largess of $105 million only comes to $57 million, or 54.3 percent. Which means: Per head, Cheyenne residents receive disproportionately less on their return, while residents of the other, less-populated areas of Laramie County receive more.

Indeed, the exact amount for a Cheyenne resident’s return from the Sixth Penny tax comes to just $958.53 - whereas a resident of the town of Albin, for instance, with a population of only 120 but Sixth Penny tax receipts of $3.2 million instead, enjoys a return of $26,666.66, a ratio increase of 2,782 percent.

That hardly seems fair, and some people in both the past and the present have recommended that these ratios be rectified. But how? For, consider another fact as well: If some of that Sixth Penny tax money, regardless of where a Laramie County citizen lives, has been used to purchase “services” he might not have any use for - such as, say, a fairground or a rec center -that resident’s “return” on his “investment” is ZERO.

The biggest computer in the world couldn’t figure it out, no matter how big it got, because there’s simply no way to incorporate all the millions of factors and individual choices made by nearly 100,000 people into the equation. No, the only thing that could even come close to being “fair” would be to simply divide $105 million by 91,738 and hand each and every resident of Laramie County a check for $1,144.56, call it good, and let everybody spend their money as they see fit. Were we to do that, of course, then the next question would be: Why have the tax in the first place?

--
Bradley Harrington is the Publisher of Liberty's Torch; his email is publisher@libertystorch.us.

Solving The Schools' Social Ills: Let Free Markets Reign

2012-02-05T09:14:00.001-07:00

Our lead editorial, published in the February 3rd, 2012 issue of Liberty's Torch.

Solving The Schools' Social
Ills: Let Free Markets Reign

By Bradley Harrington

As evidenced by last Tuesday’s Town Hall Action Meeting regarding school bullying in Laramie County School District #1, this issue is finally beginning to get the attention it deserves. It’s tragic that 13-year-old Carey Junior High student Alexander Frye had to take his own life to escape such bullying for that to happen, and - as Alexander’s sister, Lauren Bard, said in the meeting, “This shouldn’t have happened; we all need to learn something from this.” (“‘Town Hall Action Meeting’ Draws Crowd, Discusses Bullying Problem,” Page 1.)

And, indeed, we do - but will we? Yes, it’s true that parents need to be more involved with their children; and yes, it’s also true that our educators face many obstacles, with their legal inability to take any action in restoring discipline, accountability and personal responsibility to the classrooms topping the list; and yes, it’s also true that it’s the students, themselves, who need to learn to respect one another and quit playing these stupid, destructive games.

So, striving to improve in all these areas is good - it’s certainly better than doing nothing, which has generally been the involved parties’ approach for decades. None of it, however, will have any lasting impact until we come to understand the true nature of the problem: A tax-supported, monopolistic school system that does not have to succeed in order to gain students.

As evidence, consider the same principles of operation we’ve chosen to apply to the schools, were they to be applied to another area of our lives: Restaurants. Suppose you don’t like the service at Joe’s Diner any longer and you’ve decided to eat at Alice’s Restaurant instead - but, as you exit the establishment, never having eaten one bite, you find yourself seized by Joe’s employees and relieved of the money you might have spent, had you stayed to eat. Suppose, further, that your plundered earnings were all the food-money you had. What are your “choices”? To starve - or resume your seat and eat dinner at Joe’s whether you like it or not. And, as you eat, you’d ask yourself: How much quality food or service will you ever be able to expect out of Joe’s in the future, as long as they have a guaranteed monopoly on your “business”?

And so it goes with our schools: How many parents, fed up with the “services” rendered in our public halls, can afford to quit the system and use the so-called “private” market instead, when they’re still coerced into paying for those public halls whether they like it or not? And what kind of true success in the provision of educational services can we ever expect to see, in the complete absence of any market-based incentives to bring it about? This is the problem, and it’s the only problem, for a true free market in education would act to reward those who succeed and punish those who fail. In such a dynamic, competitive environment, solutions to all our other school issues would quickly be found, because voluntarily-paying customers simply wouldn’t tolerate anything less.

By snapping the link between educational services and the free choice of parents to spend their money as they see fit, we’ve obliterated the ability of the system to create, innovate, adapt and adjust itself to altering market conditions. That is our lesson for the day, what we really need to learn here - and, until we do, all other attempts at solving these problems are doomed to ultimate failure. Class dismissed.

--
Bradley Harrington is the Publisher of Liberty's Torch; his email is publisher@libertystorch.us.

A Vision For The Future: The Supremacy Of Individual Rights

2012-02-04T16:57:00.003-07:00

A Vision For
The Future:
The Supremacy
Of Individual Rights

By Bradley Harrington

In last month’s issue of Liberty's Torch, in my piece "Buy Guns, Gold, And A Farm, Folks - We're On The Skids," I didn’t have a lot of good things to say; but, in that endeavor, I was merely calling the situation as I see it, as fixing a problem will never be facilitated by refusing to recognize its existence.

Despite the fact that social and political destruction may be all we can see on our horizon, however, I’m not the type to go down without a fight - for what we are truly lacking here is an integrating principle, a cohesive and coherent idea. A vision, if you will, of what could be and should be: A new dawn for America.

So, allow me to fire up my thoughts, just for fun, and imagine…

Imagine, economically: A system in which all government controls and regulations, above and beyond the protection of private property rights, simply vanished. No more building codes, zoning laws, “anti-trust” legislation, subsidies, minimum-wage laws, union legislation, worker “safety” standards, licensing schemes, federal grants, “stimulus” spending, food inspections, fiat paper “money” or utility monopolies; no more bureaucracies such as the EPA, NLRB, FCC, FTC, FAA, Federal Reserve, HUD, USDA, DOE 1, DOE 2, FDA, FEMA, ICC, SEC, TSA or DHS; all gone. Atomized, blown away, like smoke from a cannon dissipating in a high wind.

Imagine, politically: A system in which government no longer acts as a social engineer, except for insuring that the individual rights of each of us are acknowledged, defended, encouraged and protected - provided each of us seek no infringements on the rights of others. A civilization that recognizes the existence of arbitrary political power for the tyrannical tool of domination that it is; a society in which government uses force only in retaliation, and only against those who initiate its use, whether that be to the criminals within our culture or the terrorist jihadists without.

Imagine, socially: A system in which all men and women are free to pursue and realize their dreams, where one man’s life is not viewed as a tool to be used, plundered, exploited or taken advantage of by another. Where every citizen retains the right to exist for their own sake, without the good they might be doing for others acting as the justification for their continued existence; where each individual has maximum control of their own lives and decisions, and minimum control over the goals and aspirations of others; where the visions, creativity and indomitable spirit of the human mind are fostered, rewarded, promoted, advocated and supported; where no man - or State - can ever say, “Do it because I said so!”

That’s a nice dream, right? Hey, if we’re going to dream, let’s dream BIG. You’re probably thinking it would sure be nice to live under such a setup, but that the evils and foibles of human nature rule it out as impossible.

In thinking that, you would be wrong. For, excepting some imperfections, yes, some minor, some major, such as slavery, a lack of women’s rights, and a few controls and regulations that never needed to have been there - imperfections that need to be removed, as it was their presence which caused the collapse of all the rest - this is EXACTLY the system set up originally in the United States of America well over 200 years ago. If you doubt it, I’d suggest you dust off your copy of the Declaration of Independence and read it: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” That we have “certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…” And, “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Now, as you read those words, ask yourself: Just what are their consistently-practiced implications, if not the ideals I’ve listed above? This system even has a name, an originally derogatory designation given to it by one of the world’s greatest haters and destroyers, Karl Marx: It’s called capitalism, a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, in which all property is privately owned.

So: “Impossible”? I hardly think so. Read your history, and understand the tremendous impact the formation of the United States of America had on both our own civilization and the world around us. Even in the presence of several self-contradictory imperfections, the establishment of America and the proliferation of its planet-shaking principles of the Rights of Man blew untold centuries of the rule of the thug, dictator, King and despot sky-high, all of it atomized by the power of an idea: That all individuals have a right to seek and experience their own liberty.

And the result? Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, America was an outpouring of wealth, freedom, peace, prosperity and productivity that served as an incredible beacon of hope to a stunned world, which had never seen anything like it before, and hasn’t since.

Our Founding Fathers did it, so don’t flap your gums to me about “impossible.” Against all odds, they dreamed, they believed, they acted and achieved. Can we not, too, rise up and re-establish the principles of liberty, justice and individual rights - without the imperfections, this time - and take the United States back from the precipice to which the looters have led us?

For, after all, isn’t that really what our existences are all about? Creating what could be, and should be? Personally and socially? So, standing on the shoulders of the giants who came before me, I’ll repeat their words for everybody reading this to hear - for, to that end, I pledge “my life, my fortune and my sacred honor.”

--
Bradley Harrington is the Publisher of Liberty's Torch; his email is publisher@libertystorch.us.

Buy Guns, Gold And A Farm, Folks - We're On The Skids

2012-02-04T16:19:00.001-07:00

Buy Guns, Gold And
A Farm, Folks -
We're On The Skids

By Bradley Harrington

Will the United States collapse?

A loaded question, to be sure - and one involving so many different social, political and economic factors, many of them in constant flux, as to be virtually unanswerable. The overall picture, however, is easily discernable, and it isn’t pretty: The highly probable political and economic dissolution of the United States of America, and the end of our country as we know it and as it has existed for nearly 236 years.

Consider: Economically, our system is a shambles by whichever criteria you care to employ. Our dollars, which used to be gold, are now merely worthless pieces of paper, steadily losing their “value” year after year. The price of an ounce of gold, which stood at $18.63 in 1900, has now skyrocketed to $1,554.40, an increase of 8,343 percent. Our national debt, which stood at $2.1 billion in 1900, has now mushroomed to $15.3 trillion, an increase of 728,571 percent. Nor does it take a rocket scientist, or what passes for an “economist” these days, to state that these exploding levels of cost and debt are totally, horrifyingly unsustainable - and not just in absolute values, either, for the rates of growth themselves are tearing the roof off.

Our manufacturing base, additionally, once the anchor of our economy, has fled overseas to escape the intrusive costs of taxes, regulations, environmental quackery and the monopolistic power of the unions - and this, combined with the high amounts of economic uncertainty that always accompany the interventionist policies of fascist-socialist regimes, has resulted in a decimation of employment opportunities and growth. We have, through predominant left-wing policies of tax-and-spend, obliterated our own abilities to help ourselves.

Consider: Politically, the firm limitations on government power that fostered the phenomenal growth of the United States in the first 150 years of its existence, have become corroded to the point where the original constitutional intents are hardly recognizable any longer. We could co-exist, for awhile, with such contradictions as the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Interstate Commerce Commission; how much longer will our liberties be able to survive in conjunction with the Federal Reserve, Social Security, Medicare, the United Nations, the so-called “Patriot” Act, or such 1,000-page-plus Obamanations as ObamaCare or the Frank-Dodd Financial Reform Act?

This political corruption has mirrored our economic erosion in that, while it started off slowly back in the late 1800s’, it has now picked up steam over the intervening decades and currently proceeds at a dizzying pace. With thanks to the snowballing impact of ever-more-interventionist public policy, dislocations that once took years and decades to materialize now slam us silly in a matter of days or weeks. Remember the 2008 Meltdown, when $7 trillion disappeared in 24 hours?

Consider: Socially, our cultural fabric also faces identical escalating rates of degradation: An “educational” system geared toward indoctrination as opposed to true education, resulting in a widespread and almost irreparable dumbing-down of our population’s understanding of our historical liberty and individualism, or even the ability to read; a collapse of the integrity of our national borders as our weak-sister laws are made a mockery of by the illegal aliens and the drug cartels, none of whom are even required to have ID, while the rest of us mere citizens need licenses and permits to operate anything more complicated than a hair-dryer; and a rise in the already all-pervasive Entitlement-State mentality of those who think the world owes them a living courtesy of the United States taxpayer, while they owe those taxpayers nothing in return.

And that’s just the high points, folks, and not even all of them. I haven’t even discussed our enemies nor any of the nuclear/chemical/biological horrors they might have in store for us while we fiddle about, kissing the rings of dictatorial thugs.

Given these trends, what else could possibly lie ahead but collapse? For how long do you think you can plunder the productive assets of the country, rape the Constitution, deep-six any social standards of dignity, respect, personal responsibility and accountability - and get away with it? How long do you really think you can fake reality without suffering the tremendously devastating consequences?

Despite the grimness of this evaluation, however, it is always true that things can be changed - there is no “fate” or “historical necessity,” only the free choices of individual human beings. Should we decide, as a society, to counter these trends, we have the power to do so. But, at this point, we must realistically recognize the two incredibly potent forces working against us: (1) Nearly half of the voting population now depends, in one form or another, on government entitlements for their very survival, and will vote to continue those entitlements; and (2) We have erected a leviathan political state with all-encompassing authority that will act to continue - and enlarge - that authority. That’s a whole lot of inertia to overcome in a very short time.

So, if you want my honest, straightforward evaluation - we’re on the skids, soon to become yet another monument to collectivist folly. The chaos will worsen, to the point where I predict the declaration of martial law within two to five years - and, when that happens, we’ll either crash, or fight a Second American Revolution to restore the freedoms we Americans once held dear. It’s one or the other. My suggestion? In either case, I’d be buying guns, gold and a farm, for the flashpoint is rapidly approaching where you’re going to need all three.

--
Bradley Harrington is the Publisher of Liberty’s Torch; his email is publisher@libertystorch.us.

"American Exceptionalism": Good Philosophic Ideas Served As Engine For American Success

2011-12-02T20:13:00.001-07:00

This article was published in Liberty's Torch on December 2nd, 2011.

“American Exceptionalism”:
Good Philosophic Ideas Served
As Engine For American Success

By Bradley Harrington

Is America an “exceptional” nation? This is a question bandied back and forth by many, often with differing meanings associated with the phrase, so our first objective should be to define just what it means.

The first known writer to have referred to America as “exceptional” was Alexis de Tocqueville, in Democracy in America (1831/1840), where he said: “The position of the Americans is therefore quite exceptional, and it may be believed that no other democratic people will ever be placed in a similar one.”

The word “therefore,” however, refers to a previous iteration. In a prior paragraph, de Tocqueville said: “The Americans are a very old and a very enlightened people, who have fallen upon a new and unbounded country… This state of things is without a parallel in the history of the world.”

Yet, while it is true that America represented a tremendously “unbounded” frontier physically, de Tocqueville misses the point: For the essence of American Exceptionalism is not physical but ideological in nature.

To get to the core of the issue, consider: “Almost without exception the countries of the world owe their origins to non-ideological factors: To the accidents of war, the meaningless warfare of clashing tribes, or of geography, language, custom, etc. The United States is the first nation in history to be created on the basis of ideas. Its Founding Fathers were not tribal chiefs or power-lusting conquerors or a revelation-encrusted priesthood; they were thinkers, thinkers of the Enlightenment - educated, articulate, thoroughly imbued with the ideas of the period. Jeered at by traditionalists on both sides of the Atlantic, these men proposed to create a nation whose institutions would be without precedent, and to do it on the basis of a theory, an abstract theory of the nature of man and of the universe. The United States, they decided, would be the first country in history to stand for something. It would be the first nation to have an avowed philosophic meaning.” (Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels, 1982; emphases those of the author.)

This is the core, the essence and the source of the “state of things without a parallel in the history of the world” - that for the first time, a nation’s political structure was constructed on the basis of man’s reasoning mind. This is what American Exceptionalism is all about; the rest is non-essential fluff.

The Declaration of Independence was not merely a rebellion against the rule of the King; subjects have revolted against kings before, generally to replace one arbitrary dictator with another. The Declaration, at root, was a Declaration of the Rights of Man - a statement, not only against the inequities inflicted upon American colonists by King George III, but a positive presentation of a new theory of social organization: The theory that “all men are created equal,” that they have “certain inalienable rights,” that the purpose of government is “to secure these rights,” that such government must derive its “just powers from the consent of the governed,” and that “when any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.” As such, the Declaration is the most radical document ever written in man’s history.

While the Enlightenment, however - a brief century of human reason surrounded by philosophic irrationality on both sides of the timeline - didn’t last, America’s political institutions had already been carved out in the Constitution of the United States; and it was the momentum of that action, the establishment of a near-complete free society, that spawned all the other effects for which American Exceptionalism is usually defined: Scientific, economic and technological creation and progress.

But such material gains were rooted in the political freedom that made them possible; and, as man’s reason and the ideals of the Enlightenment began to suffer attack by the philosopher Immanuel Kant and the rest of the post-Kantian critiques on the efficacy of man’s mind, the United States found herself philosophically helpless to resist. Disarmed at its ideological roots by a failure to challenge the resurgent swamp of mysticism, altruism and collectivism which began pervading philosophy in the 19th century, Americas’ political institutions suffered - and, by the dawn of the 20th century, the corruption of the Constitution, through such measures as the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the Interstate Commerce Act, was well underway.

Today, in the 21st century, that constitutional corruption is all but complete - and, as a result, the growth, prosperity, success and wealth that followed the Constitution’s creation has all but disappeared as well. Did I hear someone say that “ideas don’t matter”? Nothing could be further from the truth; effects always follow causes.

Philosophy, far from being a futile and arbitrary exercise of intellectual gymnastics, is the driving force behind all human action. It was the philosophic ideas of the Enlightenment which created America, and it was the destruction of those ideas that has given the Left the power in this country to subvert its founding principles. When you see reason and freedom losing to faith and force, you can be sure that only an inside job allowed it to occur.

To save America, therefore, nothing less than a Second Renaissance, a return to the principles of reason, individualism and capitalism, will suffice. Then, and only then, will it be possible to de-construct the nonsense that has taken its place.

--
Bradley Harrington is the Publisher of Liberty’s Torch; his email is publisher@libertystorch.us.

The Roots Of "Occupy Wall Street"

2011-10-23T13:43:00.009-06:00

Anti-Capitalist Protesters in Pittsburgh

Scheduled for Nov. 4th Liberty's Torch.

The Roots Of “Occupy Wall Street”

By Bradley Harrington

"These are the commandos of the haters' army, who crawl out of the sewer of centuries and shake themselves in public, splattering muck over the passers-by, over the streets, the plate-glass windows and the clean white sheets of newspapers, where the drippings are scrambled into a long, steady whine that strives to induce guilt and to receive 'compassion' in return." - Ayn Rand, "The Age of Envy," 1971 -

The Left, for decades, has attempted to deny the implications of its own principles, engaging in every kind of semantic pretzel-twisting imaginable to hide the full meaning of its ideas and actions: Regimentation, slavery and the looting of wealth.

The truth, however, cannot be faked forever, and the final proof of what the Left stands for has now been splattered in newspaper headlines for everyone to see: The “Occupy Wall Street” (OWS) movement.

That the overwhelming majority of OWS protestors fall into the Leftist category cannot be denied: “The protestors have a distinct ideology and are bound by a deep commitment to radical left-wing policies. On Oct. 10 and 11, Airelle Alter Confino, a senior researcher at my polling firm, interviewed nearly 200 protestors in New York’s Zuccotti Park… 65 percent say that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement - no matter the cost. By a large margin (77 percent to 22 percent), they support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, but 58 percent oppose raising taxes for everybody… Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn’t represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believe in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence.” (Douglas Schoen, “Polling the Occupy Wall Street Crowd,” the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 18.)

Is it any wonder that every Leftie organization in the country, including the unions, the White House, the mainstream media, the Democratic Party, the Nazi Party and the Communist Party, support OWS goals?

Back in 2008, right after the banking bubble imploded, I wrote: “For decades, writers such as Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand have been warning us that the mixed-economy ‘welfare’-state is not a third alternative between capitalism and collectivism but is, instead, an explosive and unstable mixture which must, by the logic of the principles involved, become one or the other.” (“Capitalism Vs. Collectivism,” The River Cities’ Reader, Sept. 24, 2008.)

I knew then that the flashpoint I’ve seen coming for 30 years was quickly approaching; and, for any of you “middle-of-the-roaders” who still believe it’s possible to keep the benefits of capitalism once all of its essential characteristics have been removed, reality has just delivered you a well-deserved slap in the face.

No such “middle ground” exists. As I wrote then, "Any attempt to create one will simply lead to an ever-widening spread of economic dislocation and disruption, as the controls breed further controls - and, as the process accelerates, so does the rate of acceleration, until the entire shoddy structure is either repealed completely or collapses into authoritarian dictatorship." Do you seek to understand the core and meaning of current events? Today, you are witnessing the final crystallization of that process.

Need further proof that no half-pregnancies are possible? In a discussion of both the OWS movement and the Tea Party, Patrik Jonsson reports: “‘We’ve… got a conservative populist movement and a progressive populist movement happening at the same time… There’s a sense on both sides that it’s us against that unnamed force out there running the world.’” (“Occupy Wall Street movement intrigues, confounds the Tea Party,” the Christian Science Monitor, Oct. 18.)

But the “unnamed force” ruling the world is the power of ideas, which cannot be evaded by any number of “consensus-building” advocates. The Left, confronted by the social and political reality of a serious organization out to end the Entitlement-State power-game they’ve been playing for the last century, is pulling out all the stops and doing whatever it takes to prevent that occurrence. The “extremist” walls are grinding away at the so-called “safe center” and the “middle-of-the-roaders” are quickly becoming ideological hamburger.

And the small fraction of OWS protestors legitimately upset about financial bailouts and lobbying in government? The final joke is on them, for it is only the system of capitalism - which abolishes the arbitrary political power that serves as the root for such activities, and which all the OWS protestors abhor - that can possibly serve as the solution to that problem. It’s one or the other, capitalism or collectivism, clear as can be. So I’d suggest you get off your fence, folks, for your time for deciding which side you’re on is rapidly running out.

--
Bradley Harrington is the Publisher of Liberty’s Torch; his email is publisher@libertystorch.us.

Tales From The "You Just Can't Make This Stuff Up" Department

2011-10-16T14:23:00.001-06:00

Beginning with the November 4th issue, Liberty's Torch will feature a new ongoing commentary: "Tales From The 'You Just Can't Make This Stuff Up' Department." This piece will be published as the pilot offering for that issue.

Tales From The “You Just Can’t Make This Stuff Up” Department

By Bradley Harrington

LANSING, MICH. - If you’re the type who welcomes the fact that our tax-supported school systems are geared towards developing “minds” all cast from the same social mold, with tremendous “educational” pressures applied against any individual deviation, then you’ll just love Michigan Governor Rick Snyder’s idea of applying that same type of “thinking” to our kids’ physical bodies as well. Lamenting the fact that “12.4 percent of Michigan youths… are now obese,” Snyder has just the answer for that problem - a state registry for fat kids:

“I have also directed the Michigan Department of Community Health to incorporate information about BMI in the Michigan Care Improvement Registry (MCIR), which tracks childhood immunization records. This rule change will allow a health care provider to report height and weight measurements on MCIR. The goal is to increase obesity screening rates and improve treatment in childhood obesity, which is significantly under-diagnosed in children.” (“A Special Message from Governor Rick Snyder: Health and Wellness,” http://www.michigan.gov/, Sept. 14.)

And if that isn’t enough to send a chill down your spine, the Gov, in all of his infinite wisdom, intends to ultimately trap the entire population of Michigan in his nanny-state snare:

“Although the proposed rule would apply only to persons under the age of 18, I will support expanding MCIR to apply to persons of all ages, which would give Michiganders greater awareness of and control over the state of their own health.”

One can only wonder what the Gov’s next move will be, when recalcitrant individuals fail to adhere to state-mandated “standards”: The formation of the Greasy-Food Police? “Drop that cheeseburger and put your hands into the air!” And what would the sentence for such a conviction be? 40 hours of treadmill service? With this so-called “Republican” governor standing close by, whip in hand to encourage the “proper” reduction of the BMI? “Run, Fatso, run!”

MALVERN, ARK. - Back in football’s “good old days,” Green Bay Packers coach Vince Lombardi used to ask: “If it doesn’t matter who wins or loses, then why do they keep score?” Lombardi was well-known for pushing his football players to their absolute limits on the playing field, because “Some of us will do our jobs well and some will not, but we will all be judged on one thing: The result.”

Well, “that was then,” as we like to say, and “this is now,” where a different style of playing sports is coming to the fore:

“Meet Demias Jimerson, an Arkansas 11-year-old who is so good that his youth football league has dug up an old rule to prevent him from scoring too many touchdowns. After Jimerson scored seven touchdowns in a recent game, the Wilson Intermediate Football League revived its old ‘Madre Hill Rule,’ in which a player is prohibited from scoring more than three touchdowns if his team is ahead by 14 points or more. The rule is named for Madre Hill, who played in the youth league and went on to play running back for the Arkansas Razorbacks and Oakland Raiders.” (“Youth league benches 11-year-old for scoring too many touchdowns,” http://www.nbcsports.com/, Sept. 30.)

Imagine, if you will, this type of approach as applied to the real world: Have you beat your classmates with a superior SAT score, thanks to your higher intelligence, or the fact that you studied harder than they did, or both? Sorry, but you’re not allowed to answer the last 20 questions; such a success rate is bound to put the rest of the students’ self-esteem into the toilet.

Have you invented a great new product to offer your particular area of industry, far better than anything presently out there? Sorry, but you can only market your creation to a certain amount of people; after that, your customers have to patronize your competitors instead, to keep them from going bankrupt.

So, excellence in performance and ability is no longer a goal to be striven for; that would, apparently, be too “extreme” for tender hearts to handle. For how much longer will people and players such as Jimerson continue to strive for excellence, when they are punished for it instead of rewarded? And, when excellence no longer counts, who sees anything but mediocrity taking things over?

Wilson Intermediate School Principal Terri Bryant, however, the Commissioner of the league, doesn’t see it that way at all; she said that “The rule isn’t meant to punish Jimerson. It’s there to help the other fifth and sixth graders on the field develop as football players too.”

But of what use is such “development” when the best honing edge for that development has been removed from the field? And what kid would ever consider themselves as “good” when they know in their hearts that they’re only “good” because Jimerson’s sitting on the bench? And how would such a policy ever prepare these kids for the real world around them, that does happen to keep score? But never mind all that; Principal Bryant has the losers’ best interests at heart. Or so she thinks. If you can’t raise the molehills, you raze the mountains instead, right? This is egalitarianism run amok - and, were such men as Lombardi alive today, they’d be rattling the rocks in her head with an excellently-aimed football.

--
Bradley Harrington is the Publisher of Liberty's Torch. He can be reached at publisher@libertystorch.us.

Yep, I'm Still Here, And "Changes" Are A Comin'...

2011-09-17T21:22:00.000-06:00

Yep, I'm Still Here, And "Changes" Are A Comin'...

...But not to worry, they won't be the kind of changes President Zero is offering us - or, should I say, cramming down our throats??

I've been on and off this blog all day, referencing material as I prepare for the launch of my "Retro Rants" on the Liberty's Torch website, which will be a huge collection, in one place, of anything I judge as worthwhile that I've written since I was 20. (I'm 52 now.) I'm at nearly 200 articles already, and that's just the stuff from the OC Register back in the '80s and'90s, my Saddleback Lariat stuff, and what I've written for the Wyoming Tribune Eagle. I still have well over a hundred of my "national" commentaries to include from the last three years.

At any rate, I've noticed a number of things about the blog:

(1) I haven't posted onto it for a while, and it was an even longer while before that; so I want to get new and updated information on here soon. The Torch has kept me pretty busy, but I will get around to fixing things up here eventually, so stay tuned.

(2) Many of my dates are off, and need to be corrected.

(3) I want to provide much more "multimedia" material in the way of links, illustrations and whatnot.

(4) I think I'm gonna re-design the whole flipping thing.

So in case anybody following this thing has been thinking I'm dead - sorry, I ain't. More to come!

With Love,
And Best Premises,

Brad

Liberty's Torch's Opening Editorials

2011-08-14T20:47:00.002-06:00

The following are the three editorials that will open publication of Liberty's Torch, scheduled to print its 1st issue on September 2nd, 2011.

Who We Are

When a new publication starts up in order to lend its voice to the thoughts of its community - as we are now doing - openness, honesty and intellectual integrity all demand that we should identify ourselves, discuss who we are, and declare at the outset our motives and purposes for doing so.

At this point in time, Liberty’s Torch is essentially the work of the two of us, Bradley and Barbie Harrington. We’re it. The membership on our “editorial board,” if you want to call it that, consists of us two and us two alone.

Which is not to say that we don’t have the writings of other writers present in this issue, because we do; and we intend to continue and expand that policy in the future. Nor is that to say that several other people haven’t contributed to other aspects of this newspaper’s production, because they have and they do. Skip Eshelman, Ethan Eshelman, Peter Aras and Duncan Philp, in particular, have all played enormous roles in getting this newspaper off the ground - from layout to writing to finances to distribution - and our contributors and advertisers, of course, have also made the whole adventure possible by helping to fund our operations.

But when it comes to “editorial policy” and where this newspaper is headed, that would be us, and us only. As President Harry Truman was fond of saying, “The buck stops here” - so if you’ve got kudos or problems, we’re the ones to thank or berate. And we’d both love to hear from you in either case. It’s integrity and the truth that we seek and stand for, and neither one of us are arrogant enough to think we hold monopolies on either. We welcome your Letters To The Editor, and our website will soon have interactive capabilities as well.

As for who we are in terms of our “editorial policy” - Bradley sums it up best in his interview on Page One: “Liberty’s Torch will proudly promote and assert rational opinions that foster individual freedoms wherever they are to be found, whether on the “Left” or the “Right” - and we will always tell you why we believe what we do, giving you our reasons for it… Liberty’s Torch is out to provide not only more positive and objective news, but real-life solutions and input to real-life problems. And, as the name suggests, those solutions will be based in capitalistic principles of individual liberty, private property and personal responsibility.”

And, speaking of the “Left” and the “Right” - yes, we are proudly and profoundly pro-freedom, a position normally construed by most people as being “Rightist” in nature. But that all depends upon how one chooses to define the “Left” and the “Right,” does it not? (For Bradley’s thoughts on these definitions, see his commentary, “A Rainbow With Two Red Edges?” elsewhere in this issue.)

It is extremely important for our readers to grasp, however, that we are not “conservatives.” Our take on individual liberty is best summed up through the words of the philosopher Ayn Rand: “We are radicals for capitalism; we are fighting for that philosophical base which capitalism did not have and without which it was doomed to perish.” (Introduction to “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal,” 1967.)

We view both the “Left” and the “Right,” in the meaning of these terms as they are commonly accepted today, as self-contradictory in many respects, and we don’t wish to have “conservatives” and “Republicans” controlling our personal sexual choices and marital decisions any more than we want “liberals” and “Democrats” controlling our bank accounts and pocketbooks. Neither “side” represents a principled and consistent approach to maximizing individual liberty, but that is exactly what you’ll be finding here.

And while we believe that political action, in and of itself, has a tremendous level of importance in today’s society and culture, we also know that such actions are really just an expression of, and an outgrowth to, the underlying ideas on which they are grounded. It is the philosophical principles of a free society that are now under attack, and that is where the battle most needs to be fought. Political action, for us, even when correct on any given particular issue, has no meaning outside of the wider intellectual context in which it is embedded and operates, and can often create more problems than it solves if not properly rooted in sound precepts. Arriving at the right answer through wrong means does no one any good, and it is in the realm of being concerned for, and paying attention to, those fundamental precepts that we prefer to devote our efforts.

Regarding that larger picture and the approach you can count on us to take in the future, we’d like to borrow another paragraph from Ayn Rand: “The task of defining ideas and goals is not the province of politicians and is not accomplished at election time: Elections are merely consequences. The task belongs to the intellectuals. The need is more urgent than ever.” (“The Wreckage of the Consensus,” 1967.)

So, now you know who we are and what we are about: We intend to provide the content and the intellectual focus so rarely found in today’s media outlets. As for what that means for how we will be running the Torch and what you can expect from us in the future - you need only read on.

What You Can Expect From Us

There’s all kinds of agendas out there, and a lot of people aren’t going to bother telling you theirs. Especially the ones that are up to no good. Secrecy and stealth are such folks’ weapons of choice, because most of what many of them advocate wouldn’t stand the light of day if properly and justly exposed.

Well, you’re not going to have that problem here. Liberty’s Torch is “dedicated to informative, responsible and objective journalism, and to proudly re-igniting freedom’s flame in Cheyenne, Wyoming and the United States of America,” and we are about to tell you just exactly what that means.

Many people, including ourselves, frequently bemoan and decry the lack of “objectivity” in journalism, but that’s easier said than understood. What, precisely, does “objectivity” mean in this context?

Perhaps we can best approach this discussion by first focusing on its absence, i.e., on what “objectivity” is not. As far as straight news is concerned, there are several ways in which a media outlet can “slant” a story:

By inserting opinion, other than quoted opinion from a source, into the story, thereby smuggling a hidden agenda into the readers’ minds under the guise of news;
By juxtapositioning the placement of multiple stories in such a fashion as to give one story precedence over the other in a manner not relevant to the newsworthiness of the stories, but highly relevant to that hidden agenda;
And, finally, by deciding whether any particular news story is even going to run at all, i.e., by pretending that the news didn’t happen by simply omitting any reference to that news by ignoring and eliminating it.

All of these tactics, and more, are engaged in by most of today’s media outlets on a regular basis, and the discerning reader will find no need for a laundry list of examples here. Look at most of the newspapers in the country and you’ll quickly find your fill.

Regarding Point One: Our readers will never find such news stories published in Liberty’s Torch. We will always strive for the neutral objectivity that the proper dissemination of legitimate news demands, and any opinions we might (and will) have on such news will be restricted to clearly-labeled op-ed pieces and pages. Period!

As for Point Two: What one paper considers “newsworthy” can be another paper’s trash, not even fit to print, and the definition of “newsworthiness” will vary from outlet to outlet. For the Torch, we intend to focus upon local news only, relevant to and concerned with the residents of the City of Cheyenne, Laramie County and the State of Wyoming. We will cover local political events, such as City Council and County Commissioner meetings, school and state legislative actions, and so forth, to the best of our ability, positive or negative, as we believe the function of watching, reporting and discussing the doings of our administrative officials to be a major responsibility - if not the major responsibility - of a free press.

Outside of such stories, and other news stories we might consider as relevant based on the level of impact they might have on our readers, preference of positioning will be granted to positive as opposed to negative news.

Finally, regarding Point Three: Please be advised, here at startup, there’s just the two of us. We both have a host of other commitments, and we will do the best we can. Should our community find our efforts worthwhile enough to actually promote the Torch monetarily, we can do this all the way - and we are, of course, open to suggestions from our readers on stories to cover. Until that point arrives, however, there are going to be holes. Things we won’t have the time or resources to cover. Things we are going to miss. Tell us when we screw up - and, if we decide you’re right, we will seek to correct such lapses to the best of our ability.

Now, onward into the area of “objectivity” of opinion: Aren’t all opinions, by their very nature, biased and subjective?

“Yes” in some respects and “No” in others. Yes, in the sense that all opinions originate with individual human beings, and are often colored by those people’s own personal experiences and thought processes, which are unique to them.

Just because one has a “biased” opinion, however, does not preclude the possibility of comparing that opinion to the facts of reality. There is, after all, an objective world out there that functions independently of any particular observer, and the last 350 years of the scientific method make it clear that some things can be proved wrong and others proved right. So, when we talk about “objectivity” as far as opinion is concerned, what we mean is this: That the facts of reality are to be respected in their formulation - and that contradictions, either externally with respect to those facts, or internally with respect to other components of the opinion, cannot exist and are not logically permitted.

We intend to assert opinion that follows logically from the facts of reality - for we believe that the more freedom granted to a man, the higher that man can rise, should he choose to do so by expending the voluntary effort needed to achieve his goals. And we believe that the wider the offerings of individual liberty and private property, the greater the depth, breadth and scope of our peaceful social interactions.

So, to sum it up, here’s what you can expect from us:

(1) We will never lie to you, attempt to manipulate you or use our newspaper as a means for achieving any hidden agendas;

(2) We will always strive to be open and honest in our news, just and rational in our opinion, and fair and forthright in all of our dealings with you, our readers. And our goal? To have you say that you know it’s true, because you read it in the Torch.

What We Are Out To Bring About

As discussed earlier, our primary focus in our editorial/opinion regarding political action will be the “wider intellectual context in which it is embedded and operates,” but that certainly doesn’t preclude having such opinions either. We just prefer to have sound reasons for them. Trust us, we have opinions aplenty, and a partial list can be found below.

The items on this list are not meant to be all-inclusive, nor are their defenses elaborate or listed in any particular order; all of them, and more, will be discussed and advocated in much more detail as further issues commence and actual socio-politico-economic events occur. The point here is to simply be up-front with our readers, giving you a small taste of what you are in for, and to clearly and honestly spell out our agenda for what we are out to bring about:

Government Spending: Way too high, on whatever level you care to name: Local, county, state or federal. Our national debt is a disgrace to a supposedly free nation and an incredible mortgage on the future of our grandchildren. Cut spending, balance the budgets, live within our means, sunset ignorant programs, and ask ourselves: Do these programs act to enhance or impede the protection of lives and property? Keep them, if so; get rid of them if not.
Economic Regulation: Unnecessary and completely out of control. We have destroyed our free-enterprise system with stupid, stifling and non-competitive rules and regulations, and none of it needed but good tort law, the arbitration of contractual disputes and the protection of private property. And we wonder why our economic “growth” slows year by year? Separate the State and Economics in the same fashion, and for the same reasons, as we separate Church and State. Then sit back and watch our economy roar its way into the stratosphere.
“Environmentalist” Controls: For what purpose? Protecting property? A sane court system is all that is needed for that. Our so-called “environmentalists” have hogtied our industries, caused jobs to be shipped overseas, destroyed our energy capabilities and jacked our prices sky-high - and it’s all just a last-ditch effort on the part of the collectivists for ever-widening control. Intellectually bankrupt and scientifically decrepit, the “Friends of the Earth” are proving themselves to be the enemies of Man.
Education: An absolute travesty on every level. Johnny can’t read or write, can barely think, and parents are being made to pay through their extorted income for all of it, when half as much money invested into the private sector would increase both free choice and resulting conceptual capacity. Abolish the Department of Education and let the free market rule. When the government controls educational funds, it will control the content as well - and what you get is indoctrination and day-care camps.
“Victimless” Crimes: A gross infringement upon our individual liberties, and for what gain? The spread of disease, the establishment of organized crime, rampant property theft to support the high black-market prices, drug cartels murdering thousands - and more drugs than ever. As well as ever-more “drug war soldiers” to fight a problem created by their very involvement. “Do-gooders” telling us what to do. The “War on Drugs” is a joke. Did we learn nothing from Prohibition?
Money: Our dollars, which were once gold and silver, the market choice for over 6,000 years, have been pirated by our politicians and subjected to inflationary pressures (not possible with real money) to pay for bloated government expenditures. Consequently, our monetary “system” verges on the cliff of collapse. Get rid of the Federal Reserve, return to a commodity currency and get the government out of the money business completely.
Energy: Quit subsidizing worthless forms of so-called “large-scale, industrial-level” energy sources, such as solar and wind (which are truly neither), and go with what we know works: nuclear, coal, oil and natural gas. Energy - domestic energy - is out there to be had by the giga-watt, if we’d only wise up and push the Department of Energy out of the way. Instead, we place our faith and our future in the hands of 4th-century Middle-East tinpot dictators. Sheer insanity!
DOMA (“Defense Of Marriage Acts”): Another gross infringement upon the rights and liberties of voluntary, consenting adults. What free individuals decide to do with their lives, their bodies and their sexual relations is not the business of the State. Get the government out of our bedrooms and leave us alone. And, neither should gay and lesbian individuals be granted or given any special preferences or allowances either. People have the right to be who they are, and other people have the right to like it or not like it as they will. Isn’t that what being a “free country” is all about? Why do some people just not feel right unless they are controlling the lives of others?
Abortion: While it is not our belief that abortion should be used as a form of birth control, and we would always support heavy social and ethical mores opposed to thoughtless decisions regarding such use, nor do we believe the government has a right to involve itself in the matter either. Which includes a very strong opposition to taxpayer funding of such choices. No one should ever be forced to pay for the choices of another. Pay for it yourself and keep your hands out of the rest of our pockets!
Foreign Policy: We spend billions a year to prop up international thugs, while we deny our fighting men their right to blow the Hell out of our sworn enemies in combat action. We seem more concerned with how others think of us than in accomplishing the mission. Our current foreign policy is a disgusting, shameful, self-sacrificial shambles and needs a complete overhaul. End foreign aid, stop supporting those who hate us, and - if we must fight - let’s flatten the target and then come home. Our enemies can build up their rubble themselves.
Social Security: Giving the federal government control over our retirement was one of the biggest mistakes the United States ever made, as the current state of Socialist Insecurity more than attests to. All we’ve managed to accomplish is to convert our senior citizens into a poorly-paid and highly-dependent class, when a private trust plan at the same rates of investment and interest would yield each and every one of them thousands of times more retirement money. (Do the math yourself - or just stay tuned and we’ll do it for you, sooner or later.) Privatize this Ponzi Scheme gradually over time and eventually phase it out completely.
Other “Entitlement” Programs: With the exception of Social Security, Medicare and Veteran’s benefits, which our seniors have paid into and our soldiers have earned with their very blood, the rest of the “welfare” state only merits abolition. We’re creating poor people by the millions, on the back of the producers who pay for it all, when what these people really need are jobs. Get the state out of the way and those you’ll have in plenty. Work, or depend upon your family or private charity. Your “need,” as such, gives you no rights at all. Think you’ve got a “right” to the property of others? So does every burglar.
Immigration: In typical knee-jerk government fashion, our entire approach on this issue is flawed. Liberal Democrats would flood the country with freeloading immigrants seeking “free” handouts, while conservative Republicans would slam the borders shut and cut off our best source of new blood. What we really need is closed borders and open immigration, whereby anyone who seeks to come here that isn’t a criminal or carrying a disease is allowed in. It’s not immigration that’s our problem, it’s the “free” lunch and the special favors that are being tied to it that needs to end. Produce, or go back to whatever socialist hole you came from.
Taxes: As lovers of individual liberty, we always believe taxes are too high. Taxes, in essence, are theft, and there’s only one thing that could even remotely and possibly begin to justify such action: Collective defense of life and property. Short of that, leave our money alone to spend as we best see fit. In view of the other positions taken in this editorial, it should be pretty obvious that we can slash taxes to a fraction of our current levels and still have plenty left over for where it needs to be spent: The police, the military and the courts.

Radical? Some of it. But we warned you about that ahead of time, remember? And some of it not. That all depends on your source viewpoint.

Radical…but consistent. Observe the common strains that run throughout all of it: Individual liberty. Private property. Personal responsibility. The right to your own life, to be lived as you peacefully see fit. Some of these positions, as you can see, are associated with what are commonly considered to be positions of the “Left,” and others, to the “Right.” All of them reflect our core belief in the right and ability of a free people to govern themselves, the great message of the original American Revolution. And if neither the “Left” nor the “Right” can grasp this, what does that say about either of the two? And what, therefore, can we expect in the future from both? A competing political war regarding who wants to be the controller, and what it is they’ll seek to control.

None of that, of course, has a damn thing to do with individual liberty, property rights or personal responsibility - but it appears that, today, both the “Left” and the “Right” have forsaken those dreams. Yet those were the social conditions that made the United States of America the greatest country in all of man’s history - and it is only by returning to them, and clearing out such errors as were originally made, that we can ever hope to experience even a shadow of that greatness again.

And that, dear readers, is our dream, and what we intend to bring about.

Liberty's Torch Fires Up First Issue: An Interview With Publisher Bradley Harrington

2011-08-13T21:31:00.011-06:00

It isn't often that you'll see anything written here that isn't written by me, but my dear wife Barbie will always be an exception. I should probably wait until the Torch actually prints to run this, but I'm impatient and want to get it out there now. And, since it's my blog, I can do what I damn well want, so there.

Liberty’s Torch Fires Up First Issue: An Interview With Publisher Bradley Harrington

By Barbie Harrington

Today, Sept. 2nd, in the midst of an era characterized more by failures than startups, America’s latest newspaper bucks the trend and begins publication: Liberty’s Torch, based in Cheyenne, Wyoming.

The newspaper, the brainchild of founder Bradley Harrington, former commentary columnist for Cheyenne’s Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, starts out as a monthly publication, but hopes to shift to at least every two weeks as soon as possible. “That will all depend upon our readership response,” Harrington said. “If we take off like I believe we will, growing readership will attract more advertisers, allowing us to print more often. Who knows? We might be the new daily in town in five years.”

At a time when newspapers all over the country are experiencing more financial difficulties than ever, what makes the Torch’s founder think it’s going to be any different? “Newspapers fail for a reason,” Harrington said, “and an examination of just what those reasons are is extremely illuminating. Yes, it is true that the rise of the Internet and the hypertext revolution have something to do with it, in a general sense. And Liberty’s Torch, by having an online presence as well (http://www.libertystorch.us/), intends to meet that demand. But, more often, what you find is that the newspapers being hit the hardest, print-style or online, are the ones failing to provide their respective communities with what those readers want.”

”A lot of people are fed up with the sensationalistic, biased, concrete-bound sound-bites that characterize what most newspapers provide,” Harrington said. “What they want is real, honest news that they can trust and depend upon - and thoughtful, straightforward editorial opinion without a hidden agenda being smuggled into their minds in the process. Fiercely independent and beholden to no one, Liberty’s Torch will proudly promote and assert rational opinions that foster individual freedoms wherever they are to be found, whether on the Left or the Right. And we will always tell you why we believe what we do, and give you our reasons for it.”

“Most of us, I think you’d agree, have had our fill of the constant negativity in today’s news,” Harrington continued. “It’s what kept me out of the field for 30 years, despite the fact that journalism was my education and inclination. And what we want, many of us without realizing it or being able to put words to it, is positive integrity. Yes, some news by its nature is negative. But why is that often the only focus? Isn’t there more to life on Earth than plane crashes, shoot-outs and murders? That changes right now.”

And does Liberty’s Torch plan on making a difference in these areas? “Absolutely,” Harrington said. “And it was you, Barbie, that started this ball rolling in the first place, with your desire to put out a little sheet every now and then that concentrated on our own hometown heroes and the positive impacts hundreds of our residents have on our community.”

“And then, as you know, one day earlier this year, as I was looking over one of my pieces in the local WTE, I thought: Wouldn’t it be great to have all of the editorial pages devoted to rational social and political opinion, instead of my writing merely functioning as a ‘voice in the wilderness’ amongst all the rest of that collectivist claptrap?” Harrington asked. “And wouldn’t it be great to read features and news stories that emphasized the best within us, instead of the worst? And then the thought struck me: What this town needs is a new newspaper that focuses on the things that truly matter - and that the voices to provide it need to be our own. That’s where my dream began, and I haven’t been able to rest ever since.”

And does Harrington believe that this type of newspaper is a formula for success? “You bet I do,” he said. “Newspapers litter the countryside, but how many of them are truly giving people what they want and need? In the final analysis, very few. And that is why newspapers are failing left and right, of the Left or the Right. Studies have made it clear, over the years, to say nothing of common sense, that no one likes to start off their day with a negative. Who wants a rag on their kitchen table that they don’t even want their kids to read? Liberty’s Torch is out to provide not only more positive and objective news, but real-life solutions and input to real-life problems. And, as the name suggests, those solutions will be based in capitalistic principles of individual liberty and responsibility.”

Harrington looked thoughtful, then scratched his nose and winked. “Maybe we’re wrong, you and I,” he said. “Maybe most people really do like all of that cultural crud. I’m sure that at least a small percentage do. Great. They can go and read the New York Times. But the majority of us? I don’t think so, and neither do most of the people you and I know. There was a time when the market promoted that kind of stuff, but I believe that time is waning, as the upheavals in the journalistic field strongly suggest. People are watching their country get flushed down the toilet - and it’s answers they are looking for, not political propaganda.”

"I guess we’ll just have to let the market decide,” Harrington said. "If we’re wrong, then we’ll fold. But, if we’re right, as I am convinced that we are - then let the fun begin, because it’s time to turn liberty loose and let freedom ring!”

Barbie Harrington is the Editor of Liberty’s Torch. She can be reached at editor@libertystorch.us.

Reviewing Atlas Shrugged: "This Is John Galt Speaking"

2011-08-13T13:02:00.013-06:00

For those of you who've been wondering where I've been hiding, I've been busy on the upcoming production of Cheyenne's newest newspaper, "Liberty's Torch." First issue due out on September 2nd, "Atlas Shrugged Day" - and what could possibly be more appropriate than to write a review of "Atlas Shrugged" for that issue?

Reviewing Atlas Shrugged: “This Is John Galt Speaking”

By Bradley Harrington

“I swear - by my life and my love of it - that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” - Ayn Rand, “Atlas Shrugged,” 1957 -

In Atlas Shrugged, Rand depicts what happens when the producers of the country decide they’ve had enough of producing in the midst of a half-socialist, half-fascist political system where their only role is to continue to serve as the exploited and unacknowledged serfs made to pay for it all.

Tied by a twisted tangle of non-objective rules and regulations designed to foster the growth of the Entitlement State - one in which producers have to beg for permission to produce from those who produce nothing but impediments to production - those producers speak the two words that no thug or beggar can ever withstand: “I quit!”

And, since it is the producer who makes all looting and mooching possible through their prior productive efforts, the collapse of society rapidly accelerates to the point that it crashes - upon which time, at the end of the book, the producers, led by the book’s hero John Galt, return to society to re-establish Constitutional law and individual rights.

While Atlas Shrugged is chock-full of political drama, however, don’t make the mistake of assuming it’s mainly about politics, for its thrust and theme is much wider and deeper than that. In Rand’s own words, it deals with “the role of the mind in man’s existence” - and, “as a corollary, the presentation of a new ethics - the morality of rational self-interest.” (Ayn Rand, “Is Atlas Shrugging?”, 1964.)

Consequently, it is not merely arbitrary political power that Rand targets, but the underlying idea that makes that power possible: the belief that it is proper to enslave some men at the point of a gun for the benefit of other men. It is the idea of self-sacrifice that Rand blows sky-high, asserting instead the primacy of the individual human being’s right to their own happiness for their own sake, without the good that they might be doing for others acting as the justification for their continued existence.

It is nothing less than man’s right to life that Rand succeeds in reclaiming from the tidal wave of irrational “philosophy” swamping our world today - and if you don’t think it’s possible to accomplish that task through a fiction novel, you’ve got another think coming. A magnificent tribute to that which makes human life possible, Atlas Shrugged is, in the words of the blurb off its cover, a novel about “the murder - and rebirth - of man’s spirit.”

And today, 54 years later? One can only reflect on the incredible potency of the power of ideas when one hears our current crop of political looters speak of the need for “shared sacrifice” as the solution to all of our problems. Mr. Thompson, America’s Head of State in Atlas Shrugged, couldn’t have said it better.

And how much longer can we expect producers to continue shouldering their enforced burdens while the flotsam and jetsam of the Entitlement State - the concrete-bound savages devoid of any understanding of principles, concepts, values or absolutes - begin rioting in the streets? One only need observe England’s recent upheavals to comprehend the magnitude of the forces we have let loose on the world - and to grasp the fact that it is happening here in the United States as well, and for exactly the same reasons.

And the signs are growing abundantly clear that our own real-life producers have just about had their fill. If the ever-increasing worthlessness of our phony paper dollars and our anemic economic growth under the lashes and leashes of the looters is not enough to convince you of what happens when you turn off man’s mind, then chew on this as well:

“In the battle of environmentalists against business that began years ago in the United States, one of its latest victims is Birmingham, Alabama, coal mine owner Ronnie Bryant.” During a public hearing, Bryant sat still for two hours of castigation, and then had the following to say: “My only idea today is to go home. What’s the use?...Basically, what I’ve decided is not to open the mine. I’m just quitting.” (“Environmentalists halt plans for new coal mine,” New American, July 26th.)

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is “John Galt speaking” - but you’ll need to read that for yourselves.

Bradley Harrington is the publisher of Liberty's Torch. He can be reached at publisher@libertystorch.us.

Who Woulda Thunk It?

2011-05-29T12:05:00.011-06:00

My final "local" piece, published in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle under the title of "It has been a good ride" on May 28th, 2011.

While conflict of interest prevented me from stating so in this piece, the "new adventure" Barbie and I will be embarking upon is "Liberty's Torch," scheduled for first publication on July 4th, 2011.

Who Woulda Thunk It?

By Bradley Harrington

“Ideals are like stars; you will not succeed in touching them with your hands. But, like the sea-faring man on the desert of waters, you may choose them as your guides; and, following them, you will reach your destiny.” – Carl Schurz, Boston Faneuil Hall Address, 1859 -

Well I remember the day, a couple of years ago, the first time Reed Eckhardt asked me to write a local opinion column for the WTE.

I’d started writing again shortly after Barbie and I moved back to Cheyenne in 2008. Motivated in part by the upcoming presidential election, as well as a desire to return to a field I had left a number of years ago, I was self-syndicating a “national” column to the newspapers around the country, and naturally that list included Reed at the WTE as well.

He ran a couple of them, but not often: Reed’s primary focus is Wyoming and local issues and events, and that’s what he wanted me to tackle.

I turned him down initially, telling him that I simply did not know enough about local issues to consider myself as any kind of “expert” anyone would be willing to listen to.

Which was true enough, but not my real reason at that time: Being a writer of a decidedly capitalist/objectivist bent, interested in analyzing current events in the light of the ideas and principles of liberty and individualism, and based on much experience with many other editors around America, I simply did not think Reed would ever be willing to regularly run what I wrote.

A few months later, he asked me again. “You can learn the issues,” he said. He wanted more right-wing commentary for balance on his editorial pages and he thought I was just the guy to fill that bill.

Well, I could learn the local issues; and Reed was right, I was just the guy to supply any interested readers with just that kind of copy. "Right-wing" I got. But still…

“Why would you run any such stuff?” I asked. “It’s not what you write. It’s not your position. You don’t agree with most of it. What would be the purpose? I’ll get going and then once you see what I’m actually going to have to say on a regular basis, you’ll just get tired of it and fire me.”

But Reed assured me that wouldn’t happen, and that whether he agreed or not was irrelevant. “When have I ever turned down a well-written column from any viewpoint?” he said. “Write about whatever ticks you off, as long as it’s local.”

So that’s how this whole thing started, and I began boning up to the best of my ability on local issues and events – and running my mouth on what I thought of them. It didn’t take long to realize that the larger problems gripping America begin at home, and often comically so. I couldn’t have made some of this stuff up if I’d tried.

And, to Reed’s everlasting credit, he ran it all. Even when he violently disagreed, as he did with a piece on the food police I wrote last year, an issue that I know is dear to his heart. “Do you really believe that we would be better off without county food inspections?” he asked me incredulously. “We’d all die of food poisoning!”

But he ran it anyway. Word for word. Just the way I wrote it. Who woulda thunk it?

And the ride with the readers has been a tremendously interesting experience as well. Being the outspoken proponent of freedom and capitalism that I am, it didn’t take long for the enemies of those ideas to take notice of me, and the friction between me and the unions, political hacks, “do-gooders” and other assorted riff-raff began early on.

Not everyone wanted to string me up, however; for I have also received more thoughtful, considerate replies to my columns and the ideas they have discussed than at any other writing time of my life. This city may be in the hands of the collectivists but don’t ever make the mistake of thinking you can take your average Wyomingite and put a noose around their neck; you might just be left head-and-heeled, hanging out to dry while you learn your proper manners.

So, why am I bothering to tell anybody all of this? Because this, Dear Reader, is the last piece you will see from me in the WTE. Barbie and I have decided to pursue another new adventure, and never the twain shall meet.

To my readers pro and con, thank you for all of your input. You’ve made me rethink my positions more than once, and I will never be the same for having done so.

And, to Reed in particular: Through thick and thin, you followed through on your agreement. Something I have to admit I didn’t ever think was going to happen. Even when the “good old boy” network came unglued about my anti-DDA stands, you merely shifted my column location over to the other page to avoid reader confusion between my rants and official editorial policy.

And that’s what I call integrity. Something we could all stand to see more of, personally and politically. And it has been appreciated more than you know.

--
Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and a writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

The Rec Center's Underlying Realities

2011-05-29T11:52:00.004-06:00

A "local" piece, published in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle on May 21st, 2011.

The Rec Center’s Underlying Realities

By Bradley Harrington

“There’s no fair way to steal.” – Andrew Galambos, “Sic Itur Ad Astra,” 1998 –

Last week, when I referred to the proposed recreation center for Cheyenne as a “boondoggle” and said that “If a society or community cannot marshal enough voluntarily-contributed resources to build a ‘public-works’ project, then that project needs to remain un-built” (“Here it comes again,” Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, May 14th), I knew I was bound to get some heated responses from proponents.

For when you strike out at “public works,” you are striking out at things very dear to some people’s hearts. And such people will tell you unequivocally that the “good” of such projects lies in the increase in human happiness that they provide.

Yet such projects actually breed the opposite: They create discord, dissatisfaction and resentments on the part of the taxpaying population they use as their base. As proof, consider the following letter I received from reader John Thompson:

“Burns Mayor Vern Testerman was said to have led the fight against the Rec Center. So, he got his money, but then says to hell with what Cheyenne wanted, even though it would not cost Burns one cent more in taxes…Well, Burns and Albin had better not need any more 6th penny money in the future; we are rallying to stop ALL expenditures outside of Cheyenne. We have learned our lesson, now it will be Burns’ turn to learn. I don’t care how important an issue is, I’m voting against it. Payback is a bitch.”

Whoa! Where’s all that “brotherly love” and “shared sacrifice” we’re always hearing about? Sounds to me like Mr. Thompson is a bit angry. But why? Don’t Laramie County voters have the right to vote as they will? And aren’t we all supposed to just go along with such decisions like good little citizens? In the interests of the “good of the public”?

The actual results, however, seem to be decidedly the opposite. And we haven’t even built the thing yet.

Which should come as no great surprise to anyone with a glimmer of respect for property rights: What other results can possibly be attained by regarding the lives and property of individual human beings as nothing more than fodder for a public auction block?

For that, in essence, is what the “public works” hypothesis is based on: Since we are all obviously too stupid to know how to spend our money the way we choose to, we have to have it done for us instead. And the fact that such a collectivist approach to human relations creates far more problems than it solves should give pause to anyone truly concerned with expanding human happiness. How can you possibly “expand” human happiness at the point of a gun?

And the answer is: you can’t. But that has never prevented “public officials” throughout history from trying anyway. Isn’t that how the pyramids got built? Through slave labor? Anyone care to be a slave in Ancient Egypt under a slave-master with a whip in his hand?

In our more modern times, however, we don’t actually enslave citizens and force them to build rec centers. No, we just steal their money to do it instead. Now that’s a real “improvement.”

The “public works” hypothesis of government is based on the following supposition: That you have no right or ability to spend your own money as you see fit – but that somehow, at the same time, you’re intelligent enough to cast votes to determine how others are to spend theirs.

How’s that again? The fact that someone can actually utter such nonsense with a straight face and receive nods of approval instead of universal condemnation is, perhaps, the most eloquent indication of the sordid level to which our social and political discourse has degenerated. We’ve sold our rights for free dentures and a rec center, and everybody claps when they ought to be horrified.

But human freedom, I’ve discovered, is a value few recognize or appreciate. So, in the face of such intellectual corruption, pardon me for a moment while I state a couple of principles of my own:

(1) My life, money and property are not tools for your social engineering schemes. You can get your gangster governments to steal it from me if you like, but you will never gain my moral sanction in doing so. I will, properly, regard you as the thieves you are, for the fact that you might build a “public works” project with your loot instead of hightailing it to Tahiti does not change the nature of your original theft;

(2) And, when such actions are engaged in, the net result for “society” will not be an increase but a decrease in human happiness - as must always be the case when you turn free human beings into slaves. What level of liberty do you people really believe is possible when you view other human beings as nothing more than tools for your own ends?

For those who accept such a designation, you’ve got it coming. Put on your little serf hat and smile! “Better Red than dead,” right? And, for those who don’t: Wake up. The collectivists have claimed your life as their own. How long do you intend on standing still for it?

--
Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and a writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

Revisiting The Rec Center

2011-05-29T11:32:00.003-06:00

A "local" piece, published in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle under the title of "Here it comes again" on May 14, 2011.

Revisiting The Rec Center

By Bradley Harrington

“If men have grasped some faint glimmer of respect for individual rights in their private dealings with one another, that glimmer vanishes when they turn to public issues – and what leaps into the political arena is a caveman who can’t conceive of any reason why the tribe may not bash in the skull of any individual if it so desires.” – Ayn Rand, “Collectivized Ethics,” 1963 –

If you’ve ever thought that politicians really get our messages when we vote, you’d better think again. Back in 1996, Laramie County voters rejected a proposed $20 million recreation center for the City of Cheyenne.

But that wasn’t good enough for city officials. Convinced that they knew better than us, they marshaled their forces and tried it again in 2008. By that time, however, the cost for the rec center had more than doubled, up to $55 million. The voters rejected it again.

Enough said, right? Wrong. If you think that, then you have no respect for the tenacity of public officials bent on blowing your tax dollars in any way they think appropriate no matter how many times you, the voter, say otherwise:

“City officials have begun developing a list of projects to be included on the next sixth-penny sales tax ballot in 2012.” And one of the items on that wish list? You guessed it: “Recreation center - $30 million.” ("City begins sixth-penny project list," Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, May 8th.)

You have to almost admire the pit-bull-like determination of some of our public leaders. Shucks, if they worked half as hard at running this city properly as they do at devising ways to once again fleece voters and taxpayers on this rec center boondoggle, we’d all be better off and richer for it.

Indeed, the politicians’ constant barrage of re-attempts on this issue reminds me of what the Irish Republican Army once told Margaret Thatcher immediately after the Brighton hotel bombing of 1984: “Today we were unlucky, but remember we only have to be lucky once. You will have to be lucky always.”

So, is that the task before us voters? To constantly be on the lookout for these recurring waves of economic terrorism? Apparently so. Then man your defenses, folks, for we’ve got a $30 million roller-coaster ride heading our way come 2012.

And what, just out of curiosity, is the driving force behind this madness? The desire for “growth.” And mark my words, you can bet your next welfare check that I, and others who might happen to share my viewpoint, will be shortly labeled as “no-growthers” and “naysayers.”
Yet “growth,” as an economic phenomenon, is what occurs out of surplus earnings in a free economy. And the essence of a free economy is that those surpluses are voluntarily injected back into the economy by the people who own them in order to reap more profits. That is what “growth” is and that is how it occurs.

Taxing a population to erect a rec center, however, is not growth: That is merely a shift of economic resources not actual wealth-creation. And, as such, that action has no more claim to the fame of “growing” our local economy than a bank robber can claim “growth” after his latest heist.

For, when dollars flow on the basis of force instead of profit, their rates of return suffer accordingly. And the final result? An actual decrease in produced wealth overall as dollars are restricted by taxation from flowing where they will.

If “growth” – true growth, not the chimera of growth being advocated by city officials – were our actual goal, then we would ask ourselves: What is its source? From where does “surplus” wealth spring?

And the undisputable answer is: from the free and unfettered trade practiced in any honest market economy. Actions that promote that market economy, therefore, are pro-growth. Actions that impede it - such as the tax-and-spend policies of our city officials – therefore qualify, in reality, as anti-growth. And merit being labeled as such.

If a society or community cannot marshal enough voluntarily-contributed resources to build a “public-works” project, then that project needs to remain un-built. And if there’s some people in town who disagree, they are perfectly free to move to a community that engages in such practices. But they have no moral right – zero, nada, zippo, the null set – to force local inhabitants to pay for such nonsense whether they like it or not.

And, while we are often labeled as a “democracy” by both ourselves and other cultures, it might be useful at this point to remember that the United States of America was founded as a Republic, not a democracy – and that the difference is the protection of individual rights from the tyranny of the majority.

Just because you have a gang, in other words, does not mean you have the right to impose your view at the point of a gun. But try telling that to the next “do-gooder” pointing a weapon at your wallet.

--
Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and a writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

Smile For That Birdie Baby!

2011-05-29T10:54:00.005-06:00

A "local" piece, published in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle under the title of "Smile for the webcam" on May 5th, 2011.

Smile For That Birdie Baby!

By Bradley Harrington

“You have zero privacy anyway; get over it.” – Scott McNealy, former Sun Microsystems CEO, in a news conference discussing Intel’s decision to disable Pentium III CPU identification features, 1999 –

Ah, the marvels of technology. It seems like you just can’t go much of anywhere these days without being followed around by electronic eyes.
Got an item you need at Wal-Mart? Wave at the vidcam as you stroll through the door. Need to appear in court? You can safely assume that all your movements will be stored in the court’s databases. In a hurry and decide to run a red light? There’s cameras out there that snap shots of that, too.

Which is not to say, of course, that much of this intrusiveness is not necessary and desirable, because it is: Rooted, ultimately, in property protection, property owners have a right to monitor their property in order to observe and/or record the occurrence of crime on their premises. End of story.

Still, some people can carry things a bit too far; how’d you like that laptop you just rented from your local rent-to-own store being used to observe you and take pictures of you while you’re in your bedroom? Think that has anything to do with property protection?

And how would you like it if, in the midst of an argument with the manager of that outfit over your lease agreement, that individual was dumb enough to show you a picture he had taken of you, without your consent, through that laptop’s webcam while you used the system? Think that might set off a few alarms?

If so, then you might want to pay attention to the progress of a recently-filed federal court case focused on all of those allegations:

“A major furniture rental chain provides its customers with computers that allow it to track keystrokes, take screenshots and even snap webcam pictures of renters using the device at home, a Wyoming couple said in a lawsuit Tuesday.” (“Furniture rental co. spies on PC users,” Associated Press, May 3rd.)

In this lawsuit the litigants, Brian and Crystal Byrd of Casper, “Are suing the national rental retail chain Aaron’s for violation of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The lawsuit alleges Aaron’s installed PC Rental Agent, a software [program] designed and distributed by a Pennsylvania company by the name of DesignerWare. The lawsuit says PC Rental Agent allows the rental company to monitor, intercept and collect any information/communications from around the world of the computer user.” (“Wyoming couple, rental company spar over privacy,” International Business Times, May 4th.)

If that sends a bit of a chill down your spine, you’re not alone: in an Associated Press interview, Brian Byrd said: “It feels like we were pretty much invaded, like somebody else was in our house. It’s a weird feeling, I can’t really describe it. I had to sit down for a minute after he showed me that picture.”

And Aaron’s? They aren’t having any of it: “Concerning the recent allegations regarding customer privacy and Aaron’s,” states their CEO on their website, “Aaron’s customers can be assured that we’re taking this allegation very seriously. We are conducting a thorough investigation and diligently reaching out to our customers to address any of their concerns.”

Despite the fact that this is an ongoing case in which anything can happen, however, things aren’t looking too good for Aaron’s; as the IBT article relates, “A law enforcement investigation confirmed the photo was taken by PC Rental Agent, and that software was on all Aaron’s computers.” Oops.

Nor are such alleged incidences few and far between: in another case involving Pennsylvania, Robbins Vs. Lower Merion School District, the school district settled out of court to the tune of $610,000 back in October rather than get creamed for illegally taking (as the district revealed afterwards) over 66,000 images through the undisclosed use of spyware hardware/software on school district loaner laptops. (!!)

What’s next? Cameras in the bathrooms? Based on a 15-minute perusal of legal cases on just that topic, it happens all the time. For instance, in Ohio last year, “Former Mayfield Heights Fire Captain Daniel Serge pleaded guilty…to hiding a camera in the bathroom of the YMCA…” (“Man pleads guilty in bathroom spying case,” Cleveland Plain Dealer, Dec. 22nd.)

Our privacies, quite clearly, are under attack; and not just from the government, but from private entities who ought to know better as well. It’s one thing to arm a computer system with tracking capabilities in the event of non-payment or theft; it’s another thing completely to use that ability to spy on people without their knowledge or consent – and any person or organization caught engaging in such activities deserve the full punishments capable of being imposed by the justice system as a result.

As technology continues to proliferate and micro-miniaturize, however, the ease with which such surveillance capabilities are employed can only be expected to increase over time. Your privacy is being eroded whether you like it or not – and, these days, unless you’re out in a wheat field or a hermit in some cave somewhere (an idea that has crossed my mind more than once), it’s only reasonable to assume that you are being watched and/or recorded nearly everywhere you go.

So, you might want to act accordingly. And don’t forget to smile for that birdie baby!

--
Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and a writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

Out Of The Mouths Of Babes

2011-05-29T10:36:00.005-06:00

A "local" piece, published in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle on April 30th, 2011.

Out of the Mouths of Babes

By Bradley Harrington

“Action without thought is like shooting without aim.” – Proverb –

It isn’t very often, in today’s self-righteous orgy of fascist-state tyranny, that you’ll hear a politician question the validity of a particular area of government operation or control.

But it does happen on occasion – and, when it does, it should be encouraged. When the questioner, furthermore, is a man one would normally associate with a more interventionist, “progressive” outlook on government management – Cheyenne City Councilman Patrick Collins - it’s definitely time to open both eyes and take notice.

The first clue came when Mr. Collins requested at the beginning of last Monday evening’s Governing Body meeting to pull item 14f off the Consent Agenda.

This item, “An agreement between the City of Cheyenne and the Cheyenne Symphony Orchestra for use of the Civic Center for Youth Education Concerts,” is actually a contract by which the city agrees to pay the CSO the sum of $6,585 for expenses related to two CSO performances for Laramie County fifth- and six-graders come next January.

And - while that expenditure is chicken-feed in comparison to the way the city spends money in other areas - Mr. Collins, to his credit, decided to question the principle of city funding of school district educational projects anyway:

“How do we pick music, how do we not pick tennis, how do we not pick mathematics, or science, as a project that we would do? It just seems like this isn’t the job of the city to pay for concerts for kids to come to school...How do we pick this one? And why? I haven’t got an answer yet that makes me understand it.” (City Council Video, http://www.cheyennecity.org/, April 25th.)

Unfortunately enough for both Mr. Collins and the rest of us as well, he found no answers that evening, from either the public or his fellow governing body members - the last of which, shortly thereafter, all stampeded to award the $6,585 contract anyway, with Mr. Collins casting the lone “No” vote.

Yet the questions Mr. Collins raises warrant major levels of discussion, for their answers have implications that make themselves felt far beyond such relatively simple budgetary issues as who should be funding school concerts: they strike right to the root of the very existence and purpose of government itself.

For, in Mr. Collins’ questioning the city’s alleged responsibility for funding school concerts, the further question arises: What exactly is the city, as a political organization, responsible for, anyway? And that question, in turn, brings up the further question of: What exactly is any political organization, as such, responsible for? What are its purposes for existence? And, just that fast, we arrive at one of the greatest questions in political history.

And it is only here on this fundamental level that the proper answer to Mr. Collins’ questions can be articulated, for the answer to this last question will set the boundaries and terms of the entire debate.

If one believes, as did our Founding Fathers, that the purpose of government is the protection of life and property and little else, then one would necessarily question any taxpayer-funded project not related to those purposes, would they not? And wouldn’t the implications of those questions ripple throughout the entire “practical” political sphere?

For, as an example of this last, if it’s not the city’s responsibility to fund school concerts, why is it the city’s responsibility to fund art projects, or the Botanic Garden, or the economic “planning” of the DDA?

Why is it up to the city to worry about what kind of roof tiles are permissible on a downtown building? Or whether or not all alcoholic businesses should be banned within two city blocks of a girl’s dancing school? Or what color the sidewalk corners are?

If, on the other hand, one believes that government’s purpose is to engineer society and not merely protect individual rights, then one will advocate all sorts of “progressive” projects and legislation along those lines. None of it will achieve any of the supposedly desired results or work worth a damn, but the “progressive” proponents will merely use that as an excuse for more funding in the next fiscal cycle.

The puzzle, in this particular instance with Mr. Collins, is that much of his time as City Councilor has been spent on enacting just that type of “progressive” nonsense – and one can’t help but wonder from what subterranean volcano Mr. Collins’ questioning of city funding of school concerts erupted from.

There’s clearly a case of mixed premises at work here, and there’s only one way to clear up such conflicts: By checking those premises and comparing them, not only with reality, but with how they interact with one another as well. Premises that pass those tests are retained; those that don’t are discarded. The result is an internally-consistent, coherently-articulated value-structure capable of providing a blueprint for intelligent action.

And anything else? A whim-based recipe for disaster – for what’s the cliff we’re going to stampede over next?

--
Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and a writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

Property Rights Under Attack

2011-05-29T09:51:00.008-06:00

A "local" piece, published in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle on April 23rd, 2011.

Property Rights Under Attack

By Bradley Harrington

“If history could teach us anything, it would be that private property is inextricably linked with civilization.” - Ludwig von Mises, “Human Action,” 1949 -

A couple of weeks ago, while discussing individual rights, I provided a blueprint for determining our relationships with the control freaks bent upon protecting us from ourselves:

“The fundamental questions to ask yourself, in all such encounters with such folks, is: ‘What are this person’s intentions with respect to my life, liberty and property?’ And ‘Does this person seek to employ the use of force as a means of advancing their aims?’” (“Don’t let do-gooders rob you of your rights,” Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, April 9th.)

And, just to give you a rough idea of how loudly city events scream out to be properly analyzed in the light of such questions, and of how screwed up things can get when such analyses are not forthcoming, consider three recent occurrences for starters:

(1) Regarding the Pershing Blvd. roundabout, originally slated for work in the Spring of 2011: “The city might not start construction until August, because it’s having problems attaining rights of way.” (“Roundabout delayed,” Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, April 13th.)

So: We’ve established the funding, spent hundreds of thousands on planning, had meetings with the community and done just about everything else needed to get this project off the ground - except procure the rights of way in order to do so? But isn’t our “right” to do all of the rest based on this need first?

Could you imagine a private developer, such as Frank Cole, one of the men with whom the Pershing rights of way need to be negotiated, proceeding forward in such a fashion, wasting money without bothering to establish his right to do so first?

No, it’s only the ham-handed officials of the city of Cheyenne, blissfully ignorant of property rights, that could ever make that kind of a mistake. And, when presented with the fallout of it afterwards, we are now hearing talk about the city using “eminent domain” decrees as a means of “acquiring” the property anyway. Guaranteed lawsuit action there, that’s for sure, and who will be paying for it? You and I.

(2) Regarding the American Eagle/Cheyenne Airport boondoggle: “American Eagle has the unwelcome distinction of having the worst score overall among the airlines covered in the 2011 Airline Quality Rating Report.” (“American Eagle gets low marks,” Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, April 18th.)

How is it, exactly, that we get stuck with a carrier of such poor ratings? Not through any market-based process, mind you; for, if you recall, American Eagle was enticed into coming here in the first place with a fat state-taxpayer-funded $1.4 million subsidy. In the old days of private property rights, it would have been the consumers voting with their dollars that would have established what, if any, type of airport service would be offered at the Cheyenne Airport and by whom.

In today’s pliable age of anything goes, however, such considerations are deemed as unimportant and unnecessary: the bureaucrats, obviously, know better than we do how and with whom we should be flying. So they’ll just take our money and give it away to whomever they please. Free choice, brother? What an outmoded concept.

(3) Regarding the American Legion Post 6 Powers Field controversy: “City officials hope to avoid a lawsuit with the American Legion Post 6 baseball team over the use of Powers Field.” (“City and Post 6 want agreement,” Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, April 5th.)

Of all the blunderings in the area of property rights, this one is probably the one that screams out the loudest in protest, with no winners in sight anywhere: Caught up in the three-way huddle between Post 6, the city and the Feds in a goofy maze of mutually-contradictory funding and leasing arrangements, none of the participants have any recourse to sane and sensible property management any longer.

But, while the jury’s still out on the ultimate resolution of who will be able to do what at Powers Field, look to the Feds to wave their bigger guns to carry the day. And that’s a surprise? When the objectivity of property rights are not recognized for the absolutes that they are, what other standards remain to determine the realities of social intercourse?

For this, precisely, is what property rights are for: to establish a rational, moral and objective framework by means of which men and women are to deal with one another. As all three of these instances make perfectly clear, take those away and what you have left is: “I got a gun and you ain’t.” How’s that for our new principle of social organization? Looks to me like our property rights, not the state, are what’s “withering away.”

--
Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and a writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir.yahoo.com.

Coddling Criminals Creates Community Chaos

2011-04-19T04:50:00.005-06:00

This was both a "national" and a "local" piece, first published by the Deming Headlight on April 14th, 2011, and published in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle under the title of "Be Your Own Best Defense" on April 16th, 2011.

Coddling Criminals Creates Community Chaos
By Bradley Harrington

“The first lines of defense against criminals are the victims themselves.” - Michael Badnarik, 2004 Libertarian candidate for President “Issues” statement, 2004 -

For those who missed it, an Oregon man was recently able to save his 13-year-old daughter from probable sexual attack:

“A Milwaukie teen says a sex offender tried to grab her while she was walking home Thursday evening…Police cited Douglas Quinn and are charging him with harassment. Quinn, a registered sex offender, was booked into jail on a drug warrant.” (“Milwaukie teen says sex offender grabbed her,” Fox KPTV News, April 8th.)

But this case has a twist. After the young lady got away, she called her Dad, who picked her up minutes later. The two began policing the area; and, after finding Quinn on foot shortly thereafter, the Dad, Brett Harrington, took action on his own: “I grabbed him, body-slammed him, put him in a nice headlock and waited until the deputies showed up.”

This story has more than a passing interest for me, for my wife Barbie and I lived in Milwaukie for six years. We left Cheyenne for Milwaukie in 2002 to establish Liberty Computer Service, and the perp Quinn was apprehended right across the street from our old store location. And the Dad, Brett Harrington, happens to be my younger brother.

It bears mentioning that one of the reasons Barbie and I closed Liberty Computer and returned to Cheyenne in 2008 was the ever-present crime - and, when three Portland city cops and Multnomah County deputies decided to beat James Chasse to death back in 2006 for urinating on a tree, we’d had our fill of a system which murdered the innocent and let the guilty keep driving cop cars.

And Quinn’s record speaks to that corruption: Twice-convicted of felony sex-abuse charges in 1990 and 1995, Multnomah County’s “Predatory Sex Offender Notification” describes Quinn’s victim profile as “adult and minor stranger females,” and states that Quinn “approaches stranger females in the streets, harasses and often asks for money, and grabs/fondles them.”

Just the kind of creep you want walking around your daughter, yes? And, when this particular creep gets flattened by the daughter’s old man instead of getting a good “fondle” in, he gets cited for…”harassment”? Are you kidding? This is a system of unbelievable stupidity run amok.

And, if you doubt that, consider: One of the standard stipulations of probation/parole is that one commit no further crimes. Yet, in Quinn’s case, this hasn’t been a requirement or a problem. Arrested seven times in the last year alone, on various charges ranging from “harassing,” “menacing,” alcohol, drugs, and - for six of those arrests - felony parole violation! Each time, according to jail records, he was booked and released.

Indeed, since Quinn’s last arrest prior to the current case occurred just a few days ago (April 4th), it’s not beyond the pale to conclude that if Quinn had been kept behind bars at that time, he would never have had the opportunity to grab my niece. Anyone still care to claim that locking up criminals doesn’t prevent crime?

One can only ask oneself: How many more times does this need to happen before our allegedly “protective” authorities pull their hand-wringing heads out of their tails and put this perp away for good? Twice? Five times? An even dozen?

For what if this chi-mo had gotten my niece instead? What if he’d decided that “fondling” wasn’t enough of a thrill any longer? And what would this perp be up to right now if my brother hadn’t of decided to do the cops’ work for them? As my brother asked: “What about the next kid?”

Yet, as past history makes clear, this piece of scum will be out stalking the streets again soon. The “authorities” in charge of Quinn’s case should all be fired for malfeasance and dereliction of duty, for any and all of Quinn’s criminal actions since 1995 are blood on their hands.

And the lesson? Obviously, us mere peaceful citizens can no longer rely on the justice system to protect us. To one degree or another, everywhere you turn, the principles of sound criminal prosecution are being washed out by a tidal wave of nonsensical liberal “it ain’t his fault” fantasy.

So I’d suggest that you arm yourself and get prepared. For, until those problems are corrected, the only answer, as my brother Brett has proved yet once again, is to be your own best defense. But who knows how much longer that will still be legal?

--
Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and a writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

Primer: How Your Rights Disappeared 101

2011-04-19T04:44:00.003-06:00

A "local" piece, published in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle under the title of "Don't Let Do-Gooders Rob You of Your Rights" on April 9th, 2011.

Primer: How Your Rights Disappeared 101

By Bradley Harrington

“The right to property means that a man has the right to take the economic actions necessary to earn property, to use it and to dispose of it; it does not mean that others must provide him with property.” - Ayn Rand, “Man’s Rights,” 1963 -

In response to last week’s column, where I discussed the manner in which parental and individual rights are being subject to attack by the political actions of busybodies bent on “protecting” us and our children from ourselves (“Broyles is out of control,” Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, April 2nd), a reader wrote me to say:

“Before reading it, my husband and I were of the same opinion as Georgia Broyles. But yes, it was my responsibility to decide which events my kids attend…I don’t want any of my rights usurped! Thank you for the eye-opener.”

You’re welcome, ma’am. The “do-gooders” can be quite persuasive at times, and most of them have the necessary trigger words down pat: “the children.” Utter that enough times and the population becomes mesmerized and lost of its senses. So it always helps to have the window-dressing ripped away on occasion and the inner workings of the true issue exposed for all to see.

And, in the same vein and through the same types of tactics, several other areas of busybody-statist control are usurping our liberties as well, and perhaps it’s time we discussed these in order that we find ourselves properly and adequately intellectually armed. Consider it a primer, as it were, on lifting our awareness to the fashion in which true individual rights are being eroded away:

(1) “Limiting” rights: This tactic thrives by having it asserted that there is some special circumstance or some type of social emergency that justifies the limitation of your rights - such as the gobbledygook about the potential effects of pre-adult exposure to legal alcohol consumption, for instance.

The danger this tactic poses to your liberties is that it smuggles into operation the tacit and unstated principle of social management that your rights are not really your own, but held strictly by permission, to be re-defined or revoked anytime the Cheyenne City Council deems it necessary and appropriate to do so.

Being on your intellectual tippie-toes is of the utmost importance here, as the proponents of this tactic will actively resist any attempt to inject principles into the debate. They will strive to keep the issue concretized on the plane of strict particulars, bleat about “the children” here and there, and fastidiously seek to avoid any application of such principles to the wider issues and implications of the action. This is the fashion in which we establish tyranny a toe-hold at a time.

(2) “Social” rights: This tactic negates your rights by claiming that, since others might have to pay the price for your bad choices further down the road, “society” has a “right” to restrict your choices and actions on that basis.

Since your hospitalization costs as a result of a car accident in which you weren’t wearing a seat belt might be paid through Medicare funds, for instance, which are ultimately funded by taxpayer dollars, the advocates of this tactic therefore conclude that it’s perfectly legitimate to force you to wear a seat belt through “progressive” legislation.

Such statists are always quite quick to take advantage of the logical implications of such situations - which, in this case, is done by applying the current collectivized principles of our health-care industry to the realm of individual choice. Resistance, therefore, must be predicated on challenging those principles and advocating free-market solutions to medical care. The answer is to roll back the control, not establish more of it.

(3) “Collectivized” rights: The favorite technique of labor unions such as the Wyoming Education Association, this approach relies upon claiming that the “right” of a group to grab the legislative machinery to force your educational choices is superior to your right to resist such onslaughts. That “collective” rights, in essence, come before individual rights.

Yet, since there is no such thing as a “collective” separate and apart from the individuals who make it up, this tactic falls on its face of its own weight: How can a bunch of zeros possibly add up to everything?

“Rights,” as a defining and sanctioning of a man’s freedom of action in a social context, can only be possessed by an individual. “Collectivize” those rights and nothing remains but a bunch of guns. Pointed at you.

So, while the statists, the “do-gooders” and other assorted control freaks have many other tactics up their sleeves, these examples should be sufficient to give you an idea of what you can expect in the way of intellectual obfuscation from those who seek to enslave you for your “own good.”

The fundamental questions to ask yourself, in all such encounters with such folks, is: “What are this person’s intentions with respect to my life, liberty and property?” And “Does this person seek to employ the use of force as a means of advancing their aims?”

If that answer comes out “Yes,” you’ve got all the information you need; the rest is just camouflage. And if you find yourself troubled by such considerations, I’d suggest you keep them uppermost in your mind the next time you reach for an election lever.

--
Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and a writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

Tyranny A Toe-Hold At A Time

2011-04-19T04:34:00.002-06:00

A "local" piece, published in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle under the title of "Broyles is Out of Control" on April 2nd, 2011.

Tyranny A Toe-Hold At A Time

By Bradley Harrington

“There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.” - Robert Heinlein, “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress,” 1966 -

Some issues of social and political interaction are fairly well understood, and the main principles and course to follow are clear and well-defined - such as the right to self-defense, for example.

Other issues, however, do not easily lend themselves to such “cut and dried” analysis, and require further discussion and introspection before the correct principle of social action can be determined and acted upon - such as our alcohol laws as they relate to children.

So, while most of us would readily agree that an age limit for alcohol consumption needs to be imposed and enforced by law, for instance, things can get quite foggy for some people when it comes to deciding just what kind of childhood exposures to alcohol are acceptable and permissible in our social interactions.

In discussing some City Council members’ positions on this issue last week I explored that issue a little too pointedly, apparently, for I managed to annoy Georgia Broyles enough in particular into stating at last Monday’s council meeting that:

“I want to make it clear that I am not an alcohol prohibitionist. But when it comes to kids I am. And I’m very proud of that fact and I will continue to fight for the youth of our community as long as I have an opportunity to do so.“

A laudable enough goal, on the face of it; who could raise any objections with wanting to protect the children? And there’s no doubt at all that Mrs. Broyles enjoys basking in the light of the moral glory commonly associated with “caring about the kids.”

But let’s explore that a little more below the surface, shall we? For example: Whose kids are we talking about? I don’t know if Mrs. Broyles has any children or not, but I think it would be fair to presume that she would reserve the right to make decisions about whether her kids need to be attending a baseball game at which beer is served or not.

So, it’s not her kids she’s talking about “protecting” as she “fights for the youth of our community,” is it? It’s yours. Kind of presumptive, don’t you think? How about your parental rights to make those decisions yourself for your children? You know, the same rights Mrs. Broyles would no doubt claim for hers? Whatever happened to those?

And more: Isn’t it true that the fact that Mrs. Broyles finds it so absolutely necessary to champion non-alcoholic causes for your children, means she doesn’t think you are doing the job properly yourself ? And - the more intense her involvement in your familial affairs, the more she must think so, yes? No problem! Mrs. Broyles intends to correct that “as long as I have an opportunity to do so.”

And what, exactly, is the “opportunity” that Mrs. Broyles possesses? The opportunity to wield the political power of the state to enforce her choices about your familial affairs.

So, what’s really happening here? Amongst all this guff about “the children,” you, as a parent, are having your right to make your own judgments concerning the presence of your children at alcoholic events taken away from you. Why? Because Georgia Broyles doesn’t think you have the brains to figure out how to handle that yourself; you need to be prodded at gunpoint instead. Yep. And just because she said so.

Am I the only one who sees the colossal arrogance implicit in such an attitude, as well as the destruction of individual liberty that it breeds? And how on Earth is it that such a caveman-club approach to human relations ever came to bear the adulation of moral virtuosity?

And make no mistake about it, folks, it’s not just Pioneer Park, which you paid for with your taxes, that Mrs. Broyles seeks to re-engineer to her standards of social conduct, it’s the rest of the city’s public arenas as well. At last Monday’s meeting, regarding the contradiction of allowing beer at some parks but not Pioneer Park, she said:

“But instead of approving this one in order to be equal with everyone else, I think we need to look at all of the other issues that surround this, and come back with a new ordinance in regard to consumption permits in the city.”

What type of a new ordinance? One that expands her control over you and the way you raise your children. In addition to your own watchfulness regarding your kids, which is obviously lacking, you now have Mrs. Broyles looking over your shoulder as well.

Well, I for one, as a parent, don’t appreciate having my parental responsibilities to manage my own kids’ lives properly - by my standards, not Mrs. Broyles’ - taken away from me. Nor, as a citizen, do I trust the sincerity of her “concern” any more than I’d trust the “concern” of any other crook pointing a gun at me and telling me what to do.

And, above all, I certainly don’t think that such intentions and actions, based as they are in the use of force, have any right to the claim of moral superiority by virtue of using that force. Or is it now legal, proper and ethical to coerce your neighbors just because you can?

--
Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and a writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

Alcoholic Inconsistencies

2011-04-19T04:27:00.004-06:00

A "local" piece, published in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle under the title of "Ignore the Prohibitionists" on March 26th, 2011.

Alcoholic Inconsistencies

By Bradley Harrington

“If people don’t want to come out to the ballpark, nobody’s going to stop them.” - Yogi Berra, “The Yogi Book,” 1997 -

If there’s any substance capable of magnifying an inconsistency and exposing its ludicrousness for all to see, it can only be alcohol.

And no, I don’t mean by consuming it. In this case, it’s only necessary to observe our governing body members argue about how to control it to see the contradictions leap to the fore:

“The Cheyenne City Council on Monday postponed for two weeks the final vote on allowing beer sales at Grizzlies baseball games at Pioneer Park.” (“Council postpones beer sale decision,” Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, March 15th.)

Councilman Don Pierson, “adamantly opposed to allowing beer sales at the games,” voted against the postponement, saying the vote needed to be taken then - and proceeded to accuse his fellow council members of a little political subterfuge by noting that they were aware of his scheduled absence at the upcoming March 28th meeting - and that the postponement was rigged to coincide with that absence to remove his guaranteed “No” vote from the picture.

Which wouldn’t surprise me if true. What, politicians jockeying with one another for comparative power? Unheard of.

But here’s what I would like to ask Mr. Pierson: Why is it OK to sell beer at events such as Frontier days downtown at the depot, where children are in obvious and populous attendance, but it’s not OK to permit grown adults the right to sip some suds at a Grizzlies game?

Because Pioneer Park is within 1,000 feet of Youth Alternatives, believe it or not. I guess now we need to worry about the emotional status of our captive teenagers’ psychological angsts (for fear, apparently, that they might decide to break out of the place and come and steal the beer keg) before we can make rational decisions regarding the responsible adult consumption of alcohol.

Say that again? What’s the depot within 1,000 feet of? Or most of the rest of the parks of the city? And why is granting permission to consenting adults to engage in peaceful behavior something we are ashamed to allow our kids to see? Does the urge to control run so deep within us that we simply cannot tolerate the knowledge that somebody, somewhere, might be drinking a beer and having a good time?

Not according to Prohibitionist Georgia Broyles, who wailed at the meeting before last that it’s impossible for a dad to be a “good role model to his kids” when “he’s got a beer in one hand and his four-year-old daughter’s hand in the other.” Really? How about a cigarette? I highly doubt it; that would be encouraging teenage smoking. OK, how about a hot dog, when the dad weighs 450 pounds? Better break out the scale I guess; that would be encouraging childhood obesity. Where does it end?

Mrs. Broyles, quite clearly, believes she has the right to tell the adults of the city how they can peacefully carry on in a park - while Ron Kailey, Grizzlies owner and the requestor of the permit, along with the rest of the park’s attendees, have no rights except insofar as Mrs. Broyles decides to promulgate them. They get to waste hours and days of time begging for bureaucratic permission instead. Maybe Mrs. Broyles should just stay away from the game and leave the rest of us alone.

Nor, as a sidebar, are the overall social mores surrounding us as a culture and a nation any more understandable or less contradictory when it comes to alcohol: We consider an individual adult enough to be able to vote at 18, or pack an automatic weapon in a war - yet, for some reason, we deem them incapable of being responsible for their own actions for another three years when it comes to alcohol consumption?

So: Got a voting lever in your hand? No problem; we trust you to make intelligent decisions on who should rule you and how. What about an M16A2 rifle? You’re still good to go; we trust you to point it at the right target. But dare to pick up a beer and you are now a hopeless, helpless automaton at the mercy of forces beyond your control, fit for nothing but being controlled.

Sure. And we wonder why our kids consider such an approach as hypocrisy in defiance of all reason and common sense?

But the Prohibitionists’ urges to control run deep indeed, and none of that means a damn thing to governing body members Hell-bent on drying up the land, all for “the children.” So soon we forget the lesson of Prohibition: That you cannot control the peaceful, non-coercive activities of citizens without creating crime, corruption and catastrophe.

Not all, or even most thankfully enough, of our city council members share the mania for control exhibited by Mr. Pierson and Mrs. Broyles. Councilman Jim Brown, for instance, tactfully referred to the contradictory nature of the city’s alcohol policy regarding its various facilities as an “equality issue,” nor did Sean Allen see a problem with “beer at a baseball game” done the same way as most everywhere else.

So, in the interests of freedom and integrity, let’s hope this kind of sanity carries the day come Monday.

--
Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and a writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

City Council Talks Trash About Trash

2011-03-23T05:34:00.008-06:00

A "local" piece, published in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle under the title of "Monopoly at Gunpoint" on March 17th, 2011.

City Council Talks Trash About Trash

By Bradley Harrington

“A man’s wealth is not in the coins he carries in his purse but in the income that he builds.” - George Clason, “The Richest Man in Babylon,” 1926 -

Recently, when discussing the tax-supported data center’s coming to town, and in talking about the manner in which such subsidies destroy wealth, I said: “But it’s hard to see the true results of such action, for how can you point to a pile of wealth or a collection of jobs that don’t exist?”

Little did I realize how soon a concrete example of government force obliterating jobs would actually materialize, this time in regard to the city’s ham-handed attempts to monopolize contractor debris roll-off containers:

Rick Fierro, owner of Ram Trucking, “said he is planning a $2 million expansion to his business, but he will probably scrap it if the ordinance passes. The expansion would have created 15 new jobs.” (“Ordinance gives city monopoly, haulers say,” Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, March 3rd.)

The ordinance, a re-write of city code, states that ”contractors, builders, remodelers, landscapers, or other tradesmen must use city-owned containers, if available” - and if it passes, you just saw 15 jobs go poof.

And for what purpose? To “protect” the city’s operations, according to Jim Elias, Public Works Director, who thinks “the ordinance simply asks customers to come to the city first for the service.” Yeah, and McDonald’s can “ask” me to come to them for breakfast first, too - but when the counter guy pulls out a gun and demands it, that’s a different story, don’t you think?

And what are people like Mr. Fierro supposed to do with their operations, given such a stipulation? Stand in line behind Mr. Elias, just because he thinks it’s a good idea and seeks “protection” for his “services”? How are people like Mr. Fierro supposed to plan ahead and allocate their resources properly when a large piece of the puzzle - what the city can handle or not handle for roll-offs on any given day - is lost in bureaucratic fog?

The answer is: They can’t. And now you know why 15 jobs are headed for the bit bucket. Because the producer cannot and will not operate under the principle of compulsion. Force is the antithesis of production and corrodes it out of existence whenever it is attempted. And that’s a surprise?

While it is clear that city government is stepping out of ethical boundaries in its attempts to “compete” with private enterprise in the area of roll-off containers, however, that doesn’t appear to be bothering folks such as Mayor Kaysen: At the last city council meeting Monday, the Mayor had no problem trotting out Wyoming statute and the city’s legal right to “make reasonable rules and requirements for hauling refuse.”

And Dan White, city attorney, supported that power grab as well: “State law,” he said, “supports the monopolization of refuse services.”

Ah, but how does one define “reasonable”? Rationally, it is reasonable to require that hauling services adhere to standards of public health and safety. But that’s not the same thing as saying that just because those services are essential, it’s essential that they be provided by the city. That’s a different animal entirely, and not all of us residents are ignorant of the difference.

And, indeed, residents and contractors have raised enough of a howl at the last two city council meetings (2nd and 3rd readings for the proposed amendments) that the governing body, seeking to “negotiate” an agreement on this issue, has tabled it in true parliamentary fashion for another two weeks.

I would suggest, in the time in between, that Mayor Kaysen and the City Council include some of these thoughts in their deliberations:

(1) The purpose of government is to protect individual rights. This means that it can use force only in retaliation, and only against those who initiate its use. Government has no more of a right to forcibly control and monopolize roll-off services than it does to control what we eat and drink, and for exactly the same reason. Peaceable people and peaceable companies need to be left alone to control themselves.

(2) When, in defiance of morality and common sense, such force is initiated anyway, let’s not pretend that we are doing anything but destroying wealth and free choice in that process. Or do you people think that Mr. Fierro is lying to you? Do you really believe that you can just point a gun wherever you like and not suffer consequences?

The market cannot be “fine-tuned,” as decades of attempts to do so have made clear. Try it and you will only succeed in fine-tuning it out of existence. Destroy the private sector marketplace and you destroy our very livelihoods. What good can ever come of that?

(3) Seriously consider more refuse privatization than currently exists, up to and including the sale of the Sanitation department to the highest bidder. Encourage people like Mr. Fierro to grow and expand instead. The competition engendered by such an approach would boost production, increase efficiency and drop prices, to everybody’s benefit.

And those kinds of benefits are what we are after, right?

--
Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and a writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

Faking Reality And Trying To Get Away With It

2011-03-15T06:24:00.003-06:00

A "local" piece, published in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle under the title of "Unions gain their power by robbing individuals' rights" on March 12, 2011.

Faking Reality And Trying To Get Away With It

By Bradley Harrington

“Ultimately, the only power to which man should aspire is that which he exercises over himself.” - Elie Wiesel, “All Rivers Run to the Sea,” 1994 -

It’s extremely difficult to run down unions and not annoy more than a few people in the process, and Dan Foster’s letter of last week proves that I’ve failed in that attempt yet once again:

“The idea that the auto industry would make more money using unprotected workers and in a fair turn compensate them appropriately is nonsense. Corporations see employees as liabilities, not assets, unfortunately.” (“WTE columnist would strip workers of their benefits,” Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, March 4th.)

Really? History says otherwise, for that’s not how Henry Ford saw his employees at all: He doubled the average autoworker’s pay to $5 daily in 1914, in order to attract the best workforce he could assemble, and he knew that the only way he could achieve that goal was to make his workers part of his own success. That’s how the free market for labor operates to reward production; no union “protection” or aggression needed there.

But it bears noting that the auto industry hasn’t had a “free market” in decades, in either public policy or labor: for Michigan, a non-right-to-work state, permits the forced unionism that has driven the ossification of the auto industry’s labor pool by United Auto Worker dictates.

And, in the face of having to pay to support such unrealistic and excessive demands regarding union compensation and benefits, what was the inevitable result? By the late 1980s’, much of Detroit’s auto manufacturing lay in tatters, sideswiped by the explosion of Japanese and western European competition who didn’t bother to experiment with the follies of such bloated compensation schemes.

So much for the sustainability of the non-productive or counter-productive, and score another direct hit for the Leftie-Democrat-union machine. Who cares if we destroy thousands of workers’ lives and livelihood in that process? Welcome to the Never-Never-Land of worker “protection.”

And, speaking of that sustainability, Mr. Foster is not satisfied with simply getting his facts incorrect; he further seeks to misdirect and misrepresent me as well. He quotes me as stating that “the plundering of the productive to support and satisfy the whims of the non-productive is non-sustainable,” for instance, then adds: “Police are unproductive, serving public safety? Firefighters are unproductive, rescuing persons and property?”

The misdirection consists of taking a statement I made regarding one sector of the population - the “non-productive” - and tacitly, sneakily, attaching it to another sector completely, and in regard to an idea no one, including myself, seriously argues with: the productivity of policemen and firemen.

The misrepresentation then consists of using the obvious falsity of that claim’s opposite to supposedly, somehow, invalidate the original statement. And all of it an example of smearing, whereby the only conclusion allowed is that Harrington’s a fool because he doesn’t believe in paying policemen and firemen to protect our lives and property.

But the root non-sustainability didn’t disappear just because my critic decided to smear me instead of respond. Or can Mr. Foster point to a single instance of spending in this fashion that isn’t in tatters and arrears? Has it worked in California? How about New York? How about Wisconsin?

And isn’t it funny that it’s generally the places most thoroughly dominated by such union-Democrat bed-hopping alliances that are having the worser times of it? The corrupt and destructive policies of yesterday have become the financially bankrupt economies of today - something which should only surprise those who fail to appreciate the role of the mind in man’s existence.

And then we come to the Big Lie, whereby if one states the opposite of the truth long enough and loud enough it comes to be believed: “The Republicans in Wisconsin are interested in power for power’s sake, exploiting the working class of their state by doing the bidding of the richest and the corporations. It is a shame when ideologues take aim at constitutional ideals meant to strengthen the common man.”

Funny, it looks like the “exploitation” of the “common man” is decidedly in the other direction to me: The average “working class” Joe has had his economic profitability and individual rights negated by a collective firestorm of regulation, regimentation and control. And just what is the crime of the “richest” and the “corporations”? That they have wealth and jobs to offer? Have we sunk so low on the totem pole of second-handedness that we now no longer consider these qualities to be virtues?

Mr. Foster is faking reality and attempting to get away with it. Mr. Foster expects results, but proceeds to negate all their causes. He demands a “living wage” for the “common man,” but fails to address or acknowledge the true source of that wealth. He pines for the utopia of union “collective” rights, yet ignores the fact that all rights can only be held by individuals as individuals: Groups, as such, have no rights above and beyond the individual property rights of its individual members.

No, there can be no such thing as the “right” to abrogate rights, for then all rationality and morality become engulfed by a tidal wave of force and aggression. And it sure is a shame when power-seekers take aim at property protections meant to strengthen the freedom and liberty of all.

Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and a writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

Corporate Bread-Lines Merit Abolition

2011-03-09T06:33:00.003-07:00

A "local" piece, published in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle under the title of "Data center rides in on taxpayers' backs" on March 5th, 2011.

Corporate Bread-Lines Merit Abolition

By Bradley Harrington

“The substitution of economic planning for the market economy removes all freedom and leaves to the individual merely the right to obey.” - Ludwig von Mises, “Human Action,” 1949 -

If there’s anything worse than someone just taking over an economy, it can only be someone who wants to “manage” it instead. And if there’s anything worse than stealing a man’s money to give it to someone who didn’t earn it just because they’re poor, it can only be giving it to someone who didn’t earn it just because they’re rich.

But all of that, and more, is included in Cheyenne’s latest example of both:

“A $5 million data center that would provide 25 full-time jobs may locate in Cheyenne. Denver-based Thought Equity Motion Inc. plans to open here in four to six months in the Jonah Financial Center on Pershing Boulevard. The company’s CEO and founder Kevin Schaff said the jobs would pay at least $47,000 per year.” (“Proposed data center to employ 25 workers in Cheyenne,” Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, March 1st.)

Which, on the face of things, is great news. Who could possibly be against 25 new jobs coming to town?

But the real meat of this story is buried in the middle: “On Monday, the Cheyenne City Council applied for a Wyoming Business Council grant of $2,250,000 to assist the data center with the costs of electric power and broadband Internet.”

That, of course, changes things considerably: Yes, the data center’s coming to town. Riding in on the rail of corporate “welfare,” whereby Thought Equity Motion receives a fat subsidy of taxpayer-funded $2.25 million, nearly half the data center’s net worth - and all for just showing up.

Shucks, half of my net worth would have bought me a steak dinner when I rolled into town, but no one popped up to offer me one when I arrived. I guess that gravy train must have been a few tracks over.

And the purpose of this plunder? Why, to “create jobs” of course. Which is about like saying we’re going to make work by shoveling piles of dirt from one location to another. Did it ever occur to any of our esteemed governing body members to ask themselves what us taxpayers would have done with that money had we been allowed to keep it?

We would have bought things. Like maybe a lawn mower. Or some animal feed. Or a washer and dryer set. Or who knows? Whatever we decided we needed. All of which would have employed individuals in each of those various production areas as they provided us with that product or service.

Or maybe we would’ve saved it instead. Even better, for in that role dollars do much more than merely buy existing products in the marketplace: By serving as part of a larger body of capital accumulation they are actually used to create new wealth and new jobs that didn’t exist before.

In either case, all of it disappeared into the taxing authority’s insatiable maw instead. Poof. But it’s hard to see the true results of such action, for how can you point to a pile of wealth or a collection of jobs that don’t exist? But would have, absent the tax?

So…Yes, a subsidy can “create” jobs, in the sense that jobs can come into existence in the subsidized sector of the economy that were not previously present. But only at the expense of other, unseen, lost jobs in other sectors of the economy impacted by the tax. At $47,000 per year, that subsidy could have funded nearly 50 employment positions in the private sector. So much for government’s ability to ever “create” even one job.

But the laughs get louder: “Schaff, a University of Wyoming graduate, said the grant is an incentive to establish the data center in Wyoming. The money makes Wyoming a cost-effective state to do business.”

How are we to interpret this? That Mr. Schaff doesn’t consider Wyoming to be “cost-effective” unless it has a subsidy to fork over? Sure sounds like it. And this is the kind of “entrepreneurship” we want to foster in our state? What’s Mr. Schaff going to do for production when his subsidy runs out?

People who have fair and legitimate products and services to offer the public don’t need subsidies to do it, they simply hang out their shingle in the marketplace and start producing. The fact that Mr. Schaff can’t do that without fleecing us first tells us taxpayers everything we need to know about how he does “business.”

And the bureaucrats themselves? Cheyenne’s governing body and the Wyoming Business Council? These people need to learn some basic economics. One does not achieve “growth” through the redistribution of looted wealth, but only through private spending and investment. And the best way to foster that growth is by providing a sane structure of property-rights protection, i.e., a level playing field whereby all players can count on the same laws being enforced properly and equally across the board.

Such a playing field, virtually non-existent in every state of the union, would attract more private-sector capital than any “Wyoming Business Council” heist could ever hope to bring about. What do we have instead? Corporate bread-lines that merit nothing but abolition.

Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and a writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

And The Rot Rolls On

2011-02-23T06:54:00.002-07:00

A "national" piece, out for publication.

And The Rot Rolls On

By Bradley Harrington

“Creation comes before distribution - or there will be nothing to distribute. The need of the creator comes before the need of any possible beneficiary.” - Ayn Rand, “The Fountainhead,” 1943 -

For anyone truly interested in observing a concrete instance of ideas in action - of politics as an extension of ethics - Wisconsin’s current crisis of debt, budget cuts and union manipulation is a classic example of it.

“More than 10,000 union public employees and supporters packed the Capital Square and the inside of the statehouse on Tuesday to protest Gov. Scott Walker’s budget plan to strip many bargaining rights from state and local government workers.” (“Thousands of Wisconsin union workers protest budget plan,” Reuters, Feb. 15th.)

At the root of Gov. Walker’s attempts to scale back the unions is the yawning $3.6 billion deficit for Wisconsin state spending over the next two years.

And the unions are having a stroke. Today, as of this writing, tens of thousands more protestors are stuffing Madison’s squares and chairs full up, the whole lot of them braying and bleating about Gov. Walker’s “union-busting” proposals.

But two cold realities underlie this entire circus, which cannot be ignored or evaded by repetitious chants or the Wisconsin Democrats fleeing the state: (1) The state is going broke, and (2) Excessive union compensation plans are the major cause of it. Consider:

“Weekly earnings are $917 for the typical union worker employed by state government in the U.S. That compares with $703 for the comparable wage-and-salary worker in the private sector.” (“Wisconsin: Ground zero in battle over clout of labor unions in U.S.,” Christian Science Monitor, Feb 19th.)

And bennies? “Union compensation is higher for government workers than for non-government workers…The cost of hourly benefits averaged $13.85 per hour in the public sector in the third quarter of 2010…By contrast, private sector benefits averaged $8.20 per hour.”

Nice. Who says you can’t live better working union? That’s an extra $440. Per week. Per “worker.” Given that kind of gravy, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out the kind of budget-balancing money Wisconsin stands to save.

Prying a public-sector union away from its tax-funded nipple, however, is much easier said than done. In the old days some unions wouldn’t even blink at using lies, intimidation and force to achieve their “benefits,” but today’s unions have learned a more modern lesson: That all problems associated with such tactics can be avoided by saddling up with the state and letting government’s tax-collecting guns do the dirty work instead.

But such actions come with social and economic consequences, for the plundering of the productive to support and satisfy the ever-growing whims of the non-productive is non-sustainable. For any political entity engaging in such self-sacrificial stupidity for any length of time, there can only be one result: Ballooning costs and budget deficits.

And isn’t that a scenario we see playing out all over the country? Look at states like New York and California, running deficits larger than the entire country’s of 75 years ago. Observe our large cities as they rot and decay from the core on out, bankrupt, clobbered silly by the very same leftist ideological forces of evil now running rampant all over Madison. Still don’t think ideas have impact?

Detroit, the city of my youth, a once-proud, once-vibrant population center of 1.8 million, has devolved into but a shell of its former self, a Starnesville straight out of Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged,” eaten alive bit by horrifying bit by the creed of the second-hander. Nearly half the city has fled since those days of glory. Most of those who have something to offer, are offering it elsewhere - and most of those who don’t, remain and continue sucking a “welfare” system dry that is just about out of victims.

And that’s it, folks, that’s the end of the statist road: poverty and collapse. Anyone else besides the greedy unions care to see the rest of America looking like Detroit? The existence, and continued milking of, the first-handers, the producers, is the primary prerequisite else the whole scheme collapses.

But the Wisconsin unions don’t give a damn about any of that. They, for now, still have a ready supply of victims to plunder, so let the rot roll on. But the final joke might soon be on them: As events in Wisconsin are making clear, you are beginning to see the day when the looters’ checks start bouncing as overdrawn.

Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and a writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

Critiquing A Critique

2011-02-23T06:34:00.002-07:00

A "local" piece, published in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle under the title of "Since when is it 'ethical' to ignore officials' lies?" on February 19th, 2011.

Critiquing A Critique

By Bradley Harrington

“In America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them.” - Alexis de Tocqueville, “Democracy in America,” 1835 -

I normally expect to get a fair amount of flack for what I write. Any writer who makes it his purpose, at least in part, to expose moral, social and political errors without worrying too much about what some of the involved individuals might think about it, should expect that. It’s part of the territory.

Most of it comes from the very types of people I often write about: grafters, manipulators, special-interest lobbyists and sundry other power-seeking riff-raff, hollering because they’re worried someone might actually begin to just think about pinching their pork. That drivel generally contains no serious intellectual content and merely functions as sludge in the realm of ideas.

On occasion, however, there’s the type of critique, such as that raised by Donald Gerstein in last Sunday’s Wyoming Tribune-Eagle (“Attacks on teacher not founded in good journalism,” Feb. 13th), that so strikes right to the root of an issue’s essentials that it simply screams out for detailed discussion.

Mr. Gerstein didn’t like what I’ve recently had to say about teacher Amy Simpson’s Senate File 52 testimony, and he questions not only those statements but also the WTE’s “ethical considerations in allowing Bradley Harrington the majority of its editorial pages of two consecutive Saturdays to engage in a personal attack on WEA representative and teacher Amy Simpson.”

And the basis for Mr. Gerstein’s claim? His own personal experience in journalism 30 years ago, when “we adhered to ethical codes of conduct, primarily as espoused by the Society of Professional Journalists.”

But, while the SPJ’s “Code of Ethics” has much to say about news writing - aside from a generalized statement about the need to be “honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information,” its standards have nothing to offer regarding specific points of writing commentary.

Does this mean, therefore, that anything goes? That a commentary writer can just shoot his mouth off about whatever he likes, whenever he likes, with no concern for truth and the facts? No, of course not. A respect for truth and the facts should always act as the bedrock for any form of writing, news or opinion.

But even though Mr. Gerstein states that I’ve based my “attack on a reporter’s recollection of Ms. Simpson’s testimony” and accuses me of never seeking out “a transcript or recording of the hearing to determine Ms. Simpson’s exact words,” observe that he never argues with the facts themselves.

For the fact is, I did have the facts correct. Ms. Simpson did, indeed, say the things I said she said, as determined by reporter testimony in regard to the first piece and viewing the actual video of the testimony in regard to the second.

So, what’s the point? That I’m not supposed to engage in an evaluation of those facts? But isn’t that precisely what commentary writing is all about? I’ve never claimed that what I write is “news,” although I do use the news - i.e., the events of actual reality - as the basis for all of what I write. Is it my excursion into this apparently taboo area, not to be touched or discussed, that Mr. Gerstein has a problem with? Sure seems like it.

So, in the interests of journalistic integrity: When a host of “journalists” decided to attack the Tea Party, Sarah Palin and Ayn Rand a few weeks ago, bloviating about the roles all three supposedly played in the Tucson shootings, in clear contradiction to the fact that the shooter was an independent moral agent responsible for his own actions - did Mr. Gerstein fire off a Letter To The Editor to correct that lapse of judgment?

Probably not, for all that kind of stuff is considered to be “good to go,” and the purveyors of such trash hardly, if ever, have their integrity or objectivity questioned. Let someone dare to pipe a peep about a greedy union teacher resorting to manipulation to cram her tax-funded reality-tunnel down the rest of our throats just so she can feel “protected” from the real-world consequences of real-world action, however, and you’d better seriously duck for cover fast.

And the funny thing is, Mr. Gerstein doesn’t even seek to challenge my evaluation as incorrect either; he merely considers it to be a “personal attack.” Which means: lies, manipulation and obfuscation are never to be called such and discussed; they are to be accepted as the proper and appropriate given. Rather, it is any attempt at such discussion that seems to qualify as the true transgression. “Courageousness” only goes so far I guess. Do I need to point out what this approach promotes and what it destroys?

And this is what we are to consider as “responsible” journalism. Now my readers know why I never bothered to pursue an official “career” in the field, as even 30 years ago I considered the bulk of it to be little more than constantly-colliding collectivist propaganda. Nor have I seen much in the time in between to really change my mind.

Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

WEA Gravy Train Rolls On

2011-02-14T04:14:00.005-07:00

A "local" piece, published in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle on February 13th, 2011.

WEA Gravy Train Rolls On

By Bradley Harrington

“Anything you get free costs more than it’s worth - but you don’t find it out until later.” - Robert Heinlein, “Expanded Universe,” 1980 -

Well, the Wyoming Education Association (WEA) can now rest easy; it has achieved its main purpose for at least another year. Teaching children their ABC’s? Sorry, afraid not. Ensuring that the state’s educational gravy train continues to roll along as potently as ever, brakeless and clueless, would be a better description:

“The Wyoming Senate on Tuesday defeated a bill that would have reduced employment protections for public school teachers. The Senate voted 18-12 against a bill that would have ended the practice of automatically renewing teacher’s employment contracts after they pass an initial three-year probationary period.” (“Senate rejects ending teacher tenure,” Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, Feb. 9th.)

Consider, for a moment, just what kind of “employment protections” tax-supported “public” teachers enjoy in the state of Wyoming: Should a teacher be deemed incompetent or unsatisfactory by a local school board, that teacher has the right to a hearing - and the right to appeal the results of that hearing as well.

This process can take up to three months, and can cost the school district upwards of $20,000. The results? According to the U.S. Dept. of Education’s 2007-2008 Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, a whopping 2 percent of Wyoming teachers with continuing contract status were dismissed or did not have their contracts renewed.

In the private sector, by comparison, the termination rate for teachers varies from 9-22 percent annually, depending on who you ask and how you ask. Yep, the benefits that Wyoming tax-supported teachers enjoy is what I’d call “protection” all right - a protection racket.

The ability to weed out the few “bad apples” from the bulk of the hard-working producers is an absolute must in any organization - else those “bad apples,” like cancer cells, spread their rot and have an impact far beyond their actual limited numbers. It is precisely this filtering mechanism that tenure laws destroy.

And Senate File 52, quite frankly, was a lukewarm attempt to solve our bad-teacher problem at best. It did not even seek to remove the legal protection of a hearing; it merely changed the wording of termination reasons from “or any other good or just cause” to “any other reason not specifically prohibited by law.” Could you imagine what would have happened to any proposed piece of legislation that actually contained some real teeth? Run out of town on a rail, with the WEA happily waving it goodbye.

So the majority of Wyoming legislators, clearly, have no interest in cleaning up our educational disasters, in the areas of bad teachers or any other area for that matter. They can talk out the sides of their necks all they like about “reform,” but when the rubber meets the road, they simply vote the WEA party line - despite the fact that the WEA’s lobbying tactics have been demonstrated to be little more than status-quo-maintaining, self-serving claptrap. Score a major coup for the union. Who says money can’t buy love?

All of which simply reinforces, in my mind, what I’ve known all along: that true tax-supported, “public” educational reform has a snowball’s chance in Hell of making it past the special interests controlling the entire operation. Surprise, surprise: This is what happens when you decide to separate the system from the real-world accountability of the unfettered marketplace.

For, in that marketplace, no such allowances are made for anyone’s “need” or anyone’s “greed” - you produce the desired result for which you are being paid to produce, or you lose your job. Could you imagine, as the owner of a real business, having to pay $20,000 and spend three months to fire one incompetent employee? And having to bear the consequences of that incompetence throughout that entire period? How long does anyone seriously think paying customers would tolerate it?

Ah, but that’s just the point: For our “public,” tax-supported “educational” system can insulate itself from such market forces with impunity - because it has a gun and you don’t. An act of force that renders your opinion on your children’s teachers’ instructional methods irrelevant at best. What you - the taxpayer funding it all - thinks or believes doesn’t matter one bit.

And, until we start viewing education as a business just like any other productive enterprise instead of as some sacrosanct, not-to-be-touched area of operation, we can continue to expect the same results we’ve been getting for years: the highest-priced mediocrity tax dollars can buy.

And, while that misuse of taxpayer dollars and the consequent destruction of your educational opinion as a parent that flows from it is tragic, that tragedy pales in comparison to an even more brutal fact of reality: that Johnnie and Janie, for at least one more year, can be guaranteed to be spoon-fed the same “educational” pap they’ve been swallowing all along. But we won’t find that out until later, either.

Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

WEA's "Bait And Switch" Tactics Less Than Savory

2011-02-06T13:02:00.003-07:00

A "local" piece, published in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle under the title of "WEA uses bait and switch with its Senate testimony" on February 5th, 2011.

WEA’s “Bait And Switch” Tactics Less Than Savory

By Bradley Harrington

“The problem isn’t that Johnny can’t read. The problem isn’t even that Johnny can’t think. The problem is that Johnny doesn’t know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling.” - Thomas Sowell, “A Conflict of Visions,” 1987 –

In my column of last week, I accused LCSD1 teacher Amy Simpson of “disinformation and deceit” in her testimony to the State Senate Education Committee regarding Senate File 52, the proposed legislation to axe teacher tenure.

I did so because Mrs. Simpson had discussed her “terrifying” teaching experiences in Minnesota where, according to her testimony, she had found herself “in a situation” without “continuing contract” status. I pointed out that Minnesota does, indeed, have such status for its public school teachers, and has for decades - and, in an email to the Senate Education Committee and the Wyoming Education Association's (WEA) board of directors, I pointed it out again.

Kathryn Valido, president of the WEA, was kind enough to respond as follows: “Perhaps you are not aware that there are private schools in Minnesota that are not required to honor the state continuing contract law. Mrs. Simpson certainly is; that is the situation she referenced in her honest testimony - her experience teaching in a private setting.”

Oh, I see. OK, so, let me make sure I have this straight:

Teacher tenure, in Wyoming and everywhere else, is something that only applies to the “public” school system; as we all know, private schools suffer no such constraints. Therefore it follows that any proposed piece of legislation that seeks to abolish tenure, such as Senate File 52, would, itself, also only apply to the “public” system as well.

Then, in a committee hearing to discuss the merits or demerits of such a proposal - a discussion which would naturally be assumed by all concerned to be taking place within the context of the legislation’s potential scope of operations, i.e., within the context of the “public” school system - Mrs. Simpson first supplies testimony regarding her experiences with “continuing contract” procedures in Colorado. So far, so good.

But, next? Shifting gears completely, Mrs. Simpson then begins discussing her “situation” in Minnesota regarding the lack of such procedures - but never bothers to tell anybody that those experiences were gained in a private school setting instead.

And, while information or experience from outside of that context could legitimately be of relevance in ongoing debate, principles of honesty and integrity would certainly declare that such a shift of context be stated at the outset, don’t you think? For Mrs. Simpson to fail to inform the Senate Education Committee that her testimony against Senate File 52, a “public” school measure, related to private school experience was disingenuous at best.

While such a bait-and-switch technique permits Mrs. Simpson to dodge the bullet of telling outright lies to the committee, of course, I’m not sure it leaves either her or the WEA union in a much better position. Consider:

How many times have we heard “public” school teachers and their unions yammer that comparing the “public” vs. private systems is unfair? That the public system is constrained by bad students that have to be accepted, for instance, whereas the private system can refuse admission to anyone they please, and that this fact skews the results? That comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges?

Well, I guess that only matters when the tax-supported teachers and their unions want to gloss over any attempt to analyze the reasons for their colossal failures. When they seek to use those privately-based experiences in a public context for their own nefarious purposes, however - well then apparently anything goes. And they’ll just kind of slide past even bothering to tell you that’s what they’re doing.

And this, folks, is what the WEA president calls “honest testimony.” You have got to be kidding. If nothing else emerges from this entire fiasco, you can count on this much at the least: the WEA has had its credibility and integrity, such that it ever existed to begin with, shot to Hell.

And those “nefarious purposes”? As I have repeatedly stated in this column on several occasions, they are: the propagation and continuation of cushy, well-paid union jobs despite the fact that Johnny and Janie can’t read, and haven’t been able to do so for decades. Instead of attempting to solve that problem, the teachers union merely seeks to maintain the status quo. And hollers about how all of it is in the name of the very children they are failing to properly teach. Now that takes guts, you have to admit. And cheekiness beyond all measure.

Let’s face it folks: the “public” school system in Wyoming is an absolute disaster. And we busily spend well over $1 billion a year for the right to say that. Clearly, despite decades of union claims to the contrary, it isn’t an issue of dollars after all.

No, the main issue is our teaching methods, which promote a non-conceptual - nay, an anti-conceptual - method of learning best suited to parrots and not individually-thinking human beings. And until we realize that fact and change out teaching methods accordingly, Johnny’s and Janie’s children aren’t going to be able to read worth a hoot either.

So, predicting that the WEA will simply stand firm and attempt to maintain the status quo regarding Wyoming’s “public” education system requires no great leap of the imagination; that’s like predicting an egg is going to splatter when it’s already on its way to the floor.

Of far greater interest than the less-than-savory machinations of the WEA, however, is the question of: Where does the Senate Education Committee stand on these issues? What are their thoughts regarding these kinds of lobbying tactics?

For, when push comes to shove, the WEA only has as much political influence as the State Legislature chooses to give them: In the final analysis, it is the State Legislature’s opinions and the State Legislature’s political power that is being manipulated in such a blatant fashion by the WEA.

What say you, esteemed members of the Senate Education Committee? Isn’t it high time that your voices are heard?

Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

U.S. Foreign Policy: Time To Check Our Premises

2011-02-06T12:14:00.002-07:00

A "national" piece, out for publication...

U.S. Foreign Policy: Time To Check Our Premises

By Bradley Harrington

“Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957 -

If you’ve ever wondered about the world becoming a more dangerous place, and exactly how it is that it’s getting that way, a more eloquent example of it than what is currently happening in the Middle East could scarcely be found.

First, the Tunisians get fed up with their authoritarian government and stage a revolt. Then, similarly, the serfs of Egypt decide they’ve had enough of their despotism too: “‘Mubarak is a dictator. We want him overthrown. The time for reforms is passed. The people have had enough.’” (“Voices from Egypt,” The Ottawa Citizen, Jan. 29th.)

And our problems with this? A “moral conflict,” believe it or not: “As with Iran 30 years ago, American leaders again are wrestling with the moral conflict between Washington's demands for democracy among its friends and strategic coziness with dictatorial regimes seen as key to stability in an increasingly complex world, particularly the Middle East.” (“Analysis: The U.S. moral conundrum in Egypt,” Associated Press, Jan. 31st.)

To which, several things come to mind:

(1) Observe that the goal of “Washington’s demands” is not the institution of limited-state, liberty-protecting forms of governments (i.e., capitalism) but “democracy” (i.e., mob rule) instead - and never the twain shall meet, for the former is based on individual rights and the latter is merely whatever the majority says it is.

What if the majority decides that it is best served by an Islamic fundamentalist theocracy, such as Iran’s? No problem here, apparently. Said regime of which is the aftermath of our previous meddling in the internal affairs of Middle Eastern countries in the first place - and which also happens to be the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s largest opposition bloc, actually founded in Egypt in 1928.

So, on the one hand of the “moral conflict”: If the United States continues promoting “democracy” instead of capitalism, things aren’t going to be looking too good for liberty in Egypt; for the extent to which the Egyptian people’s desires for such a form of social organization are actually driving the current revolt is the extent to which those desires will soon be hijacked by a better-organized and sure-of-what-they-are-after group of theocratic fanatics. And what good can possibly come of that?

(2) And just what kind of “strategic coziness” is possible when the United States, the alleged defender of liberty, individualism and the Rights of Man, seeks to “stabilize” the region by supporting dictators?

These “stabilizations,” the other hand of the “moral conflict,” are the machinations that got us into this “conundrum” to begin with - and, to be fair to President Obama, are not something limited to his particular brand of foreign policy foolishness. It is an approach the United States has taken for several decades, where we have blown untold billions in foreign aid to prop up institutionalized thuggery.

But the entire “conundrum” is a sham, strictly the fallout resulting from our failure to properly check our foreign policy premises: In the real world, such contradictions do not exist. Were we to truly decide that the protection of Israel and the stability of the Middle East were our goals, we would simply tell the Arabs to keep their hands off - under threat of swift and total military reprisal. No meddling needed there; just some spine.

Instead of displaying such guts, however, the United States has chosen to play both ends against the middle - whereby we supply not only Israel with weapons and money, but her enemies as well. (!!) And then we stupidly wonder why everyone in the region hates our guts. This is the kind of contemptible hypocrisy one gets when one abandons principles and mixes one’s premises. And we seriously do not understand why the rule of the brute continues its advance? We’re actually paying for it!

What Tunisia, Egypt and all of the Middle East desperately need are the socio-political principles of capitalism - and the help of a world leader capable of articulating and advancing those principles successfully. Down that road, and no other, lies the future of freedom. But that is a strategy the United States itself rejected a number of years ago - and, in the absence of such principled intellectual leadership, don’t expect for things to bode any better for our “allies” than they’ve been boding for us.

Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and a writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

Lies Prove WEA's Lack Of Intelletual Ammunition

2011-01-30T17:37:00.003-07:00

A "local" piece, published in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle under the title of "WEA uses deceit in its fight against tenure bill" on January 29th, 2011.

NOTE: As published in the WTE, Reed Eckhardt, Executive Editor, chose to replace the word "lie" with other, less libel-magnet-provoking words. He asked for, and did this with, my permission. In my blog post here, however, I am restoring the original text. If the WEA wants to try suing me over this one, bring it on.

They'd be better served, however, by figuring out the best and quickest way to get rid of, and distance themselves from, a teacher who has just blown their credibility sky-high. They've got bigger fish to fry at this point than a libel suit, and I intend to make sure those fish get fried properly.

Lies Prove WEA’s Lack Of Intellectual Ammunition

By Bradley Harrington

“A lie is an act of self-abdication, because one surrenders one’s reality to the person to whom one lies...The man who lies to the world, is the world’s slave from then on.” - Ayn Rand, “Atlas Shrugged,” 1957 -

In the latest round of hearings on Senate File 52, the state legislative proposal to axe teacher tenure, the Wyoming Education Association (WEA) has once again voiced its opposition to the bill:

“Teachers could be fired without good reason if legislators approve a bill to end teacher tenure in Wyoming, critics said Friday. Eighteen people - most of them teachers - spoke against the bill during a hearing before the Senate Education Committee.” (“Teachers oppose tenure proposal,” Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, Jan. 22nd.)

Indeed, saying the WEA opposes that bill is a bit of an understatement, as anyone remotely familiar with this issue knows by now; that the teachers union is fighting it tooth and nail with everything they’ve got would be a better way to put it.

Unfortunately enough for the WEA, however, the “everything they’ve got” can now be shown to include the telling of blatant and demonstrably disprovable lies.

Consider: “Amy Simpson, a teacher in Laramie County School District 1, said she taught in a state that had continuing contract status and one that did not…She taught in Minnesota, a state without a continuing contract law. ‘It was terrifying,’ she said. If that happens in Wyoming, she said she may start looking for a job in another state.”

Chilling testimony, to be sure, virtually guaranteed to make even the most cold-blooded legislator sit up and take note, temporarily overtaken by the imagery evoked by such a fear-laden plea - except that it never happened, for Minnesota does have a continuing contract law for its teachers after all. From the Minnesota Legislature’s website:

“Two sections of Minnesota Statutes govern conditions of continuing employment
for licensed K-12 teachers in Minnesota’s public schools. Section 122A.40
contains general provisions for all teachers’ continuing contract rights except those
teachers teaching in the three first-class city school districts of Minneapolis, St.
Paul, and Duluth. Section 122A.41 contains similar provisions governing the
tenure rights of teachers teaching in the three first-class city school districts.” (“Conditions of continuing employment for K-12 teachers,” Nov., 2002.)

One set of rules, in other words - Section 122A.41 - covers “tenure” in the districts of Minneapolis, St. Paul and Duluth; the other set of rules - Section 122A.40 - covers the “continuing contract” status of all other teachers in all other Minnesota districts.

And, just to make sure that there’s no confusion about what is meant by “tenure” as opposed to “continuing contract,” the document continues: “The terms ‘continuing contract rights’ and ‘tenure rights’ mean that a school district may not dismiss a teacher from a teaching position without first demonstrating the cause for that dismissal. The two terms are equivalent in the procedural protections they afford and are used interchangeably by educators, the courts, and others.”

So, how long has Minnesota had such “continuing contract” protections in place? In a document discussing the history of Minnesota educational policy, the answer is: “In 1927, a tenure law was enacted for teachers in the three major cities: Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Duluth. Teachers in other school districts were granted ‘continuing contract’ rights in 1937.” (“Highlight of state education policies from 1970-2000,” Oct., 2000.)

Yep, teaching in Minnesota without “continuing contract” protection must have been a “terrifying” experience indeed for Mrs. Simpson - so “terrifying” that she found herself catapulted 75 years into the future, as the only way her story could be true was if she had taught in Minnesota back in 1936 at the latest. And, just to make sure and give Mrs. Simpson the benefit of any possible doubt, I double-checked with Becky Orr, the WTE reporter who wrote the story. Yep, that’s what the lady said.

So - is this how the WEA union plays its games? Through lies and deceit? And do I really need to point out that the employment of such techniques only occurs when one has nothing better to offer in the way of intellectual ammunition? The union, clearly, is getting desperate.

And, just in case anyone harbors the thought that Mrs. Simpson is just one rogue, lying teacher, and not representative of the WEA itself, guess again: For Mrs. Simpson actually sits on the WEA’s Board of Directors, as one of its two Southeast Regional Representatives (“WEA Board of Directors").

And the most “terrifying” element of all of this? That Mrs. Simpson actually stands in front of our children on a daily basis and teaches them…what? Your guess is as good as mine - but if her testimony and complete lack of moral scruples are any indication, “How To Lie Through Your Teeth And Get Away With It 101” would be a good place to start.

And, should Senate File 52 ever make its way out of committee and hopefully find itself passed into law, do we really need a rocket scientist to tell us who Wyoming’s first fired teacher afterwards needs to be?

Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

Lies Contribute Nothing To Educational Agenda

2011-01-24T05:59:00.004-07:00

A "local" piece, published in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle under the title of "Is WEA a union? Yes, by every measure" on January 22nd, 2011.

Lies Contribute Nothing To Educational Agenda

By Bradley Harrington

“To the best of my recollection, I must recall on my memory, I cannot remember.” - Jimmy Hoffa, International Brotherhood of Teamsters organizer, Senate Hoffa hearings, 1957 -

Last week, when I likened the Wyoming Education Association (WEA) teachers union to the “fixed guild systems of feudalistic days of old” and characterized it as “nothing more than a force for stagnation” (“Teachers union simply a force for stagnation,” Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, Jan. 15th), I knew that I could expect rebuttals.

Letter writer Kenneth Svigel, for instance, declares: “For your information, they [the WEA] aren’t a union they are an organization.”

Mr. Svigel presumes that being a member of the latter rules out being a member of the former, but Merriam-Webster’s definition of “union” begs to differ: “An organization of workers formed to advance its members’ interests, especially in reference to wages and working conditions.”

And this doesn’t apply to the WEA? I hardly think so, for the WEA’s website itself states quite clearly (in “Who we are”) that it seeks to “work to upgrade salaries, working conditions and learning conditions in public schools.”

Whether the WEA has anything positive to offer in terms of “learning conditions” is highly debatable, but the first two parts of that sentence pound the point home: Yes, Mr. Svigel, the WEA is an “organization.” A union organization. End of story.

But I can’t help but wonder: For what reason does Mr. Svigel seek to dissociate the WEA union from the “union” label? Why the dodging? Could it possibly be connected to the negative perceptions of unions in most people’s minds? Perceptions critics such as Mr. Svigel would rather avoid?

You know, perceptions such as pension-plundering schemes and bricks through scabs’ windows in the dark of the night. Thugging up workers willing to cross a picket line. Those kinds of things. The kinds of things Jimmy Hoffa used to love to do.

The same kind of perceptions, indeed, that have been partly responsible for the steady decline of private-sector union memberships for decades: “As a percent of employed workers, union membership peaked in 1954 at 28.3 percent. In 2003, 11.5 percent of employed workers were union members.” (Gerald Mayer, Congressional Research Service, “Union membership trends in the United States,” 2004.)

While private sector-unions have been shrinking, however, the same cannot be said of government unions such as the WEA: “More public-sector employees (7.9 million) belonged to a union than did private-sector employees (7.4 million), despite there being five times more wage and salary workers in the private sector.” And: “Workers in education, training, and library occupations had the highest unionization rate at 38.1 percent.” (“Union members summary,” Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010.)

Nor does it take a rocket scientist to figure out why: Because public-sector unions have learned how to barter union dues for statist political support, and the WEA hardly qualifies as an exception in that category. WEA money flows to the political hacks most willing to support the ongoing scam of unionized membership, as with the WEA’s support of Democrat Mike Massie in the 2010 elections. And that’s a surprise?

Moving on, Mr. Svigel also had some negative things to say about Wyoming’s status as a “right to work for less state,” but they weren’t really printable.

Yes, Wyoming - along with 21 other states - is a “right to work” state, which means: Sorry, unions cannot by law accrue the monopolistic “closed shop” powers they enjoy throughout the rest of the United States, whereby they cram their ridiculously overblown demands down employers’ throats whether those businesses like it or not. And that’s a problem? Cry me a river.

What Mr. Svigel won’t bother to tell you is that by any economic indicator you care to name, “right to work” states consistently outperform their “non” brethren: In growth for non-farm private-sector employees from 1995-2005, for instance, the American Legislative Council’s research determined that “right to work” states scored 12.6 percent, over twice the 6 percent score for the “nons.” (“Rich states, poor states,” ALEC, 2009.)

And, when ranking all 50 states according to five different measurements of economic growth, nine of the top 10 (including Wyoming in fourth place) were “right to work” states. Oops. Another bogus union claim blown out of the water by the truth.

And, finally, amongst all the rest of his distortions, Mr. Svigel claims that “teacher pay is woefully low.” Really? According to documentation posted on the Wyoming State Legislature’s website, the average Wyoming teacher salary is $57,424, translating into $59,149 for the “12-month comparable wage.” (Dr. Lori Taylor, “Putting teachers in context: A comparable wage analysis of Wyoming teacher salaries,” 2010.)

And, after thoroughly analyzing the data, Dr. Taylor concludes: “Teacher salaries in Wyoming are high not only with respect to teacher salaries in other states, but also with respect to non-teacher salaries in Wyoming.” So much for the “woefully low” noise.

So, for the rest of the critics, how about we stick to the facts instead of mouthing off with lies? Or is it simply the truth about the WEA that you folks fear and seek to hide?

Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

The Teachers Union: A Force For Stagnation

2011-01-16T12:32:00.006-07:00

A "local" piece, published in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle under the title of "Teachers union simply a force for stagnation" on January 15th, 2011.

The Teachers Union: A Force For Stagnation

By Bradley Harrington

“When school children start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children.” - Albert Shanker, former President of the American Federation of Teachers, 1985 -

If anyone has ever had any doubts that the Wyoming Education Association (WEA) is nothing but a force for stagnation when it comes to educating our kids, that union’s latest sorry defense of teacher tenure should serve to dispel all doubts:

“A legislative proposal to end teacher tenure in Wyoming would devastate school reform efforts in the state, teachers union officials say.” (“Teachers union fears tenure bill,” Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, Jan. 7th.)

Really? And why is that? “I think teachers are going to be less apt to take risks; they’re going to be less apt to try new and different approaches,” said WEA President Kathryn Valido.

Would that be the same teachers, by and large, who have done so little in the way of “new and different approaches” to lift our students out of the swamp of mediocrity they’ve been drowning in for decades? If it’s teacher tenure and union membership that are the guiding lights for the “risk-taking” so essential to correcting the disasters of our educational establishment - then how does Ms. Valido explain the last 50 years?

Instead of admitting that Wyoming’s public educational system is a catastrophe, however - where the Wyoming Department of Education reported last year that of all of our college-bound students, “About 24 percent needed help in reading” - the WEA’s website chooses to trumpet the claim that “Wyoming public schools are achieving like never before.”

Sure. What achievements? That remedial “help” our students need is in reading, folks. The most basic thing a school can teach. And that’s our college students, folks. The best of the bunch. And, after 12 years at the hands of the teachers union, one-quarter of them can’t read. Clearly, the WEA thinks if it tells its bald-faced lie loud enough and often enough, the rest of us fools might actually come to believe it.

No, the WEA has little interest in education - and more of an interest in maintaining the gravy train of ever-flowing union dues through ongoing teacher membership.

And, as with all unions, that revenue stream sets powerful economic forces into motion. Instead of performing the tasks the teachers are there to perform, the union’s focus shifts towards propagating its own existence by perpetuating a large population of warm bodies who continue to fund the organization.

And this is certainly borne out by my own personal experience with unions - where, in restaurants earlier in my working career, I was repeatedly warned by union representatives to “slow down” on my cook’s line because I was making everyone else “look bad.” My work needed to be “just good enough to get by” and I needed to quit “standing out.” So much for the non-reality of union “risk-taking.” You’d get more results asking the stars themselves to reverse their courses.

And, as further evidence of the true interests of WEA leaders, observe the fashion in which they spend those dues: On political campaigns geared towards the election of state educrats who would, if elected, act to preserve the union’s stranglehold on the system. Such as the WEA’s recent support for Democrat Mike Massie’s failed run for State Superintendent of Public Instruction.

And, in this adventure, the WEA’s political tactics mirror the actions of the National Education Association, the granddaddy of all teachers unions, where the Cato Institute has reported that “Of the NEA’s $30 million in federal campaign contributions since 1990, 93 percent has gone to Democrats of the Democratic Party.” (Andrew Coulson, “The effects of teachers unions on American education,” The Cato Journal, Vol. 30, No. 1, Winter, 2010.)

Mr. Coulson’s thesis states that “Public school employee unions are politically partisan and polarizing institutions,” and that’s certainly a strike thrown right down the WEA’s alley. Politically, it opposes the abolition of teacher tenure; is opposed to merit pay for teachers; and has no interest whatsoever in any kind of concrete and objective methods for teacher evaluations.

And all of it, believe it or not, in the name of “school reform.” You have got to be kidding.

But don’t confuse Ms. Valido with the facts: Claiming that a legislative deep-sixing of tenure “would give school districts the power to fire good teachers without good reason,” she urged lawmakers to kill the bill.

But why would a school official or administrator fire someone for doing a good job? That’s the kind of action you’d expect a union to take. Can’t have anybody making the rest of the herd “look bad,” remember?

And, in the case where a school district does employ such lame officials or administrators, which happens, the answer would be to fire that official or administrator - not to mire the rest of the institution in the same lethargic ineptitude.

Like the fixed guild systems in feudalistic days of old, the WEA has no interest in the dynamic, transformative processes of a free-flowing labor pool. They simply want to continue the guaranteed ticket, as they've had for decades, paid for with your tax dollars. We’ll stay fools if we continue giving it to them.

Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

Free Will's Role Snuffed In Tucson Shooting

2011-01-16T11:55:00.005-07:00

A "national" piece, first published in the Deming Headlight on January 18th, 2011.

Free Will’s Role Snuffed In Tucson Shooting

By Bradley Harrington

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” - Rahm Emanuel, former White House Chief of Staff, 2008 -

As we all know by now, Tucson was recently the scene of a horrific shooting, killing six and wounding more:

“A shooting at a town hall-style event Saturday in Tucson, Ariz., left six dead, including a federal judge, and critically wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who police said was the target of the attack.” (“Death toll from Arizona shooting spree,” Fox News, Jan. 8th.)

I’ve deliberately waited awhile before discussing this event, as I wanted to observe the procession of debate itself. And what a sorry procession it’s been.

Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik started things rolling immediately after the shooting when, during a news conference, he stated that “the anger, the hatred, the bigotry has gotten out of control.” (“Giffords shooting in Arizona may cool U.S. political rhetoric, hurt Palin,” Bloomberg News, Jan. 9th.)

And, while Dupnik didn’t label the Tea Partiers as the bigots he was referring to at that time, he had no such qualms against doing so last year: “Sheriff Clarence Dupnik went after the tea party this weekend at an immigration forum, saying its members are bigoted. ‘We didn’t have a tea party until we had a black president,’ Dupnik said.” (“Pueblo politics: Dupnik calls tea party members bigots,” Arizona Daily Star, Sept. 20th, 2010.)

Nor did it take very long for the rest of the mainstream media’s left-wing machine to crank into high gear and do what Dupnik failed to do, i.e., explicitly name the objects of their hatred: the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, Ayn Rand, and maybe George Washington too for all I know.

A sampling of their bile:

“Today, I think we can say incontrovertibly that violent political rhetoric and the threat of political violence in this country comes almost exclusively from the right.” (Eugene Robinson, Washington Post Associate Editor, MSNBC News interview, Jan. 8th.)

And, on WDBZ’s 1230 AM radio station blog in Cincinnati, Ohio, poster “WDBZ” reported that: “Loughner listed Ayn Rand’s ‘We Are Living’ as one of his favorite books. Ayn Rand is Tea Party hero credited with inspiring its philosophy.” [sic] (“5 reasons that the AZ shooter Jared Loughner is a teabagger,” http://www.thebuzzcincy.com/, Jan. 10th.)

Ayn Rand’s book is actually titled “We The Living” - and the fact that Loughner also listed “The Communist Manifesto” and “Mein Kampf” as his favorite books as well, simply indicates that Loughner read different things. I’ve read all three of those books too, and a number of others on Loughner’s YouTube profile list to boot - but I’m not out shooting Congresswomen.

And one could just as easily argue, as some have done, that subsequent information regarding Loughner’s political inclinations actually place him on the Left: “As I knew him, he was left-wing, quite liberal,” said one of his former classmates, Caitie Parker. (“Arizona suspect’s recent acts offer hints of alienation,” The New York Times, Jan. 8th.)

But all of the so-called “debate” about Loughner’s place on the political spectrum, while possibly illuminating as to motive, is really irrelevant: for none of it bears any relation to the fact of free choice in free human action. The rest of us, Left, Right, or Whatever, aren’t picking up guns and shooting either. When do we start holding ourselves as responsible for our own actions instead of blaming the writings of others?

But it’s certainly amusing to observe the Left’s calls for “tolerance” in Tucson’s wake: Michelle Obama, for instance, in an open letter to parents regarding their children, encouraged them to “teach them the value of tolerance.” (“An open letter to parents following the tragedy in Tucson,” http://www.whitehouse.gov/, Jan. 13th.)

Really? Would that be the same kind of “tolerance” Mrs. Obama’s husband expressed towards Republicans back in 2008 when he said: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”? (“Obama: ‘If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,’” Wall Street Journal, June 14th, 2008.)

And Sarah Palin’s being blasted as evil because she placed a target symbol over Giffords’ district in the 2010 elections? So much for “toleration.”

Never failing to let a “serious crisis go to waste,” however, the Left’s pundits are now busily yammering for gun control - which is like slimming down fat people by taking away their forks. And about as stupid, and proves that six lives weren’t all that got snuffed in Tucson: Free will and self-responsibility, RIP as well.

Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and a writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

The Cheyenne Herald: Is The War ON?

2011-01-10T05:29:00.006-07:00

In addition to the main daily paper here in Cheyenne, the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, which I write a weekly column for, another paper exists as well: The Cheyenne Herald, a bi-weekly tab, produced solely by a gentleman by the name of David Featherly. With rare exceptions, he writes the entire content of the Herald, and serves as an occasionally useful offset to the WTE, covering news and events sometimes not covered by the WTE and from a decidedly different editorial perspective.

In addition to his print editions, Mr. Featherly also posts all of his articles and commentaries online in PDF format here.

Mr. Featherly has taken a few swipes at me here and there, but always been ambiguous enough so that his rants merely constitute his opinion, and he has never bothered to name me my name.

In his last issue, however, of Dec. 28th, in an article by the name of "Teacher Tenure," he decided to take the gloves off and deal with me a little more in-depth than his usual one-or-two-sentence drive-bys.

This piece below is what I chose to email him in return. And, since I doubt very strongly that he'll have the guts to print it, as he NEVER prints anything critical to his own name, I'm reproducing it here.

********************

Hello Mr. Featherly:

My, but you have truly outdone yourself this time. I refer to your article, “Teacher Tenure,” published in the Cheyenne Herald’s Dec. 28th issue. Normally, I would not have believed that someone could include so many incorrect statements in such a short space, but you have proved me wrong.

Let’s start off with your opening line, “I have often made the point here that I am leery of anyone who is ‘too’ anything. Too religious. Too honest. Too faithful. Too straight. A ‘too’ person is suspect and evidence often bears out why.”

Since you don’t bother to offer any evidence of that claim, there’s not much to refute, except the actual claim itself: That being “too” something is a bad thing per se. For make no mistake about it, you aren’t merely claiming that you have an issue with any particular examples of “too-ness,” such as the ones you listed; your use of the word “anything” makes it clear that your problem is with the very concept of “too-ness” itself.

To which I would ask: Really? So, you must think it’s a bad thing for someone to be too intelligent. Or too healthy. Or to have too much integrity. Or to get the right answers too much of the time. Which can only mean: you prefer your people to be just a little stupid; to possess just a little disease; to lie just a little every now and then; and to get it wrong at least some of the time. Yes? Great company you keep. And is it safe to assume that you, yourself, are a representative of this approach as well?

You speak of the “evidence bearing out why”; I have a similar story. I’ve noticed, over the years, that the people who have the biggest problems with absolute values, who seek the most not to be judged according to the actual facts of reality, are the ones who are looking for a blank check on their actions, who seek co-signers for their failures, and who most wish to avoid the rigors of a principled moral code. Do I need to point out what kind of evils are promoted, and what kinds of goods are crushed, by such an outlook? Moral relativism disengages man’s actions from both judgment and justice, thereby trashing morality completely - yet I notice that you have no problem, yourself, with making such blanket condemnations on a regular basis.

And, indeed, your very next paragraph is a perfect example: “I also shy away from using absolutes when describing things. I have found that there are exceptions to every rule and to throw everyone of a common thread into one class doesn’t hold up.” “Exceptions,” you say…to every rule? How about the rule that people shouldn’t kill one another except in self-defense? Or the rule that 2 plus 2 equals 4? It would be interesting to hear what you consider to be valid exceptions to these, and a thousand other such, rules.

And, furthermore, isn’t the very statement that “There are no absolutes” itself an absolute? Which, if true, would mean that your original statement is false. But if it’s false, then it can’t be true, now can it? This, in philosophy, is known as an infinite regression of logical contradiction, the contemplation of which is often the chief delight of the intellectually feeble-minded. But whatever you want to call it, it bears no resemblance to actual reality. Again, the relativism of such an approach is quite apparent - and, again, to say that “everything is relative” can only mean that that statement is, itself, “relative” as well. So much for that circular nonsense.

Which is not to say, of course, that it’s right and proper to over-generalize and assume that all members of a group share identical characteristics by virtue of their membership in that group, for they do not. Yet it’s pretty difficult to count on your ability not to over-generalize when I see statements such as this:

“There are those, like a paid ‘columnist’ in other local media…who say, or suggest, that all teachers are bad and all public employees are lazy and overpaid.”

Really? Care to quote me on that? I challenge you, right here and right now, to produce ANY statement that I have ever made, in any article I have ever written anywhere, that even suggests that, much less actually states it. Indeed, in regard to teachers, I made the following statement - and in the very article you are referring to: “This is not to say that our schools here in Cheyenne don’t have some high-quality teachers.” And, if that wasn’t enough for over-generalizers such as yourself, whom I saw coming from miles off, I even devoted a paragraph to naming two of them: “Nathan Breen at Central High and Paul Crips at Carey Junior High, to name just two, are sterling examples of what is possible when teachers dedicate their time and energy to the educational process, and the results these men obtain with students speak for themselves.” (All quotes from “Let’s slaughter sacred cow of teacher tenure,” WTE, Dec. 18th, 2010.)

As for the public employees, in discussing Mr. McDonald’s attempted money grab of a few months ago, I said: “Now, to be fair, I don’t know that all city employees share Mr. McDonald’s viewpoint. Many of them, I’d wager, are just glad to have a job in today’s economic climate and are happy with what they have.” (“City bonuses: Mayor Kaysen slaps us right in the face,” WTE, Oct. 23rd.) And, when responding to Mr. Oisten’s (former city employee) rant of last spring, where he said, “So give the non-uniformed employees a break will ya? We just as human as you,” I said: “My call for layoffs and pay cuts is not to be interpreted, as you seem to think, as a heartless lack of recognition for honest work performed by the bulk of our city employees.” (“A city worker responds,” WTE, March 30th.)

So please spare me the over-generalized bilge present in this piece of trash article of yours; either present the facts or shut the hell up. We have more than enough distortions, misrepresentations and falsifications going on throughout the country today without you hysterically adding to the mix. I don’t’ believe that you have any interest in journalistic integrity at all; you merely use your paper as a weapon, childishly lashing out at whomever and whatever irritates your non-absolute “standards” of “objectivity” - i.e., of your whims.

And, since your alleged justifications for trashing me in your rag are all hereby proved as nonsense, the only conclusion I can draw is that you don’t like me for reasons you don’t care to name publicly - which is pretty cowardly if you ask me. If you have a problem with my ideas, and care to discuss them, bring it on. In my estimate however, based on what you spew, having some good old-fashioned guts isn’t very high on your list of non-absolutes either.

The rest of your rant, as it relates to teacher tenure, is full of more than a few misconceptions as well, and it is quite clear to me that you have no grasp of the free-market functioning of a completely privatized educational system, or of the benefits that would accrue to everyone in society as a result thereof. And, were I so inclined as to deem you teachable, I’d take the time and energy to discuss them with you. But why bother, when pompous pontifications is all I can expect in return? I’ll save my breath on that front for someone worthy of it.

As for the “Marine” statement at the end of the articles I write - most writers submit a sentence or two about themselves, a short “bio,” that says a little something about them. Since I don’t have the “virtue” of having attended some BS college somewhere and having gained some BS degree - indeed, I never even made it out of high school properly, having chosen to end the indoctrination in the 11th grade - I don’t have any high-falootin’ nonsense like “Brad Harrington got his Piled-Higher-And-Deeper degree at Jerkwater University in the field of Snow-Your-Readers-With-Collectivist-Twaddle” to place as an addendum to what I write. The USMC was the one thing in my life that I did right, in reality and on paper, and I am proud of the (limited, admittedly) time that I served. When I first started writing again a few years ago, after a 15-year hiatus as a result of my former drug usage, it occurred to me to place that on the end of my pieces, and no one has presented me with a good reason why I shouldn’t as of yet. Or did you have one to offer?

So, in closing, there is one other issue I’d like to address, for it has occurred to me that you will get all psychically-wounded by this email and vindictively seek to use your weapon-rag-paper as a means of getting even with me. Bring that on, too. Run all the backgrounds you want. You won’t find anything in my past that I haven’t already splattered all over the pages of the WTE myself last year. (For, I might add, precisely the purpose of defusing any such attempts on the part of members of city government upset with me for calling them on their trash. But it’ll work the same way for you as well.) Should you care to refer to that original article, since the WTE does not put its columnists online, you’ll have to go to my blog to review the piece:

http://timeforeverymantostir.blogspot.com/2010/07/part-2-torture-of-atrophied-mind.html

If you want the actual dirt on the details, do the homework yourself. But let me give you fair warning: You’d better stick to the facts. Get it straight or don’t bother. Try to pull the distortionist tricks you’ve already demonstrated a huge propensity for, and the war’s on; I will drag you into court and sue your silly shorts off. And do it with a smile, and as a salute to the absolute values I’ve learned over the years to cherish so highly.

Other than that, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and yours as well.

With Regards,
Brad Harrington

********************

And, in closing here, I'm sure I haven't heard the last of Mr. Featherly. Which doesn't bother me a damn bit, for he has absolutely no idea just who he is dealing with. If he wants to find out, however, I'm in the mood for a good editorial rumble.

Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and a writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

Some Agenda Items Worthy Of Consideration

2011-01-10T05:21:00.003-07:00

A "local" piece, published in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle under the title of "Advice for City Council as Cheyenne enters 2011" on January 8th, 2011.

Some Agenda Items Worthy Of Consideration

By Bradley Harrington

“That government is best which governs least.” - Henry David Thoreau, “Civil Disobedience,” 1849 -

As the new year dawns before us, some changes on the City Council bear mentioning:

(1) The retirement of Judy Case of Ward 1. “I’ll be short, I won’t speak my mind, that’s over,” said Mrs. Case as she received a plaque from Mayor Kaysen recognizing her 12 years of service.

And that’s too bad in my opinion, for Mrs. Case’s speaking of her mind as many times as she felt it necessary was often the only thing that brought critical city council business to the attention of the public she always felt accountable to. Her “No” votes, while usually overrun by the council’s “progressive” majority, still served to foster debate and highlight important points that would have otherwise been glossed over by that majority’s stampede to tax and spend. Mrs. Case, your voice will be missed more than you know.

(2) The seating of Sean Allen of Ward I, Mrs. Case’s replacement. Congratulations, Mr. Allen - and may you have half the guts of your predecessor, for you are going to need them. Or will you, too, consider your oath to the Constitution of the United States to be merely words, ignored whenever it suits you? Time will tell.

(3) The election of Dr. Rinne as Council President and Jim Brown as Vice-President. Hopefully Mr. Brown’s more conservative approach will help offset Dr. Rinne’s profligate ways, but don’t hold your breath. As a staunch member of the “progressive” majority, Dr. Rinne is sure to employ his engaging style as a vehicle for blowing ever more tax dollars best left in the pockets of city residents. Time to watch your wallets.

And, speaking of what we can continue to expect of that “progressive” majority, Georgia Broyles, another hard-core proponent of that approach, had the following comments to make: “I look forward to some wonderful things in 2011, hopefully our budget will be a little bit greater, the economy’s turning around and I look forward to some really good things, hopefully we will have some more money to work with.”

Uh-oh. Sounds like Mrs. Broyles really didn’t learn much from our recession, which was the byproduct on a national level of what she loves to do locally: tax and spend. She just can’t wait for it to hurry up and be over so it no longer limits the kindness of her heart, whereby she selflessly spends your money as she sees fit.

So, perhaps, some suggestions as to how the 2011 city council members need to operate might be in order:

(1) Remember your oath, where you folks have sworn to “obey and defend” the United States Constitution - and remember that this document was, in essence, a means of limiting the power of the government to meddle in our lives.

The protection of individual rights against the tyranny of the majority was its original, all-encompassing purpose for being written and enacted, and you would do well to apply that lesson locally. The best thing government can do to promote our “well-being” is to provide the infrastructure so essential for the protection of those rights. Otherwise, keep your hands off!

(2) As an offshoot of that philosophy, quit trying to act as an agent of “economic development,” for all you have accomplished by such an approach is to create a “Good ‘Ole Boy” Network (GOBN) that distorts and hinders what would otherwise be the smoothly-functioning laws of supply and demand.

Organizations promoting the machinations of the GOBN, such as the DDA and Cheyenne LEADS, should not be receiving taxpayer dollars to engage in such nonsense. Cheyenne in particular, and Wyoming in general, have plenty to offer producers as incentives to create and invest in our economy if these groups, having gained political power through taxation, would simply scrap their rules and regulations and get out of the way.

Councilman Jack Spiker, you serve on the DDA’s board of directors. How about doing Cheyenne a great favor in 2011 and pushing for its dissolution? That would at least begin to make up for some of the follies implemented during your watch as former Mayor. As of late you’ve been an advocate of fiscal conservatism regarding local budgetary dollars, and that is to your credit; now’s the time to carry that football into the end zone by promoting some real, honest, non-GOBN free-market capitalism.

Or are you, too, like Mrs. Broyles, simply waiting for the bad times to end so you can meddle and spend some more?

(3) And, as a final warning: Don’t be too sure that our bad times are coming to an end after all. Our federal government, now well over $14 trillion in debt and sinking further into the pit with each passing month, is doing little to retract the policies that created this national disaster in the first place. Shy of such retractions, common sense would indicate that the results are to continue.

Which means: Now is the time to be especially watchful and prudent with taxpayer dollars, and to nurture the source of all growth: the private sector. Think those ideas have any place on your agendas?

Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

Our "Educations" Reflect The Power Of Ideas

2011-01-03T03:25:00.003-07:00

A "local" piece, published in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle under the title of "Philosophical rot lies beneath public schools" on January 1st, 2011.

Our “Educations” Reflect The Power Of Ideas

By Bradley Harrington

“School is primarily a social institution…I believe, therefore, that the true center of correlation of the school subjects is not science, nor literature, nor history, nor geography, but the child’s own social activities.” - John Dewey, “My Pedagogic Creed,” 1897 -

I knew, last week, when I referred to the intellectual content of Wyoming’s tax-supported school system as “garbage,” that I would provoke reactions. But I was, I admit, unprepared for this particular reaction:

“I have been brewing over our problems in education for a number of years…After several years of thought it occurred to me that the problems we experience in our schools (and nation-wide) are, unfortunately, symptoms of a much bigger problem, and to deal with the problems in our schools is like the proverbial ‘giving crutches to cripples’ concept without determining the cause of the crippling problem to begin with.” (From a retired local teacher who doesn’t believe his name would be relevant.)

And just that fast, in one paragraph, my reader has placed his finger on the crux of the entire issue: yes, the “public” schools are a disaster, but how did they get that way? What is the driving force behind the educational establishment’s colossal failures?

The short answer is: philosophy. For a hint at the longer answer, re-read the quote at the top of this article - and realize that John Dewey, pragmatist and proponent of the “progressive” theory of education, is the intellectual father of our entire educational system as it exists today.

It was with thanks to Mr. Dewey that our schools began the shift away from “abstract” knowledge to teaching “relevant” knowledge instead - and it was Mr. Dewey, here in America, who first started preaching that the task of the schools was no longer merely to transmit information but to socially adjust students as well.

To “adjust” students to what? To their existence as part of a greater collective. And, by the middle part of the last century, Mr. Dewey’s ideas, then mainstream in their impact, began taking over the tax-supported schools from top to bottom.

And that impact, coupled with government funding of such schools, is what transformed them from institutes of learning into indoctrination camps shortly thereafter. For what government has ever had a use for free-thinking, independent, self-reliant citizens? Throughout the 1960s’ and 1970s’, the theories of Mr. Dewey gave the State a perfect veneer of justification for the collectivization of the entire educational establishment.

And, by the early 1980s’, even a federal commission was declaring what everybody else had come to realize years earlier: “Our nation is at risk. The educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity.” (“A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform,” National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983.)

And what have we done about that problem since then? Here in Wyoming, or anywhere else in the country? You’d think such results would challenge the prevailing “progressive” ideas from which they were spawned - but you’d be wrong. It did no such thing. The Commission called for “higher achievement standards” and “more time devoted to learning basics” instead.

Which is all fine, but only in the context of first scrapping the underlying “progressive” approach lying at the root of the rot. Shy of that, we have simply “progressed” further down the road to intellectual destruction - until, today, the “rising tide” has evolved into a full-blown tsunami of anti-conceptual irrationality.

And we wonder why our kids drop out, suicide, or turn to dope, guns and herds of gangs? With what intellectual equipment, with what traits of individualistic character they’ve had drummed out of them, did we expect them to be able to resist? We’ve turned individual human beings into a collective beehive - and what we’ve gotten is drones.

Education - i.e., the process of learning how to think, to form concepts and to acquire knowledge - is, at root, individual in its nature, and only fit for individual minds to grasp. But observe that our herd mentality of instruction has been in place for so long that it now serves as a cause of the problem as well as an effect. A self-perpetuating cycle of catastrophe run amok.

It’s “progressive” educational ideas that destroyed out school system, and it is only with an eradication of those ideas that our educational renaissance can possibly begin. Philosophy, as the science of ideas, has the last word after all, as it always does. So much for the “pragmatic” theories of the “progressive” educrats.

And now? Things have “progressed” so far that the question bears asking: Do we still have any independent thinkers left? Any educational heroes who aren’t afraid to advocate real educational ideas? Who have the guts to resist the onslaught of the mob and to assert the supremacy of individual thought? Or have we bred such traits out of existence?

Of two things you can be sure: the need for such educators has never been greater - and the future of both Wyoming and the United States hangs in the balance.

Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

EPA's Global Garbage Begets Corporate Bootlicking

2011-01-02T14:44:00.005-07:00

A "national" piece, first published in the Broken Arrow Ledger on January 6th, 2011.

EPA’s Global Garbage Begets Corporate Bootlicking

By Bradley Harrington

“The greatest guilt of modern industrialists is not the fumes of their factory smokestacks, but the pollution of this country’s intellectual life, which they have condoned, assisted and supported.” - Ayn Rand, “The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution,” 1971 -

As proof of the fact that no form of exploitation can continue for long without the consent of the exploited, consider the following news story:

“Earlier this month corporate climateers including Nike and 3M were given awards…for their efforts to reduce their carbon emissions. The honors were bestowed by the Carbon War Room, which ‘harnesses the power of entrepreneurs to implement market-driven solutions to climate change.’” (“Corporations favor EPA regulation of greenhouse gases,” National Legal and Policy Center, Dec. 31st, 2010.)

And the “Carbon War Room’s” website, in turn, makes the following declaration:

“Our global industrial and energy systems are built on carbon-based technologies and unsustainable resource demands that threaten to destroy our society and planet. Massive loss of wealth, expanding poverty and suffering, disastrous climate change, water scarcity, and deforestation are the end results of this broken system.” (“Welcome to the Carbon War Room,” http://www.carbonwarroom.com/.)

Dire predictions, no doubt - and certainly ones with which the EPA itself agrees:

“After a thorough examination of the scientific evidence…the EPA announced today that greenhouse gases threaten the public health and welfare of the American people.” (“EPA: Greenhouse gases threaten public health and the environment,” http://www.epa.gov/, Dec. 7th, 2009.)

And the proof for all this impending doom? The EPA news release continues: “The evidence of human-induced climate change…includes melting ice in the Arctic, melting glaciers around the world, increasing ocean temperatures, rising sea levels, acidification of the oceans due to excess carbon dioxide, changing precipitation patterns, and changing patterns of ecosystems and wildlife.”

Really? Except that, since 2008, according to the U.S. Navy’s Polar Ice Prediction System, the Arctic ice has increased in both volume and thickness. (“Arctic ice volume has increased 25% since May, 2008,” http://www.wattsupwiththat.com/, May 29th, 2010.)

But don’t hold your breath waiting to have such headlines splattered all over your local paper’s front page, for that space is reserved for garbage such as this: “There is a 75 percent chance that the entire polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.” (Al Gore, “UN Conference on Climate Change,” Dec. 16th, 2009.)

And ocean acidification? According to Wikipedia, citing sources from Nature, “Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104, a change of -0.075.”

An estimate? To three decimal places? And how were such “estimates” of pH content from the oceans of 260 years ago arrived at, when the very concept of “pH” wasn’t even introduced until 1909?

As for the rest of this twaddle - none of it demonstrates the “man-made” element so crucial to the push for “environmental” regulation; merely that the Earth is changing, as it has changed for eons and will continue to change for eons more.

This, folks, is what passes for “science” in today’s intellectual vacuum. And all of it certified and stamped “good to go” by your non-elected bureaucrats at the EPA.

Can it get any clearer? How many more fraudulent hypotheses need to be exploded before it becomes obvious that these EPA bureaucrats are not out to “save the planet” but to de-industrialize our economy instead? Were “greenhouse gases” the real issue here, the EPA would have been pushing nuclear power decades ago.

Instead, they merely want to crush coal. And saddle the rest of our energy industry with more hundreds of billions of dollars of rules and regulations. And just who, of either the rich or poor, do you think such schemes will impact the most? So much for the alleged concern regarding our “poverty and suffering.” I guess the intellectual barbarians at the EPA have never noticed that the parts of the planet with the highest standards of living also happen to be the most highly-industrialized.

That such barbarians now hold unlimited power over our entire industrial establishment is something that should be sending shivers down our spines. And that many of our corporate entities are rushing headlong into signing onto this gobbledygook is positively obscene.

And, morally, of the two groups, it is the bootlicking sycophants who deserve the harshest condemnation - for, of all of us about to be subjected to this de-industrialization, they are the ones who should be standing up and hollering the loudest.

Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and a writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

Wyoming "Education": Reversing The Rot

2010-12-26T19:52:00.006-07:00

A "local" piece, published in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle under the title of "Education: Only one way to fix it" on December 25th, 2010.

Wyoming “Education”: Reversing The Rot

By Bradley Harrington

“Knowledge and human power are synonymous, since the ignorance of the cause frustrates the effect.” - Francis Bacon, Novum Organum, 1620 -

The state of Wyoming is getting ready to overhaul its poor excuse for an “educational” system when the new state legislature convenes come Jan. 11th - and one of the “most significant” proposals, it appears, will be “a reform package that tells schools to provide results or let the state take over.” (“State may take over failing schools,” Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, Dec. 19th.)

Really? So, we’ve determined that our pupils are being run over by speeding cars on the road of “local” control - and our new answer is to have them flattened by 18-wheeling semis on the freeway of state control instead? Brilliant. And something only an educrat could ever think of.

Since it seems we’re in for a decided lack of workable ideas on how to properly handle our educational disasters, therefore, I’d like to wave my magic wand and submit a couple of proposals for the legislature to entertain as potential alternatives:

(1) Restore the right of teachers and administrators to control their classrooms. I remember well, in the 3rd grade, when I lipped off to my teacher one too many times. I got a trip to the principal’s office - where, after gaining the essential information of my misconduct, he pulled a paddle out of his desk drawer (with a nice red bull's-eye on it, too), leaned me over a chair, and swatted me twice on the tail.

Afterwards, as I sat in class, you can bet I didn’t lip off to my teacher any more. End of problem. And don’t waste your breath telling me that’s “cruel and unusual” punishment. Locking your kid in the closet with no food for a week qualifies as such, but paddling a loud-mouthed, class-disrupting punk does not. I had it coming, and no teacher should have to attempt teaching a class with their hands tied behind their back because it’s been taken over by a bunch of malcontents. Or are the students too old to spank? Then boot them - permanently.

And if you’re a parent who protests such disciplinary action - tough. If you were doing your job, school administrators wouldn’t need to bother. And if you don’t like it, jerk your hooligans out of the system and home-school them instead; then the rest of the class can proceed without all the distractive drama.

(2) Trash the current curricula completely and start over from scratch. Last year Wyoming spent over $14,000 per pupil, the fourth-highest state spending level in the Union, and what we got for it was the same old mediocrity we’ve been getting for decades: A 25 percent dropout rate; students who cannot functionally read, write, spell or do simple arithmetic; generations of kids with no past and no future. Why? Because we teach garbage.

Want proof? I have, in my files, a 6th-grade report card issued to my grandfather Pete Harrington, dated May of 1921, recording his grades for the following subjects: Agriculture, Arithmetic, Civil Government, Geography, History, Language, Physiology, Reading, Spelling and Writing. (The old boy did pretty good, too, averaging between A’s and B’s.)

One of those subjects, Spelling, you’ll be hard put to find in any “public” day-care camp in the country today, and most of the rest you won’t find until junior or senior high. Yet, somehow, 89 years ago, our educators saw fit to rear 11-year-olds on those subjects in grammar school.

Nor was it just the topics, but the content as well: Phonics, for instance, not the “Look-Say” hooey we currently rot our kids’ brains with instead. And we seriously wonder why many children can’t read? Or why 40 percent of the best and brightest Wyoming students moving on to college have to take “remedial” classes before they can learn anything new?

Educrats love to argue that our standards haven’t dropped, that what we teach today is as “relevant” as it’s always been. Sorry. They’re wrong - and tragically so.

As a realist, of course, I recognize the chances of either of these measures being seriously considered by our legislature: Zero. Things have been a mess for so long now that few of us recall a time when they weren’t. At this point, we’ve all had our historical objectivity eroded by the “educational” system’s insanities, ossifying our minds from the input of new data.

But you don’t “reform” a cancer cell, and you don’t pass a law mandating that it suddenly change its nature and stop replicating uncontrollably. No, you cut it out completely or you kill it instead.

Today, after decades of conceptual and intellectual corruption, our tax-supported schools are a cancer eating away at the very fabric of our minds, stunting what should have been the free and unfettered growth of the independence of our spirits. And there’s really only one way to fix it: educational privatization, which will introduce the competition, and therefore the rising standards, that the system so desperately needs.

But, Oops! - There I go, waving my wand again.

Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

Science As The Handmaiden Of Politics

2010-12-19T15:17:00.004-07:00

A "national" piece, slated for publication in the Philadelphia Bulletin on December 26th, 2010.

Science As The Handmaiden Of Politics

By Bradley Harrington

“Science was born as a result and consequence of philosophy; it cannot survive without a philosophical base. If philosophy perishes, science will be next to go.” - Ayn Rand, “For the New Intellectual,” 1961 -

The objectivity of scientific research, it appears, is now in question - to the point where the Obama administration has seen fit to issue a proclamation on the topic:

“President Obama’s science and technology advisor issued a memo to federal science agencies to guide them in making rules to ensure scientific integrity…Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy John Holdren sent out the guidelines after a March 2009 memo by Obama emphasized the need for public trust in science.” (“White House issues scientific integrity memo,” MSNBC News, Dec. 18th.)

So: The public, it seems, no longer trusts the integrity of science. Small wonder, given its near-complete politicalization in recent decades through the ever-encroaching establishment of government funding of research - and never more so than in the area of “climate change.”

The EPA, for instance, as Holdren mentioned in a conference with the American Geophysical Union a few days earlier, has “determined that greenhouse gases threaten America’s health and welfare,” and Holdren further added that he was “‘disappointed that comprehensive legislation did not get passed’” this year. (“White House wonders if climate will be hostage to politics,” Live Science, Dec. 15th.)

So: Carbon dioxide, an essential gas for the existence of all plant life on Earth, has now been declared a “threat to America’s health and welfare” - and the Obama administration can’t figure out how such bald statements have eroded the public’s trust in science?

This, folks, is an example of what happens when the integrity of science is handed over to political hacks and made to serve State interests of collectivization and control. The objectivity of the scientific method need no longer apply; that’s all ancient, dogmatic stuff; we now have federal bureaucrats to ensure those interests for us instead.

As it happens, science has been down this road before - and perhaps a bit of historical digression is needed to slam the pitfalls of such an approach home.

Starting in 1928, “Lysenkoism” was the rage in all the politically-correct agricultural circles of the Soviet Union, and controlled that country’s agricultural policy for many years. “Lysenkoism,” or the biological hypothesis of the inheritability of acquired characteristics, was first actively promoted by Soviet agronomist Trofim Lysenko.

Lysenko had no use for the then-emerging advances associated with the fruit-fly experiments taking place in Mendelian genetics. Indeed, he viewed such experimentation as a bourgeoisie plot and denounced their performers as “fly-lovers” and “people-haters.”

His hypotheses relating to the growing of grain, Lysenko claimed, could triple agricultural yields. His notions were nonsensical at root, but - since he was both a peasant and an enthusiastic supporter of communism and Leninism - he was placed in charge of the Soviet Union’s agricultural affairs.

The results, as would normally be expected when nonsense is granted an aura of respectability and truth, were disastrous.

But, since Lenin liked the idea of possibly applying Lysenko’s meanderings regarding the inheritability of acquired characteristics to the human realm as well, where future generations of Soviet serfs could potentially be purged of their annoying “bourgeois” characteristics, Lysenko’s nonsense continued to floor Soviet agricultural production for decades until it was finally and officially rejected in 1964.

Sound familiar? Today, man-induced “climate change” is the new Lysenkoist orthodoxy, enshrined as federal policy by power-seekers more interested in pseudo-intellectual justifications for industry-wide regimentation than in any scientific “integrity” you care to name. Now postulate the effects on our energy industry should “Cap and Trade” ever clear its legislative hurdles and the picture will be complete.

And the tragedy is that this state-sponsored collectivization of science, originally claimed as necessary to ensure objectivity by separating research funding from the supposedly limited desires of crass commercial interests, has had the exact opposite effect: Does anyone seriously believe that competition among scientists for government grants has nothing to do with the overall political aims of the aborigines in charge of funding dispersement?

As with Lysenkoism, however, the facts will eventually speak for themselves: The political orthodoxy of man-induced “climate change” will ultimately collapse into the intellectual vacuum from which it emerged, and true science will once again have its day.

But until then the principles of the scientific method - the only true guarantor of objectivity there is - are in for a roller-coaster ride indeed.

Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and a writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

Tenure: Time To Slaughter The Sacred Cow

2010-12-19T09:53:00.005-07:00

A "local" piece, published in the Wyoming-Tribune-Eagle under the title of "Let's slaughter sacred cow of teacher tenure" on December 18th, 2010.

Tenure: Time To Slaughter The Sacred Cow

By Bradley Harrington

“If you think your teacher is tough, wait until you get a boss. He doesn’t have tenure.” - Charles Sykes, “50 Rules Kids Won’t Learn in School,” 2007 -

Teacher tenure, the status of holding one’s position on a permanent basis without periodic contract renewals, has been a major feature of our educational establishment for quite a number of years - and much to the detriment of the entire educational process.

Originally advocated towards the tail end of the 1800s’ as a means of guaranteeing academic freedom from arbitrary terminations on the part of administrators, there isn’t any compelling evidence that tenure has ever achieved that end.

What it has done, however, is make it nearly impossible to fire a bad teacher - for the combination of guaranteed employment, along with a teacher’s union ready to fight for it, can be costly indeed.

In New York City, for instance, “It often costs taxpayers $250,000 just to fire one incompetent teacher. Some teachers remain on the payroll even after being convicted of serious felonies, requiring districts to hold disciplinary hearings behind prison walls.” (“Superintendent: Bad teachers hard to fire,” MSNBC News, June 28th, 2008.)

What school district, when faced with anything remotely resembling such problems, wants to waste the time, energy and money to bother? One can’t help but wonder what kind of classroom instruction is possible when the teacher is sitting in a jail cell. Prisoner Etiquette 101, perhaps? And so such fools continue to populate instructor ranks, all on the taxpayers’ (millions of) dollars. Now that’s “job security.”

No other sector of the employment market enjoys such immunity from disciplinary action, and teachers shouldn’t either. As a WTE editorial stated last week, “It is well past time that teachers live up to the requirements of everyone else in the working world. If you do a good job, you get to keep working. If not, you are shown the door.” (“Tenure hurts our children,” Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, Dec. 12th.)

The best way to guarantee job security is to do your job well. Unions in general, however, have always been advocates of promoting such “security” through the legislative process (railroad “featherbedding” is a classic example), and teacher’s unions in particular love tenure precisely for that reason: it places state-approved hurdles between lousy educators and their rightfully-earned termination notices.

And, speaking of the “academic freedom” that originally served as the alleged justification for this con-game, where does anybody see any of it? Anyone care to estimate the chances of pro-free-market, pro-capitalist teachers dynamiting their way through the obstacle course of tenure review?

No, you can bet your last tax dollar that the bulk of the teachers being granted tenure in the first place are the ones who “go with the flow” instead - and, today, in our tax-supported day-care camps, that “flow” is: collectivistic indoctrination. So much for the liberty of ideas, pitched onto the ash heap along with what should be the liberty of the citizen to spend their educational dollars as they see fit.

Were academic freedom the goal, we would have established educational freedom long ago: for it is only the freely-floating instructional dollars of parents, seeking to achieve their greatest rate of intellectual return, that can ever reward the good and penalize the bad in the marketplace of ideas. The very concept of “academic freedom” under the umbrella of state-mandated, state-dictated curricula is a laughable contradiction of terms.

And any teacher truly seeking such freedom? They’ll seek it elsewhere. Thus, the tenure system itself, right out of the gate, does act as a filter - but one set in reverse. Sloth, laziness and conformity are promoted; excellence, dedication and the drive to impart knowledge are smothered and stifled.

Which is not to say that our schools here in Cheyenne don’t have some high-quality teachers. Nathan Breen at Central High and Paul Crips at Carey Junior High, to name just two, are sterling examples of what is possible when a teacher dedicates their time and energy to the educational process, and the results these men obtain with their students speak for themselves.

Yet these men, and other teachers like them, excel in their work precisely because they go against the grain; because they reject the stale, gray approach that the system breeds; because they hold to their own higher standards of how to teach no matter what the system promotes. Such teachers never need worry about tenured “job security,” for their reputations and the praise and skills of their students will always precede them.

And that’s the way it should be. What we truly need, and what our “educational” system is ossifying for a lack of, is a filter that attracts such teachers instead of sending them running to go and dig ditches instead.

And no, getting rid of tenure will not solve all of our educational issues - but it’s a great place to start. A concrete, achievable goal that will serve as the impetus for some true teacher competition. The sacred cow of tenure doesn’t just deserve a good, swift kick: it needs to be taken out behind the barn and slaughtered. And the sooner the better.

Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

Education: Radical Problems And A Radical Solution

2010-12-13T04:46:00.002-07:00

A "local" piece, published in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle under the title of "Radical solution needed for schools' mediocrity" on December 11th, 2010.

Education: Radical Problems And A Radical Solution

By Bradley Harrington

“One can never consent to creep when one feels the compulsion to soar.” - Helen Keller, 1896 -

Most people agree that our educational system, both here in Wyoming and throughout the nation in general, is in big trouble. But few agree as to just exactly what the problem is, and fewer still can come to any kind of a consensus on the solution.

As a hint for the right direction we need to take, however, consider the following:

“For the first time statewide, student performance will become part of teachers’ evaluations. That change is one of several adopted by a special task force that will be in place for the 2011-2012 school year for Wyoming teachers.” (“Student success will figure into teacher reviews,” Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, Dec. 5th.)

Which means: That, to date, student achievement levels have not been a part of instructor reviews.

To get a notion of that idea’s silliness, ask yourself: Do you think the degree to which a food server satisfied your desires at last night’s dinner should be a relevant consideration when you’re leaving the tip? Or that whether or not an auto-line worker can successfully assemble the parts to the vehicle you’re thinking of buying should be an issue when management conducts their quarterly analyses of employee productivity?

In any area of the private sector you care to name, it is understood by all that the way someone works, and the results they obtain, is highly critical information when personnel evaluations roll around. When it comes to estimating our teachers’ abilities, however, all such common sense seems to have taken a hike for decades, to the point where it is just now making its way over the educational horizon.

And what facts of reality, it bears asking, have finally prompted our "educators" to see the light? “The public has made it very clear that high dropout rates and high failure rates within a school are not acceptable,” said Kelly Carroll, principal at Laramie Junior High.

In the private sector, such poor results would simply cause customers to search elsewhere for the values they seek.

Since our schools are not a part of the private sector, however, but are mandatory, tax-supported institutions instead, such instantaneous market feedback is unheard of, and the “customers” have to holler bloody murder to high heaven before the educational bureaucrats finally get the message.

And, I can’t help but wonder, do you think there just might be a connection between the two? Do you really think that a parent, observing that their child has attended school for years but cannot functionally read, write or spell, would continue voluntarily patronizing such an establishment?

Start talking about privatizing the school system, however, and you scare people. What? Leave it up to parents, not the all-knowing bureaucrats, to actually be able to decide when, where and how their children will gain an education? It’s unheard of, people say; it’s untried; it’s…well, it’s radical. And “radical,” in the minds of most of us, means revolutionary.

Yet, the reality is that such an approach is not “untried” at all. We have private schools all over the country, and most of them consistently outperform their “public” counterparts on a regular basis. And far more cheaply as well.

In the school year 2003-2004, for instance, by the U.S. Department of Education’s own figures, it was determined that the average secondary “public” education cost $9,620 per pupil, whereas the private schools did it for only $6,600 - a cost reduction of 31 percent.

And despite the fact that the approach of school privatization is not something that is going to happen anytime soon, is certainly not a sufficient reason to reject that alternative. If I were planning a trip from Cheyenne to Seattle, I would consult a map and consider the ultimate goal, would I not? I wouldn’t just decide to get to Salt Lake City and then worry about the rest of the trip from that point on, would I?

For it is the ultimate goal that determines the sub-actions, the immediate steps, that we need to take to achieve it. Get that goal wrong and everything else flounders.

Here in Wyoming, however, it’s the “local” control that we seem to be in love with - as if merely limiting the range of destruction to a district-wide kill-radius is a suitable answer. It’s the control that’s the problem, not the level on which it happens to make itself felt.

And, given the current structure of Wyoming charter school law, with the “local” district having near-total say over such alternatives, what do you think the chances are of significant and meaningful change? Which means: Even that route is going to require substantial and “radical” modification. Why not just get it right the first time?

So, we can fail to consider “radical” solutions to a radical problem if we like - and what we will get is more of the same. Is that all we want for our kids? To creep instead of soar? Yes, the idea of privatizing the schools is “radical.” So was the Revolutionary War. If our forefathers had thought like that, we’d still be a colony of England.

Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

Riots Portend America's 2nd Revolutionary War

2010-12-12T09:09:00.003-07:00

A "national" piece, first published in the Kingman Daily Miner on December 14th, 2010.

Riots Portend America’s 2nd Revolutionary War

By Bradley Harrington

“Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.” - H.G. Wells, “The Outline of Human History,” 1920 -

In a previous column I once asked, while discussing the ever-growing burdens producers are being forced to shoulder in order to subsidize the parasites, “So, where’s the snapping point? At what point of the trend do the producers simply revolt and refuse to play their perennial role of self-sacrificial serfs?”

Well, we’re seeing revolts alright - but not exactly along the lines I had envisioned:

“Protesters clashed with police and attacked Prince Charles's limousine as riots raged in the heart of London after MPs voted to triple university tuition fees.” (“Charles caught up in London riots,” ABC News, Dec. 10th.)

The Members of Parliament voted 323 to 302 to triple the fees on Dec. 8th in order to restore some small measure of sanity to British university financial operations - and, in response, the freeloading parasitical students, who have been living off British taxpayers for decades, had themselves a field day.

Just like pensioners and other state-supported parasites did in Greece back in May when the government there announced austerity measures in exchange for an EU/IMF $145 billion bailout to stave off economic collapse.

The freeloaders, quite obviously, don’t like it when their pork gets pinched, and have no compunction about destroying lives and property to register their protests. And, based upon signs and screams made during the British riots such as “We want our money back,” those students just as obviously view other people’s money as their own.

So: how much longer will it be before the United States starts suffering the impact of such riots? For we, too, have been busy spending far more than we make - and we, too, have been taking other people’s money to an unprecedented degree in order to fund such parasitical activities.

When the hammer finally hits the anvil and we, too, find ourselves in the position of needing to purge our budgets of such foolishness in order to stay solvent, what makes us think our results are going to be any different?

It doesn’t matter if you point out to these parasites that they actually have far more to gain from capitalism than anybody else, for a comparison of the yields of Socialist Insecurity vs. private trust plans would sufficiently demonstrate that.

No, our parasites have little interest in understanding such truths; all they want is “their” money.

And this points up the greatest tragedy of such policies: Not that we have blown trillions of dollars to make people poorer, although we have; and not that we have sacrificed the freedoms and incomes of the producers who are forced to pay for it all, although we have.

No, the greatest impact is that we’ve created a dependent class: a herd of cattle, beholden to government for its very existence, the individual cows of which have no grasp and no concept of principles, ideas, values, property rights, our past or our future.

And, given the absence of such critical education, when it should be the producers who are revolting to protest their status as the looted lambs compelled to fund it all - it’s the parasites taking the lead instead. Well, the veneer of civilized behavior was never glued too tightly upon them to begin with. My mistake.

Unlike our European counterparts, however, who don’t have our once-proud history of self-initiative and productive freedom, our producers aren’t going to stay dormant forever - and especially so when they start getting handed the damage bills for the destruction that will soon be occurring on our side of the Atlantic.

For, while we could possibly roll back the disastrous mistakes we have made in areas such as “welfare,” Socialist Insecurity and progressive taxation, how do you go about turning on lights in people’s minds that have been all but extinguished, snuffed out by an “educational” system geared towards producing tax-supported drones instead of free-thinking individuals? How do you find any possibly-remaining smolder of self-reliance and self-worth and fan it into a flame?

And, when any such attempts fail, as they must since you cannot turn smoke and ash back into a tree, things will be quickly coming to a head: for, as Margaret Thatcher remarked back in 1976, we’ve done “run out of other people’s money.” And, at that point, America’s 2nd Revolutionary War of the producers vs. the parasites will be on.

Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and a writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

City Budget Demonstrates Diseased Priorities

2010-12-07T06:38:00.004-07:00

A "local" piece, published in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle under the title of "City's priorities are out of whack on fleet issue" on December 4th, 2010.

City Budget Demonstrates Diseased Priorities

By Bradley Harrington

“That which you do not know, is not a moral charge against you; but that which you refuse to know, is an account of infamy growing in your soul.” - Ayn Rand, “Atlas Shrugged,” 1957 -

When a healthy person or group finds themselves upon hard times due to poor choices, those results serve as the impetus for a re-examination of their actions and a re-evaluation of the merits - or lack thereof - of the decisions that led them to their current state.

That individual or society rallies around their core values, discards that which created the problems, establishes or re-affirms the proper priorities and moves forward in pursuit of the values to be achieved. Such people might make errors in judgment regarding the nature of those greater and lesser values - which they will correct as new data presents itself - but they would never deliberately sacrifice the former to the latter.

Diseased, non-integrated persons or groups, on the other hand, will ignore or evade the warning signs of failure and will flounder at acting to head off the impending destruction. In fits of whim, with skewed priorities, such people will sacrifice greater values for lesser values in the blink of an eye, and will always be looking around for someone or something else to bail them out of the consequences of their actions.

Cheyenne city government, at present, is following the second course. And, as proof, we need only consider the latest budgetary snafu regarding city vehicle upkeep:

“When the city reduced staff to save $5 million in the budget, that hit home at the shop where the city repairs its 600 trucks, vehicles and machines: Fleet maintenance.” (“Has cutting back on city mechanics backfired?”, Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, Nov. 29th.)

Cutbacks on the fleet maintenance mechanic crew (down by nearly 50 percent from 11 employees a year ago to six today), allowed the city to save almost $200,000. This year’s $117,000 outsourcing line item fund, however (built up from $80,000 to allow for more outsourcing work), is now history - with seven months of the fiscal year still remaining.

“At this current rate,” the story continues, “it will cancel out the savings in payroll.” Which means: we “saved” nothing.

Now that, in and of itself, proves nothing but poor judgment. As councilman Jack Spiker observed, “We would have been further ahead to hire new employees.”

And Public Works Director Jim Elias acknowledges that he has proposed just that. “I understand that we as a city had some difficult decisions to make when it came to the budget,” Elias said. “I’d love for the mayor to say, ‘Hire five mechanics.’ But that’s not realistic.”

It isn’t? Why not? But more on that in a moment. What is the mayor’s plan, anyway?

“Mayor Rick Kaysen,” the story continues, “is reviewing his proposal to address the fleet budget situation. ‘One of the easiest options is to go out and hire five mechanics,’ Kaysen said. But falling back on reserves to fill those jobs ‘is not a desirable option.’”

But who said anything about reserves? How about current areas of the budget?

For example, the Ice and Events Center lost almost a quarter of a million dollars last year. How about closing it down altogether - why should taxpayers be funding the skating time for a few privileged children and their parents? - and moving that money over to fleet maintenance?

Not only would that stop the fiscal bleeding at the ice center, but it would be a first step toward putting some of these city operations back on a paying basis: If the people want the center to be open, let them pay for it.

Similarly, subsidies to the Civic Center could be reduced to cover these fleet maintenance costs. Yes, that would mean fewer shows or higher ticket prices to patrons but, again, why should I have to pay to help someone else see Gordon Lightfoot or “Cats”?

But the most obvious answer would be for Mr. Kaysen to simply move some people around. If the mayor were still at Cheyenne Light, he would deploy his resources to meet customers’ needs. If that meant reducing central office staff to keep trucks running, there is little doubt that he would do that.

So it should be at the city: Add fleet maintenance staff as resignations occur elsewhere in the city. Or hire “fat,” adding fleet maintenance staff and then not filling openings as they occur. Or lay off in one area and hire in another. That Mr. Kaysen, who campaigned on his business acumen, has not exercised any of these options is mind-boggling.

No, our current budgetary issues in the fleet maintenance area do not prove malfeasance and incompetence - but this approach sure does. What is the greater value here, folks? Properly-functioning police and fire vehicles? Or concerts and hockey games?

For, while city administrators foolishly engage in lesser-value activities such as these that are best left to the free market - where residents can choose to pay for and partake in them of their own free will or not - the greater-value needs of fundamental city operations fall by the wayside, ignored in the whim-based, feel-good, poorly-prioritized spending sprees of the immediate moment. And who is it that the city will ultimately look to in order to bail them out of their own ineptitude?

Yep, you guessed it. The taxpayer. Because some realities just don’t ever change.

Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

Less For More Vs. More For Less

2010-12-04T19:43:00.007-07:00

A "national" piece, first published in the Deming Headlight on December 7th, 2010.

Less For More Vs. More For Less

By Bradley Harrington

“Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper’s bell of an approaching looter.” - Ayn Rand, “Atlas Shrugged,” 1957 -

In 1935, amidst great fanfare, Franklin Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law.

On the tax side, in 1937, the rate, paid in equal halves by employers and employees, started at 2 percent - which, by 1960, had risen to 6 percent. As of 1999, they are now at 15.3 percent. (Statistics from the Social Security Administration.)

On the benefits side, in 1937, the SSA disbursed $1.3 million to 53,236 people for an average benefit of $24.42. By 1960 payments had climbed to $11.3 billion for 14.8 million recipients, averaging $763.51 annually - and, by 2008, benefits totaled $658.4 billion for 58.4 million recipients, averaging $11,273.98. (Statistics from the Social Security Administration.)

Sounds impressive - until you adjust for inflation. For, by the government’s own calculator, $11,273.98 in 2008 was only worth $1,549.95 in 1960, when benefits averaged $763.51. The benefits increases in the time between, in other words, barely doubled - but, since the tax rates have more than doubled in that same period, the actual return has declined from what it was a half-century ago.

And, now, President Obama’s “Deficit Reduction” panel has recently proposed a scheme that would cut benefits while increasing taxes: “The proposals include eliminating popular tax breaks…and raising the retirement age for Social Security.” (“Majority of panel backs deficit plan,” The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 4th.)

So: after 75 years of the government’s fine-tuning of Social Security, what do we end up with? Less for more.

The private sector, however, operates on a completely different principle: more for less. Consider:

In 1968, when Hewlett-Packard released the first fully-electronic 9100 calculator, the size of a typewriter, it sold for $4,500 - something only a rich person would buy.

But by 1971, Sharp and Canon were releasing portable calculators for $295 to $345. By 1974, prices had plummeted to well under $100; and, by 1975, they could be had for under $20.

And by 2001, the turn of the century? Credit-card-sized calculators sold for 50 cents.

So, in the space of 33 years, calculators - while also becoming micro-miniaturized and far more capable than HP’s original desk-bound 9100 - crashed in price from $4,500 to 50 cents, a reduction of 9,000 percent. And that’s after inflation; when you factor in the fact that $4,500 in 1968 was worth $22,900.86 in 2001, the true price drop was over 45,800 percent.

Yet what is even more illuminating than those incredible price reductions is the nature of the course that those savings took. Consider:

When HP’s 9100 hit the shelves, it was a plaything for the rich - “luxury” spending. As the high profitability of such manufacturing acted to attract huge amounts of research and capital, however, competitive forces kicked in and quickly brought those prices down to the point where, in less than a decade, the poorest person in the country could buy one.

Thus, it was the spending of the rich, along with their investment capital, that made the whole process possible and acted as the catalyst for everything that followed.

What are we to make, then, of the current congressional debates on extending the Bush tax cuts? Republicans want to extend those tax cuts for all citizens, whereas Democrats would eliminate them for anyone making over $250,000 annually.

Indeed, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.), discussing Republican opposition to that elimination, said that what they (Republicans) are saying is, “‘Unless you give an additional tax break to the wealthiest people in our country, adding to the deficit and not creating jobs, we are not going to vote for middle-income tax cuts.’” (“US house passes Democrat tax cut bill,” Tax-news.com, Dec. 3rd.)

Really? Anyone care to figure out just how many jobs have been created in the calculator field since 1968? Or in its spin-off industries? Or of how many hundreds of billions of dollars have been added to our GDP as a result? Perhaps, instead of demonizing money as evil, Mrs. Pelosi should run out and kiss the first rich person she can find.

Or, better yet, she could advocate the application of the private sector’s approach to Social Security itself. For, on a salary of $50,000, with an investment of 15.3 percent over 40 years compounded annually at 8 percent, the yield would be: $2,140,324.75.

And the conclusion? Governments can promise; capitalism delivers.

Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and a writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

City Management: Grab The Bull By The Horns

2010-11-29T05:45:00.003-07:00

A "local" piece, published in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle under the title of "City management: Grab the bull by the horns already" on November 27th, 2010.

City Management: Grab The Bull By The Horns

By Bradley Harrington

We’ve all observed, at one time or another, the incredible ineptitude of government operations - to the point where I suspect many of us have wondered if there’s not an actual principle of nature involved.

And, in reality, there is.

And, in order to identify that principle, we need only consider some of the events at last Monday’s city council meeting.

In the debate on the Romero park bronze hare statue, for instance, Councilwoman Georgia Broyles stated that the governing body, by failing to approve it, would be “setting a poor precedent for the city of Cheyenne.”

Why? Mrs. Broyles continued: “We would be saying, yes, come and volunteer for the city, here’s the money you have to work with, and then when they finally get it presented, we pull the rug out from underneath them and say, sorry, but this is not the time.”

But this money was budgeted several years ago, and lots of things have happened since, such as a recession, budget reductions of $5 million, city worker layoffs and the postponement of the city’s $1 million BOPU payment, to name a few.

So, what is Mrs. Broyles really saying? That none of that information is relevant to the current situation? That we should just go right ahead and blow the $20,000 anyway, because three years ago it seemed like a good idea? That’s a typical, short-sighted approach - but flexible responses to changing conditions are not characteristic of government action.

Such responses are a natural part of business operations, however, where enterprises are constantly adjusting output, investments and expenditures in the light of the ever-changing stream of data being presented by economic events - for a failure to do so results in a loss of profits.

Or consider the existence of the art fund’s $20,000 to begin with. As Councilman Don Pierson pointed out in regard to the hysterical scramble to balance the books just six months ago, “I am surprised, when we went through our budget process, finding every penny we could to cut less employees off, that this $20,000 didn’t come forward.”

So, what happened? “I think it slipped through the cracks,” Mr. Pierson said. “People didn’t know it was there.”

Now, imagine a business that operates in the free market for a profit. Think it’s going to fail to “notice” piles of money laying around? I hardly think so.

And, finally, as icing on the cake, it came to light during “Other Business” that the city is holding a list of debts, mainly to sanitation, for several hundred individuals and businesses from the years 2004 to 2008 totaling an excess of $85,000 owed.

As Mayor Rick Kaysen stated, many of the businesses on this list (such as Atlas Electric with the top sanitation debt of $6,591.98), are still around - but that attempts to collect the $85,000 in debts have failed to date and are headed for write-off.

How’s that again? The city has the cops, the courts, the attorney’s office and all the laws in its favor - and it still can’t collect money owed to sanitation? And these entities are still receiving sanitation services?

In the private sector, by comparison, what happens when you fail to square away your cell phone bill? It gets shut off. When you slide on making your credit card payment? It quits working. When you don’t bother to send in your monthly loan amount for your car? It gets repossessed.

City-run sanitation services, however, seem to operate on a different method: rack up thousands and come on back for more.

So: what is the principle at work here? What is the driving force that creates such a stark contrast between private and public sector operations? Competition. Or the lack thereof.

Consider: in a market economy, where producers only gain profits by successfully providing consumers with a better product at a cheaper price, powerful incentives are at work to breed efficiency and sound management. Producers that pull it off, succeed; those that don’t, fail and wither away.

But government bureaucracies suffer no such limitations. Since their services are monopolistic in nature, the rigors induced by competition no longer apply. We’re the “customers” of the bureaucrats whether we like it or not.

And what do we get? Just what you’d expect: inefficiency and poor management.

And it’s not the people, folks. It’s the system itself. The lack of competition breeds those results, and will always act to degrade the quality of the best peoples’ work. As Councilman Jim Brown said after the meeting: “It’s not their money.”

And there you have it. And, now that the problem has been correctly identified, the solution presents itself as well: turn non-protective city services over to the private sector where they belong, and where capitalistic competition will clear out this ineptitude faster than you can blink.

Any takers? Mr. Mayor? City Councilors? You folks run this town. Any sponsors willing to grab the bull by the horns?

Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

Privatize The Park Hare

2010-11-22T06:47:00.003-07:00

A "local" piece, published in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle under the title of "Councilors can't wait to spend your money" on November 20th, 2010.

Privatize The Park Hare

By Bradley Harrington

While a few of our city council members seem to finally be getting at least a glimmer of understanding about what it means to practice some fiscal responsibility as the stewards of city taxpayer dollars, that understanding is by no means widespread:

“City councilors balked Tuesday at spending $20,000 on a statue for David R. Romero South Cheyenne Community Park. The council’s Finance Committee voted 2-1 to recommend not buying a four-foot bronze statue of a hare for the park entrance.” (“Committee balks at paying $20,000 for bronze statue,” Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, Nov. 17th.)

Councilmen Don Pierson and Jack Spiker both voted no against the proposal, and Councilman Jim Brown, the chairman of the committee who does not vote on committee actions, said that he does not support the purchase at this time either.

“Spending $20,000 on a bronze in the same year we laid off 20 people - the timing is just atrocious,” Pierson said.

The “Arts in Pubic Places” fund, originally around $50,000 annually, was axed out of the budget last year due to the need to eliminate $5 million of deficit spending. The fund still has around $20,000 left in it however, and Councilman Jimmy Valdez said that there’s “no reason to wait” to spend it and voted yes on the proposal.

And Georgia Broyles, Council president, also said that she intends to cast a yes vote on the $20,000 come Monday night’s full council meeting. “It can’t be used for salaries unless it was re-appropriated,” she said.

That sentiment was echoed by the Arts in Public Places committee chairman David Goodier as well: “This is money that’s being held in the budget anyway. What should we do with this money?”

Well, let’s see. In the council meeting of Oct. 25th, during discussion of the 2011 city budget’s re-appropriation, it was stated by Public Works Director Jim Elias, upon questioning from Mr. Spiker, that the Sanitation department is several workers short of their workload; that fleet maintenance schedules have been chopped in half; and that most of the money set aside for outsourcing this work has been used up already, despite not even being halfway through the fiscal year.

Mr. Valdez, Mrs. Broyles and Mr. Goodier, however, don’t think that’s a problem; the thought that the city might just want to go ahead and re-appropriate that $20,000 to an area where it would actually do some good, like in paying nearly half the salary of another sanitation worker, does not seem to have occurred to them. In typical city administration fashion, the money’s there, so we might as well just blow it on a statue. And if city sanitation suffers as a result, well, that’s just too bad.

That hardly strikes me as a responsible action to undertake, but when have most of the members of our city council ever exhibited such a propensity? So, when city trucks start breaking down due to lack of funding, I guess we’ll just tell the drivers to take a break, stroll on over to the David Romero park and admire the four-foot hare for the rest of the day. Are these people for real?

Nor do Mrs. Broyles’ left-wing inclinations stop there: on a side issue, while discussing local art dealer Harvey Deselms’ idea of populating Capitol Avenue with bronze statues if he could come up with some private support, she said: “That’s the best way to get things done, a private and public partnership.”

But a “partnership,” according to Webster’s, is “a legal relation existing between two or more persons contractually associated as joint principals in a business.” What kind of “partnership” does Mrs. Broyles envision is possible between a group of bureaucrats who are holding guns aimed at the wallets of city citizens, and the taxpayers themselves, who might have better uses for their money? The “partnership” of surrendering their money $20,000 at a time?

Partnerships, by their nature, are voluntary - and to attempt to foist that concept upon the phenomenon of government officials raiding taxpayer pockets to fund non-protective “services” is to destroy it completely, thereby equivocating the true notion of a “partnership” right out of existence.

A much better plan, and one that recognizes the actual meaning of “partnership,” would be for a city council member to actually propose de-funding not just public “art” but the entire city park system as well. For “public” parks, in essence, are just another form of socialism, and therefore carry all of socialism’s faults as a consequence: mismanagement, forced funding and a lack of respect on the part of residents for property they do not own and are not obligated to take care of.

Parks and park art, as desired by residents, should be constructed and paid for out of voluntary funding. And if that doesn’t happen, then obviously the citizens aren’t interested. Sell the land to the highest bidder and let the owner determine how it is to be used instead. That’s an idea that works great in every other area of property ownership - why should parks be exempt?

Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

The Paper Money Cliff

2010-11-16T06:18:00.005-07:00

A "national" piece, first published in the Kingman Daily Miner on November 18th, 2010.

The Paper Money Cliff

By Bradley Harrington

“Paper is poverty…it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself.” - Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, 1788 -

When Thomas Jefferson wrote the above words a scant five years after the end of the Revolutionary War, he, as well as every other American citizen, had plenty of experience with the catastrophe of the Continental Congress’ issuance of the fiat-based, paper-money currency of the “Continental.”

And when it came time for the rest of the Founding Fathers to put together the Constitution of the United States the following year, that inflationary experience had consequences.

When the Constitution gave Congress the legal power in Article I, Section 8 to “coin money,” for instance, it was understood by all that to “coin” money meant to mint it, i.e., “to stamp pieces of metal for use as a medium of exchange in commerce.” (“The General Principles of Constitutional Law,” Thomas Cooley, 1880.)

Which means: commodity money, which means: silver and gold.

And, on the state level, Article I, Section 10 made it very clear that “No state shall…coin money”; “emit bills of credit”; or “make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.”

The Founding Fathers understood that for money to function as money, it must be based on a real value - and, that to the extent that paper was used, it was for ease of use only; one could take a gold or silver certificate to the issuing authority and redeem it for the actual metal at any time.

All that ended in 1933, however, when Franklin Roosevelt abolished the gold standard domestically, to be followed in 1971 by Richard Nixon’s abandonment of the gold standard on an international level as well.

And, since then, all Hell has broken loose.

The results were predictable. Once the dollar was stripped of its mooring to gold, no mechanism remained to prevent the government’s manipulation of the currency. And the worst of those results is becoming as well-known today as it was back in 1788: inflation.

And “inflation, being the increase in the supply of money and credit, can only be brought about in an irredeemable paper system by money managers who create money through fractional reserve banking, computer entries, or the printing press.” (“The Case for Gold,” Ron Paul, 1982.)

Gold, however, as Mr. Paul continues, “is honest money because it is impossible for governments to create it. New money can only come about by productive effort and not by political and financial chicanery.” Which means: “inflation is theft and literally steals wealth from one group for the benefit of another.”

And if you think we’ve figured out how to manage phony paper dollars in the intervening years, you’d better think again, for all we’ve learned how to do is hide it in a slightly more effective manner, where it now goes by the name of “quantitative easing”:

“The Federal Reserve announced a second round of quantitative easing Tuesday that will purchase $600 billion of long-term Treasury securities through the second quarter of 2011.” (“Bernanke’s Fed sets sail with $600 billion QE2,” Forbes.com, Nov. 3rd.)

Now there’s a brilliant idea: buying money from ourselves with money created out of nothing. In the old days the Romans used to shave the edges off their coins to accomplish that task; in our modern era, however, our electronic ledgers make it unnecessary to resort to such crude measures.

And the alleged purpose of this hustle? “To promote a stronger pace of economic recovery.” Yet how that’s going to occur by transferring rightfully-earned wealth from the pockets of the taxpayers to the pockets of a bunch of banksters is left unmentioned. If “economic recovery” were the goal, we’d leave that money in the hands of private investors, who would create actual wealth and jobs through stepped-up production.

No, the true goal is to further devalue the dollar through inflation, thereby increasing government receipts through a hidden tax. And none of it possible without a centralized Federal Reserve system in the first place, or doable with a true gold-based dollar.

So, since history is littered with the carcasses of governments that thought they could inflate their way to wealth, economic prudence would indicate that we need to balance our budget, phase out the Federal Reserve and re-establish a gold-based dollar.

Conversely, we can continue to rush headlong for the cliff, and act surprised when we splatter ourselves on the rocks below. Which makes more sense to you?

Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and a writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

City Health Care: Taxpayers Tied To The Tracks

2010-11-15T05:14:00.003-07:00

A "local" piece, published in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle under the title of "To pay for city health care, just plunder the taxpayers" on November 13th, 2010.

City Health Care: Taxpayers Tied To The Tracks

By Bradley Harrington

Rising health care costs and the city’s contract with WINhealth were the main topic of discussion at Monday’s City Council meeting, and the ensuing debate was quite illuminating to anyone interested in understanding how socialized medicine really works.

The rising rates, it appears (which, as discussed last week, have jumped up by 12.6 percent, or $700,000), have many on the Council concerned, and several members addressed the issue of the ballooning costs.

Councilwoman Judy Case, for instance, wanted to know whether the insurance committee has considered the possibility of higher deductibles to stabilize premiums, or of seeking another vendor.

Rich Wiederspahn, Human Resources Director, replied that the committee had considered bidding out, but that two areas presented obstacles. An extremely high level of claims to WINhealth for last year was one, and “some of the issues coming out of the health care reform act,” such as “preventive care being paid at 100 percent,” “dependent coverage extending to the age of 26,” and “no annual lifetime maximum” was the other.

These reforms, as Mr. Wiederspahn put it, “impact the provider with no increase in premium.” And what would anyone seriously expect an insurance provider to do, placed in such a position? Why, raise the premiums. Which should only come as a surprise to Obamacare advocates who have no concept of the workings of supply and demand, and who claimed repeatedly that such rate increases would “never happen.” Yeah, right. And the moon is made of green cheese, too.

Councilman Patrick Collins also expressed misgivings with the increases, citing concerns about the city’s ability to absorb them in the face of a flagging economy, and wondered about the ability of the insurance committee - composed of individuals from various areas of city operations - to make the “harder choices” regarding potential cuts.

So Mr. Collins, clearly, has a problem with city employees making decisions about…city employees. Imagine that. Come on, Mr. Collins - the United States Congress does it all the time! With such role models to emulate, do we seriously expect local politics to function any differently?

Next, Councilman Jack Spiker questioned WINhealth’s Steve Goldstone about the difference in costs between the gold and silver plans, and was able to determine that a shift for city employees away from the gold to the silver instead (with higher co-payments) would save the city over $300,000 - nearly half of this year’s increases.

City employees, as Mr. Spiker pointed out in a separate interview afterwards, had originally been on the silver plan for years, but Mayor Kaysen had the plan transferred to gold in his first year of office. What? Congress votes themselves a pay raise again? It must be nice to determine your own benefits, and I’d be willing to bet there’s a large number of privately-employed people who would enjoy being in such a position.

Upon further questioning from Mr. Spiker, Mr. Wiederspahn did admit that the idea of charging city employees more than their current 12.5 percent of benefits (unheard of in the private sector) was discussed by the insurance committee, but that “we’ve really done our best not to take money out of city employees’ pockets.”

Mr. Wiederspahn, obviously enough, would prefer to plunder the pockets of the city’s taxpayers instead. Perhaps he should consider running for Congress himself.

Yet, as Mr. Goldstone stated succinctly, the ever-upwards trend of health care costs are “alarming,” “not sustainable,” and the “increased costs and benefits are going to bankrupt us all. If we don’t figure out some way to bend the cost curve,” Mr. Goldstone continued, “we are all going to be in a lot of trouble.” Yes, indeed.

And Councilwoman Amber Ash, in a vain hope that “wellness programs” might hold the key to premium reductions, echoed those sentiments as well: “At some point, we are going to have to bite the bullet and figure out some way to reduce these costs.”

Sorry, Miss Ash; nice try, but it ain’t gonna happen. People are going to continue to smoke, drink and eat Cheetos as it suits them, and any attempt at trying to reduce premiums by altering human behavior is doomed to crash and burn.

For it isn’t human behavior that created this mess to begin with. It’s our socialization of health care that has made that happen - and, now that the genie’s been released from the bottle, it’s going to take a lot more than exercise to stuff it back in.

While such needed reforms to this nationwide disaster lie outside the scope of city operations, however, there is one thing our governing body can do, and that is to bring the percentages of insurance benefits paid by our city employees in line with reality and the private sector.

Monday night would have been a real good time for any governing body member to step up to the plate and call for such rational action, thereby demonstrating their true commitment to fiscal responsibility, but that didn’t happen either. Instead, the gravy train got the big green light for yet another year. And the taxpayers? Why, we’re the ones tied onto the tracks.

Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

The Lessons of 2010

2010-11-08T06:29:00.005-07:00

A "national" piece, first published in the Gilroy Dispatch on November 9th, 2010.

The Lessons of 2010

By Bradley Harrington

“In a passive, indifferent way, the majority of the Russian people were behind the White army; they were not for the Whites, but merely against the Reds; they feared the Reds’ atrocities. I knew that the Reds’ deepest atrocity was intellectual, that the thing that had to be fought - and defeated - was their ideas. But no one answered them…The Reds won.” - Ayn Rand, discussing her experience in the Russian Revolution in “The Lessons of Vietnam,” 1975 -

Now that the dust from the 2010 elections has settled, let’s examine some of the facts:

In the Senate, the Republicans picked up six seats, shaving the Democratic majority down to 51 to 47 (with two Independents).

In the House, the Republicans turned the tables completely, winning a landslide 64 seats to achieve a large majority of 242 to 193, their largest gain since 1948.

In state governorships, six Republican wins (with Minnesota still undecided as of this writing), including the key states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio and Iowa, flipped the board to 29 Republican and 19 Democrat (with one Independent).

In the state legislatures, Republicans gained over 650 seats, picking up an additional 19 state chambers for a total of 55 (with New York’s state senate results still pending). This will also have a profound impact on next year’s congressional redistricting, as such boundary determinations generally favor the party in power.

So, it’s no leap of the imagination to refer to the 2010 election, in the words of President Obama, as a “shellacking.”

Yet, despite such Republican landslide victories, it was found in exit polls that hardly any voters “have a favorable view of either the Democrat or Republican parties.” (“Exit poll: Economy dominant issue for voters,” Associated Press, Nov. 2nd.)

Given the data, only one conclusion is possible: the American electorate was not voting for the Republicans, but against the half-socialist, half-fascist agenda of the Democrats. Not the same thing, and the ramifications for the Republicans are far-reaching indeed.

For, in the same way that the Russian people rejected the Reds in 1917 but found no affirmative political manifesto in regard to the Whites, America’s electorate has yet to find any positive articulation on the part of Republicans in regard to what they are for.

And, in Russia, the Reds ultimately won - for they had an agenda and the Whites did not.

In order to gain the respect and support of the American people, therefore, it is now the job of the Republicans to present such a positive articulation. Which is going to be difficult at best, since the Republicans are nearly as responsible as the Democrats for the creation of the “welfare” state now busily bankrupting the country. Which explains why so many of us have such a negative view of them.

And the fact is, the country simply cannot take any more of the stupidity that both Democrats and Republicans have been engaging in for decades. With our national debt piling up into the trillions, our economic performance grinding to a halt and the dollar becoming more worthless every day, we no longer have the luxury of fooling ourselves into believing that half-pregnancies are possible. The statist snowball, once small, slow-moving and way off at the top of the mountain, has grown exponentially in mass and speed as it has plundered its way down into the valley, and is now in the process of flattening the entire country.

What America truly needs, and what it is that Republicans truly need to stand for, is the social system that made our nation great in the first place: capitalism. Not “crony” or “bankster” capitalism, which is really just fascism in disguise, but the real McCoy - true, honest, red-blooded free-market capitalism, the kind with real hair on its chest, as in:

An abolition of the Federal Reserve; a return to a gold-based dollar; huge cuts in taxes, huger cuts in “welfare state” spending and budgetary surpluses; a re-privatization of key industries such as energy, transportation and education; an end to our stupid, stifling regulatory nightmare; meaningful and property-rights-based tort reform; and a restoration of our national defense along protective, not invasive, lines. For starters.

So, Republican “winners” - think you’re up to the task? Here’s your last chance to win our trust. And you’d better not blow it - for if you do, the fate of the Whites will be ours as well.

Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and a writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

Health Care Costs: City Bean Counters Flunk The Test

2010-11-08T06:18:00.003-07:00

A "local" piece, published in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle under the title of "City Workers Ride Health Insurance Gravy Train" on November 6th, 2010.

Health Care Costs: City Bean Counters Flunk The Test

By Bradley Harrington

“Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other.” - Ronald Reagan, Campaign speech, 1965 -

In what will come as no surprise to anyone who does the family shopping, prices keep rising, and city health care costs are no different:

“Health insurance premiums at city hall are going up, to the tune of 12.6 percent. The City Council’s Finance Committee voted 3-0 Monday in favor of the new contract with WINhealth partners worth $6.26 million - an increase of $700,000.” (“City’s health insurance going up,” Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, Nov. 2nd.)

And, it seems, city administration’s bean counters got caught a little flat-footed in the process, for the city had only budgeted a 10 percent increase above last year’s $5.56 million (which would have been $556,000).

Yet why city accountants made that flawed assumption is beyond me - for, from 2008 to 2009 (from $5 million to $5.56 million), that jump was 11.2 percent. One would think they would have figured for at least that much of an increase this year, shaving the actual $144,000 difference nearly in half. But then what do I know? I fix computers.

Since other funding sources besides the general fund kick in for this health cost deficit, however, according to City Treasurer Barb Dorr, that shortfall will come in at $62,000 - but, “to balance the budget at the end of the fiscal year on June 30, the departments will have to find a way to absorb it, Dorr said.”

“‘I think we can,’ Dorr said. ‘If we don’t, we’ll have to find the money somewhere.’” From where, I wonder? From under a rock?

Nor is that all - for, said Finance Committee member Jack Spiker, that shortfall does not take into account potential further cost increases that could take effect come January 1st. How much? Who knows? Pick a number and spin the wheel. So, once again, we find the forecasting abilities of city “planners” to be less than optimal. And that, too, is a surprise?

What bears asking at this point is: what’s driving these cost increases? Yes, inflation is part of it, but we aren’t running at 12.5 percent inflation per year - at least not yet. (Give the feds and their printing presses a little more time.)

And at least one other part is clear as well: “WINhealth has said that 3.5 percent of the increase is because of the federal Affordable Care Act.” Which would be $24,500.

Remember, back in March, when President Obama announced at a White House news conference that his health care “reform” proposal would “bring down the cost of health care for millions - families, businesses and the federal government”?

Well, that hypothesis just got blown out of the water. And the full scope of that stupidity hasn’t even taken effect yet. When it does, you can count on that measly little 3.5 percent to catapult its way through the roof. If city administrators really wanted to show some gumption, they’d send that part of the bill to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Which leads us back to the root problem: soaring costs. Yes, our health care system is broken - by decades of quasi-fascist, quasi-socialist regimentation, regulation and control. Its forced cartelization began with FDR’s New Deal tax credits for employer-based health insurance, thereby rewarding the destruction of individually-based health care portability.

From that point forward, things just got worse. With the addition of everything from AMA-approved licensing schemes to Medicare to Medicaid to the banning of interstate health care competition to mountains of state and federal legislation, the free marketplace for health care became a thing of the past - and, consequently, costs skyrocketed. Yet we’ve been told for decades that it’s the “free market” that bears the blame. Where do you see it, except for the last little bit that keeps us all alive?

Not that the extinction of free-market health care can be laid at the feet of city administrators. No, their crime is different: offering city employees health benefits that far exceed those available in the private sector.

Consider: the news story states that with these rate increases, a city employee (paying a flat-rate 12.5 percent of benefits) can now expect, on the family gold plan, to have to pony up “another $247.52 for the year, from a monthly cost of $164.20 to $184.92.” Prior to the increase, therefore, for 2009, such payments totaled $1,970.40 annually.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, however, the average monthly family premium paid by private-sector employees was $349.36 monthly, or $4,192.32 for the year. More than double Cheyenne city employees’ rates at 113 percent more.

Can anyone give me one good reason why these figures shouldn’t be the same? Why do city employees enjoy the luxury of paying less than half the rates the rest of us working stiffs pay? Bringing those figures in line with one another, as justice would demand, would have saved the city $1.1 million in 2010 alone.

And that would have made our $1 million BOPU payment on time, instead of deferring it to 2012. Still think city bean counters have a handle on things?

Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

To The Bureaucrats: Sorry, But You DO "Suck"

2010-11-01T05:47:00.004-06:00

A "national" piece, first published in the Grass Valley Union on November 3rd, 2010.

To The Bureaucrats: Sorry, But You Do “Suck”

By Bradley Harrington

“It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.” - Thomas Jefferson, “Notes on Virginia,” 1782 -

Federal government workers, apparently, just can’t seem to get any respect. That, at least, is the conclusion of a recent Washington Post poll revealing that:

“More than half of Americans say they think that federal workers are overpaid for the work they do, and more than a third think they are less qualified than those working in the private sector.” (“A negative poll for federal workers,” The Washington Post, Oct. 18th.)

But worry not, folks - for, in order to combat such poor image problems, the bureaucrats have a plan:

“Amid growing dissatisfaction with federal employees, a group of young, web-savvy feds are planning to march on Saturday in defense of their coworkers on the sidelines of Jon Stewart’s ‘Rally to Restore Sanity.’” (“‘Government Doesn’t Suck’ march planned,” The Washington Post, Oct. 25th.)

Yep, that’s really what they called it; I swear I didn’t make it up.

“‘People hate government,’ said march organizer Steve Ressler, but he says the troops have been called out to march Saturday to put a human face on the institution. They’ve come into town to push back against the apparently, widely-held assumption that, ‘we are all incompetent, lazy, and overpaid.’” (“Government workers: ‘We need love too,’” The Christian Science Monitor, Oct. 30th.)

One can’t help but wonder, in the face of such low opinions for bureaucrats “working” so diligently for our “welfare,” just where they came from.

Consider a few facts to point us in the right direction:

In 1910, the United States had a population of 92 million; of that population, 950,000 were government employees (all levels). This yielded just over 1 percent of the total, or 1 government employee per 97 people.

In 2010, the United States has a population of 308 million; of that population, 21.3 million are government employees (all levels). This yields 6.9 percent of the total, or 1 government employee per 14 people.

In the space of one single century, therefore, the number of government employees in relation to the population has increased by 693 percent.

And, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis’ figures for 2009, the average government salary is $123,000 per year, which means: 21.3 million bureaucrats are costing this country a whopping $2.6 trillion annually.

And, considering that the entire GDP for 2010 will be approximately $13.3 trillion, this further means: Government employees are being “employed” to the tune of nearly 20 percent of what the entire country will produce this year.

In 1910, by comparison, the GDP was $33.4 billion and the average government salary was $750 per year - so, 950,000 workers at that time cost us $713 million, or 2.1 percent of that year’s GDP.

Now, just for fun, let’s apply that 2.1 percent rate to our current GDP, yielding $279 billion, which we can refer to as the amount of money truly needed to pay the bureaucrats to run the country properly. Which, actually, is being pretty charitable, as even in 1910 we had interventionist bureaucrats paid to do little more than hamper trade and restrict the functioning of the free market.

Since we are spending $2.6 trillion instead, however, that means we still pay $2.3 trillion more on government salaries than legitimate operations for our population would dictate.

Yes, government “sucks” alright; it is sucking the monetary lifeblood right out of the country. Can you imagine what that $2.3 trillion yearly - itself over 17 percent of our GDP - could do to the United States’ poverty cycle if we fired all those extra bureaucrats and left that money in private hands, to be saved and invested into our economy?

No, we hand it over to “incompetent, lazy and overpaid” government “workers” instead - and then wonder why our freedoms and economic growth are in the toilet.

And that’s just salaries, people. When you further consider what it is that most of those bureaucrats are doing - i.e., whiling away their hours constructing mountains of stupid, stifling, subversive and self-defeating regulatory silliness - it’s pretty clear that those wasted dollars have a negative impact far beyond their actual value, for such controls obliterate the producers’ abilities to produce even more.

But we don’t see those lost jobs or that extra wealth either, because they never got created; and that’s a fact that “sucks” as well.

Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and a writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

The Fifth Penny: Mad Enough To Spit Sparks

2010-11-01T05:43:00.002-06:00

A "local" piece, published in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle under the title of "Holding my nose and voting yes" on October 30th, 2010.

The Fifth Penny: Mad Enough To Spit Sparks

By Bradley Harrington

“Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.” - P.J. O’Rourke, “Parliament of Whores,” 1991 -

As most everybody in this neck of the woods knows, the Laramie County “Fifth-Penny Tax” is up for a vote come November 2nd. And, as at least a few of us know, that is going to mean about $10 million per year for city government for the next four years.

Sorry, city administrators, you don’t deserve it. If there’s one thing you folks have demonstrated quite well in the last four years, it is your complete inability to properly spend taxpayer dollars. What kind of a sorry spending record have you people managed to pile up since the voters last approved this tax in 2006? Gross mismanagement, millions in cost overruns, the giveaway of tax dollars to “charity” organizations and a marked propensity to view of taxpayers as nothing more than a bottomless pit to be mined and plundered at your unrestrained will.
Nope, if there was ever an organization that was less deserving of voters willfully handing over their money, to be abused as you see fit, than that of Cheyenne city government, it could only be the United States Congress. And I suspect that many of the voters in this town feel the same way - for, for the first time since this optional tax was introduced in 1978, it now runs a good chance of going down in flames. And, should the voters choose to reject this measure, the only words I could say to you would be: Brothers, you asked for it!

At the same time, however, it is impossible to not recognize the fact that this tax pays for a major part of Cheyenne’s infrastructure: nearly 22 percent of city expenditures, with most of it going towards roads, police, fire and parks.

Short-term, could we save some of that money with better spending habits? Absolutely. We could place the $1 million reserved for “charities,” for instance, into the bit bucket where it belongs. And we could learn how to effectively engage in road construction bidding processes that place the burden of cost overruns onto the shoulders of the contractors where it needs to be. And we could fire incompetent city employees who make $90,000 mistakes with their calculators and think nothing of stealing more taxpayer dollars to make up for it.

Yep, just those approaches alone would save us millions. But, unfortunately, not $10 million per year. Consequently, in the short-term, there is simply no way that this tax can be axed without having a drastically negative effect on the city’s ability to function.

So, recognizing the realities of this situation, I have no choice but to support renewal of the fifth-penny tax. But if you think I’m happy about it, you’ve got another think coming, for I’m mad enough to spit sparks. I’m furious with city government for placing me in the position of having to choose between unrestrained spending that at least keeps the city functional and the yawning pit of fiscal insolvency. If city government was doing its job half as well as it ought to be, the voters would have a better choice.

So what, ultimately, is the long-term answer? How do we get to that point where we have a better choice? As any long-term reader of this column will know by now, the answer I propose is a shift towards privatization of services, with the final goal being the reduction of city government to its truly necessary operations: police, courts and administration.

In regard to fire services, for instance, Scottsdale, Arizona’s Rural-Metro has made it clear for decades that such services can be provided better and cheaper on the free market, with fire protection costs that average at one-fourth of the national average for cities in Scottsdale’s population class.

And roads? In “Street Smart: Competition, Entrepreneurship and the Future of Roads” by Gabriel Roth, strong market solutions to construction and maintenance from federal highways on down to local streets are discussed in detail as to funding and operation. But if that’s a little to “out of the box” for most people, the least we could do is contract out the current labyrinthic mess to a private contractor and thereby save untold millions of dollars over time.

Such solutions, while a little strong for most people who have been “educated” to the (erroneous) belief that government is the solution instead of the problem, have the great virtue of subjecting such functions to the dictates of consumer demand and the profit-loss signals of the marketplace - which is not exactly what anyone could possibly say about current city operations.

Above all, however, what Cheyenne really needs is complete accountability, including personal financial responsibility, for its city employees and the decisions they make. Spending proposals need to be concrete, focused and specific, instead of the vague and amorphous hodge-podge of convoluted patterns we are confronted with today - and people that pay money for their errors learn quite quickly to pay attention.

Then, finally, we might actually and happily get all the city government that we pay for.

Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

Cheyenne City Government: More Money Madness

2010-10-25T04:26:00.003-06:00

A "local" piece, published in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle under the title of "City bonuses? Mayor Kaysen slaps us right in the face" on October 23rd, 2010.

Cheyenne City Government: More Money Madness

By Bradley Harrington

“The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else.” - Frederic Bastiat, “Selected Essays on Political Economy,” 1848 -

Just in case you’ve been harboring the (mistaken) notion that Cheyenne city government has been getting a grip on its uncontrolled spending habits this last year, the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle’s recent front page story should suffice to disabuse you of that error:

“After city employees have gone nearly two years without raises, Mayor Rick Kaysen is looking to take $85,245 from reserves to give them $150 year-end bonuses.” (“Mayor proposes bonus,” WTE, Oct. 19th.)

And Steve McDonald, president of the Cheyenne Public Employees Association and a speaker at Monday’s City Council Finance Committee meeting, claimed that this bonus is deserved by employees “who are doing more with less” and lamented that “the employees have not been given a raise in pay or a cost-of-living adjustment since January of 2009. The light and gas bills continue to go up, the water bills continue to go up, the price of groceries have continued to go up, and no raise for the employees.”

Well, cry me a river. Do Mr. Kaysen and Mr. McDonald think the rest of us haven’t noticed such increases as well? Except that I haven’t had a pay raise since May of 2008, and I suspect my private-sector experience is shared by many. What makes these two think city employees should be exempt from market conditions at taxpayer expense?

Nor was Mr. McDonald finished, for he then asked that the recently state-mandated 2.87 percent pension cost increases, of which the employer pays 1.44 percent and the employees pay the other 1.43 percent, be picked up by the city beginning in November as well. The cost? $16,000 per month, or $128,000 for the rest of the fiscal year.

Keep in mind that city employees already have, as Councilman Jim Brown noted, 87.5 percent of their benefits paid for by the city - as compared to county and state employees, who have a mere 75 percent of their benefit costs covered.

And us poor slobs trudging along in the private sector? Well, speaking for myself as an employee of a small business, I have zero percent of my benefits paid for. That’s right: None. Nada. Zippo. The null set. Nor can I afford to purchase any, for I am too busy struggling to keep the lights burning and food on the table.

And now I am being led to believe that it’s right, proper and necessary that I should have more taxes (which, at well over 25 percent, happen to be the reason why I can barely make ends meet) further extracted from me so that Mr. McDonald can have 88.94 percent of his benefits paid instead of 87 percent?

Only a publicly-funded parasite could ever whine in such a fashion about this raw deal the city is handing him. If you don’t like your current gravy train, Mr. McDonald, I’d suggest you hitch a ride on some private-sector transportation for a bit of time instead - at least until you learn the lesson of what it’s like to live in the real world at your own expense. Then report on back and tell the rest of us how it feels to have your earnings seized without your consent to fund bloated city pay scales and pension schemes.

Now, to be fair, I don’t know that all city employees share Mr. McDonald’s viewpoint. Many of them, I’d wager, are just glad to have a job in today’s economic climate and are happy with what they have. But, for Mr. McDonald and any other like-minded individuals who don’t seem to believe that enough is enough: you have got to be kidding.

As for Mayor Kaysen, endorsing this madness is nothing short of pathetic. Is this how you “earn the public trust” you spoke of in your campaign, Mr. Mayor? Are these the principles of “sound city governance” that you promised city residents when you were busy canvassing our votes? I guess all that noise was just so much political hot air.

Thankfully enough, however, not all Finance Committee members shared Mr. Kaysen’s willingness to dole out bread and circuses. Mr. Brown expressed major misgivings as to the wisdom of this adventure - and Councilman Jack Spiker, to his credit, actually voted no on this appropriation, stating that such spending during a recession is “sending the wrong message.”

And what message would that be? That taxpayers are nothing more than a herd of cattle to be chopped up into hamburger whenever their masters can’t find it within themselves to tell city employees to take a flying leap? Nope, that’s probably not a good message to send with an election a scant 10 days away.

So, speaking of the taxpayers - have you had enough yet? Then I’d suggest that you show up to City Hall come Monday night, October 25th, at 6:00 p. m., for that is when the full governing body will vote on these appropriations. And if you don’t bother to take that time to protest, you’ve got it coming.

Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and writer who lives in Cheyenne; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

The Coming Civil War: Producers Vs. Parasites

2010-10-24T19:47:00.002-06:00

A "national" piece, slated for publication in the Philadelphia Bulletin on October 24th, 2010.

The Coming Civil War: Producers Vs. Parasites

By Bradley Harrington

“The task of defining ideas and goals is not the province of politicians and is not accomplished at election time: elections are merely consequences. The task belongs to the intellectuals. The need is more urgent than ever.” - Ayn Rand, “The Wreckage of the Consensus,” 1967 -

When Ayn Rand wrote the above words 43 years ago, the country was still stocked with a large majority of producers. Yes, the so-called “welfare” state and interventionist economics were on the rise, and had been for decades, but many more people than not supported themselves and their families by their own efforts.

If you still think that’s true, you had better think again.

In that year of 1967, for instance, the United States had a population of 198 million, a GDP of $825 billion, a federal budget of $157 billion and federal “social welfare” expenses of $26 billion. This placed “social welfare” spending at $131.30 per capita, 3.1 percent of GDP and 16.6 percent of federal outlays.

In 2010, the United States has a population of 308 million, a GDP of $13.3 trillion, a federal budget of $3.6 trillion and federal “social welfare” expenses of $2.1 trillion. This places “social welfare” spending at $6,818.18 per capita, 16.1 percent of GDP and 59 percent of federal outlays.

In the light of such figures, it’s pretty clear that our “social welfare” outlays have skyrocketed. And that’s just federal spending, folks - that doesn’t count the state and local outlays.

Given such data, I don’t think it’s too far of a stretch to say that fully half of our population is receiving government aid of some sort and amount from the other half.

And this guess, while a guess, is at least close, for the tax figures bear it out: In 2008, IRS figures show that the top 50 percent of the country’s adult population (with incomes greater than $33,000) paid 97.3 percent of collected taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the other piddling 2.7 percent.

And if you (mistakenly) think that this is the price we pay for “helping the poor,” you’d better check your premises on that one as well: for despite the untold trillions of dollars we’ve poured into the so-called “War on Poverty” since 1967 alone, when 31.8 million people lived under the poverty line, we now have 38.9 million people there instead. This isn’t “welfare”; this is parasites living at the expense of the producers - period!

Back in the early 1970s’, when I was still a fresh young lad, my father told me something that I’ll never forget: “When 50 percent or more of the country lives on the dole, you can kiss your freedoms goodbye.”

Well, welcome to the future. The 2008 election of radical left-winger Barack Obama and a host of additional tax-and-spend Congressional Democrats was the tipping point.

For how many more years does anyone seriously think such a trend can continue? Carried to its logical extreme, we will end up with one producer supporting an entire nation of parasites. Which is clearly impossible.

So, where’s the snapping point? At what point of the trend do the producers simply revolt and refuse to play their perennial role of self-sacrificial serfs? Like most human phenomena, it’s a bell curve. Some people have already dropped out and off the radar, and more and more are joining them with every passing year.

And the “bell” of that curve? It’s approaching us much faster than we think, and we are headed directly towards civil war. Hence the “Tea Party” revolution, which has gained steam precisely in step with the mushrooming level of servitude.

So, for the Republicans and the “Tea-Partiers” getting ready to celebrate what looks to be near-certain victory come November 2nd, be advised: you are getting ready to step in front of a train.

And that train, loaded down with every free-loading moocher and looter in the country who thinks they have a “right” to exist at the expense of everyone else, can’t be resisted politically: it has to be challenged ideologically. For the only way to prevent the upcoming wreck is to reduce that percentage rate below 50 percent, which means: to educate our population as to just how it is that their true best interests, both socially and economically, lie in the unfettered freedom of the capitalist marketplace.

And you’d better get busy at it, for our time is running out.

Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and a writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

The Sanction Of The Victim

2010-10-18T06:50:00.003-06:00

A "local" piece, published in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle under the title of "Government 'help'? Nope is the answer" on October 16th, 2010.

The Sanction Of The Victim

By Bradley Harrington

“A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take everything you have.” - Gerald Ford, “Address to Congress,” 1974 -

If you’ve ever wondered how it is that a once-proud, once-free Republic has managed to devolve itself into a shoddy second-class “welfare” state, a perfect example of how it happened presented itself in last Monday night’s City Council meeting.

Under “Other Business,” two residents addressed the governing body on the need for a new downtown grocery store to replace the Pioneer Safeway which closed its doors in back in February.

Amy Threewitt, for instance, City Council candidate for Ward 1, spoke of the lack of such a store as “something that’s been brought to my attention several times,” and is “passing this concern on” to the governing body.

And resident Jan Nelson-Schroll was wondering “if the City Council had any initiatives or anything going on for working for a grocery store for downtown.” To which Mayor Kaysen responded: “The city has been working with other entities with respect to trying to secure a supermarket-type of structure. We’ve also been chatting with the Downtown Development Authority and other folks as well…So, we are working on it, yes Ma’am.”

This is a topic I have written on before, but solely from the perspective of maintaining that it should be up to the free marketplace to determine whether or not a replacement store is warranted by consumer demand.

This time I’d like to approach the issue from a different standpoint entirely: Why do otherwise well-meaning people erroneously deem it to be the responsibility of government to concern itself with such issues to begin with?

We certainly don’t believe it to be the governing body’s responsibility, for instance, to determine whether or not the city needs another used car lot, or where it should be placed. Or to decide the nature and location of city restaurants, shoe shops, magazine outlets, dollar stores, or a host of other types of productive enterprises.

In all of those areas, we rely on the profit-and-loss signals of the marketplace to do their job and provide services that customers desire. What makes a grocery store any different? Why are we so quick, all of a sudden, to abandon the principles of free trade that have worked so well in all of these other areas for the principle of government force instead?

Now you may think that the phrase “government force,” as used here, is an exaggeration. If so, you are part of the very problem up for discussion - for government doesn’t have any “resources” that it hasn’t taken from us citizens first. To demand, therefore, that our governing body spend its time and our money on searching for a non-voluntary, non-market-based “solution” to the “problem” of a downtown grocery store is to demand, in essence, that some people should be coerced into meeting the needs of other people at the point of a gun.

Such an action could hardly be called ethical or respective of individual property rights, yet it is quite clear that this is a viewpoint for activist government community involvement that many of us hold. Do you now wonder at the ever-increasing power of the bureaucrats over every aspect of your lives? Brothers and sisters, you are asking for it! This is what Ayn Rand used to call the “sanction of the victim,” where she said: “Men cannot be enslaved politically until they have been disarmed ideologically. When they are so disarmed, it is the victims who take the lead in the process of their own destruction.” (“Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal,” 1967.)

And governments, from the White House to Capitol Hill right on down to 2101 O’Neil Avenue, respond accordingly. As proof, I offer you both the United States Congress, now busily competing electorally for the “right” to legally shape our non-coercive decisions, to Mayor Kaysen, who has just promised to look into ways to further manage our lives.

To which, for all you normally well-intentioned residents now merrily requesting that your grocery needs get met at the expense of everybody else, the question arises: Once property rights are abandoned and that arbitrary political power is put into place, what is left to prevent that government gun from being pointed in your direction at a later date?

I have no doubt that all of the above individuals would be repelled by the brutal realities of totalitarian societies such as Red China or Communist North Korea. Yet it is precisely the principle behind such requests, blown into full-scale and consistent operation, that make such regimes possible. Ideas have consequences - and, despite the fact that we in the United States are not as far along in the level of political regimentation being experienced in either of those slave pens, the collusion of principles cannot be denied.

So, if all of you folks really think downtown Cheyenne needs another grocery store, why don’t you spend your time contacting investors and developers instead of hollering for government “help”? For, as any serf of any communist ant heap will tell you, the freedoms you are destroying with your current approach are your own.

Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

UN Fails To Challenge Causes Of World Hunger

2010-10-17T10:39:00.004-06:00

A "national" piece, published in the Philadelphia Bulletin on October 24th, 2010.

UN Fails To Challenge Causes Of World Hunger

By Bradley Harrington

“Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” - Chinese Proverb -

This last October 16th, for those unaware, has been declared “World Food Day” by the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) arm of the United Nations. And their “solution” to world hunger? Alms, outrage and on online petition:

“In 2009, the critical threshold of one billion hungry people in the world was reached in part due to soaring food prices and the financial crisis, a ‘tragic achievement in these modern days,’ according to FAO Director-General Jacques Diouf. On the eve of the hunger summit, Dr. Diouf launched an online petition to reflect the moral outrage of the situation.” (FAO website, October 16th.)

And, “In addition,” said Dr. Diouf, “100 countries require emergency assistance to rebuild their agriculture productive capacity and 30 nations are undergoing a food crisis.” (“FAO calls for 70 percent increase in world food production,” Voice of America, October 15th.)

While the FAO reports do not specify which nations are suffering the worst, the International Food Policy Research Institute has identified the top ten hungriest countries as: Angola, Yemen, Chad, Ethiopia, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Niger, Burundi, Eritrea and, in first place, the Congo.

Now observe the types of governments these countries possess:

Angola and Chad are de-facto dictatorships with all political power concentrated in the hands of the president; Yemen is a theocracy in which only Muslims can hold office; Ethiopia declares its allegiance to the principles of “democratic socialism”; Liberia, Sierra Leone, Burundi and the Congo, currently in the midst of “transitional” governments, have all been crippled by decades of military rule and civil wars; Niger was taken over by a military junta just last February; and Eritrea, an authoritarian state, promotes the practices of “African socialism.”

With governments such as these, is it any wonder that the citizens of these countries find themselves in the midst of famine? Does anybody seriously believe that these “leaders” give a hoot about the welfare of their populations as they scramble for power?

Yes, it is a “moral outrage” that untold numbers of such people are slowly starving to death. What is even more outrageous is that no one cares to connect such unspeakable horrors with these nations’ forms of social organization.

Yet how does one expect production, of food or anything else, to take place in nations busily pounding themselves into balkanized civil-war rubble? Or where all life and society is controlled from the top on down by despots?

Wealth and prosperity are not given facts of human existence: they are the byproducts of protecting people’s right to produce, i.e., of protecting individual rights. Abolish the second and you’ve wiped out the first.

Instead of demanding “emergency assistance” from the world’s producing nations, the FAO - not to mention the health and very survival of the citizens of the countries in question - would be better served by promoting the socio-political system that created that abundance in the first place: capitalism. Since they are not, one can only conclude that any political system is acceptable in the eyes of the United Nations moochers, provided it is some type of collectivism.

Yet, as the philosopher Ayn Rand has noted, “If those nations were taught to establish capitalism, with full protection of property rights, their problems would vanish. Men who could afford it, would invest private capital in the development of natural resources, expecting to earn profits. They would bring the technicians, the funds, the civilizing influence, and the employment which those nations need...Instead, they prefer to seize men’s earnings - through taxation - and pour them down any foreign drain, and watch our own economic growth slow down year by year.” (“Theory and practice,” 1962.)

But such FAO collectivists will never see fit to alter their moral and social policies, for that would be “selfish” and therefore evil. No, they’ll continue to blame everything else around them instead (such as “soaring food prices and the financial crisis,” both of which are also the byproducts of statist controls), while they prostrate themselves to the slave-drivers of three continents - and all in the name of the human race. Now that is “tragic.”

For those of us truly interested in ending the travesty of global hunger, however, instead of merely flapping our gums about it while allowing its causes to go unchallenged, the answer is very clear: it’s not going to happen until freedom gets established first.

Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and a writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.