American Republic Online

Winter weather over the past few days has frozen up to 75% of California's citrus crop.  Estimates are that retail prices will raise three to four times current prices.  I know, I know, I had the same thoughts too: price gouging and windfall profits.  I mean, who do these citrus growers think they are, quadrupling prices of oranges for working families of America?  

We have a great example from just a couple years ago of more evil corporate goons raising prices on the poor: Big Oil.  Look, just because the largest hurricane ever recorded in the history of the world came through and destroyed the largest oil/natural gas port in the nation was no reason for them to raise prices 50% was it?  Now a freeze comes through California and destroys the orange crop, and they're going to raise prices 300%?  Is food not more of a necessity of life than oil?  Come on people!  Consider this, the Governor of Louisiana declared New Orleans a disaster area, and now that the Governator of California has declared a disaster area further illustrates my point.  It's just money hungry capitalist pigs grabbing at any chance to make a buck off the backs of the vanishing Middle Class. 

My only comfort is that now that the Democrats control the Legislature, maybe we'll finally get that windfall profit tax they campaigned on.  That'll put 'em in their place.  Plus, they can use the money to build bridges in Alaska: now there's an admirable use of our tax dollars.

Read the full article »

President Bush gave a national address last week in which he outlined his new strategy for Iraq.  It is being called a troop "surge."  Democrats are howling.  Senator Clinton says Bush would “continue to take us down the wrong road, only faster” and Senator Bidon wants to make sure the President realizes "he's on his own."  Republicans are getting huffy too, as the general public has turned against the war, and it won't make 2008 easier for them.

The Economist has a review of this decision.  It is an interesting analysis, but I disagree.  Why?  Well, we must first understand the situation.  Here is my take on the current state of Iraq: right now the US is sitting on the sidelines as Iran is shaping Iraq into a predominately Shiite nation, that will be predisposed to Iranian influence.  The Sunnis have recognized the US's impotence, and are fighting to maintain some power.  Don't think so?  Less than a year ago the Sunni leadership sold out Al-Zarqawi.  They were ready to participate in the political process, and this was the cue.  Then something happened.  Iran played all their cards.  Remember Hezbolah and Israel's skirmish this fall?  That was no accident.  Consider this: Iran is now pretty much the premier state in the Middle East now.  Everyone over there realizes this.  And the US now has little power in shaping the future of Iraq.  Unless…

Unless we can demonstrate we still have some credibility as a military force by securing Baghdad.  Now, I am no military strategist, but I do know this: Bush is not a madman, nor does he lightly send more troops to the front lines.  He's at a point where he has two options in Iraq: essentially give it over to Iran, or try to reassert the US into the process.  He has chosen the later, and one of two things will result.  First, nothing.  That is, Baghdad is not  secured, and the insurgency continues.  Second, the military accomplishes their new mission, at least in part.  If this happens, the US is back in it; they'll have shown demonstrably that tey can still make a difference.  It won't turn the tide, but it can change the tone.  This, I believe, is the why behind Bush's decision.  On the one hand, things won't necessarily get any worse, but there's a chance they may get better.  

To be clear, I'm not sure I agree with the decision.  However, what I am sure of is that I'm glad I'm not the one making the decision.

Read the full article »

It was only a matter of time.  Seattle is now considering bans on smoking in public housing.  Of course, landlords have always had the ability to dictate smoking rules for their property.  It's not going to end.  Soon, people will not be able to smoke in their own homes, once again demonstrating how much our society values the idea of private property (don't make me bring up Kelo…). 

The studies that show a correlation (not causation) among second-hand smoke and health risks, basically show that if you live with a heavy smoker for a long time, you have an increased risk of developing health problems.  To my knowledge, there is not a link with social exposure (bars, the beach, etc.).  It is merely a nuisance.  The residents of Seattle probably have more to fear from being stuck in rush hour traffic every day with all those other people who want to live where a million other people do and breathing that air than they do from smelling smoke in a bar or their backyard.  I'll happily deal with the nuisances of liberty before I have a telescreen installed in my house. 

Read the full article »

Need to kill some time at work?  Need some ideas for dinner?  Always been curious?  Come take a journey with Tom Dickson, as he asks the age-old question Will it Blend?   

Here's a video featuring a "man we never knew and a competitive sport we never knew existed."  Philip J Rockhammer.  Go for the gold.  Overcome the other person with just your eyes..

Here's something interesting:

A Swedish file-sharing company is looking to buy its own island-nation in order to avoid international copyright law.  They will bestow citizenship upon all who donate to their cause.  You can donate at www.buysealand.com there is a forum to discuss issues involved with creating a new nation.  This is fascinating.  

At first, I am, of course, attracted to the issues of liberty surrounding "New Sealand" (if I can get away with using such a pun).  Creating and establishing your own country: "to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…"     sigh. 

Then I wake up.  Take a couple minutes to look at threads on the forum regarding politics of Sealand.  Specifically, peruse "Communism".  The first post is incredible: "It has been shown throughout history that poor countries do the best when it's a communist country."  Excuse me?  Maybe I'm only familiar with Communism destroying countries that I missed all the current countries that have had the bonds of poverty lifted through the power of collectivism.  Perhaps he misses the point that actually being able to buy a sovereign nation might only be possible through capitalism?  Only a company based solely upon the desire to steal what capitalism wrought be communist, for they have already begun to deny the idea of property.  And what's this talk about Bill Gates' existence leaving 30 other people with nothing?  Last time I checked he helped created a company that employs over 70,000 people…  at the least the author offers a disclaimer:  "But hey, what do I know about politics?"  Indeed.

Silly Commies aside, how can this ever be a viable nation?  Actual anarchy seems to be the only "system" that would fit with the company's lust for free media: they obviously have little use for laws and regulations.  However, pure anarchy would enivitably back fire, for even small islands cannot escape the Invisible Hand: what companies or countries would work with them?  A country founded on the "ideal" of theft would not attract many willing parties.  

Read the full article »

Republicans are hammering the new Speaker Pelosi for hypocrisy.  The new minimum wage bill that passed in the house raises the Federal wage in all states and territories, except the American Samoa.  (I know, American what?  It's a small island in the Pacific.)  The claim is that there is a big tuna industry there that is controlled by Del Monte.  Del Monte is based in San Francisco, which happens to be Pelosi's district.  Hmmm….

Seems like a bit of a stretch to me: a few too many steps.  However, the fact remains that the wage increase applies everywhere, including every other U.S. territory, except the American Samoa.  Someone had to write that in.  The question is why?  Will we find out?  Will the Senate investigate, or just change it?

Read the full article »

Walter Williams takes on Mayor Bloomberg and the recent ban on so-called trans fat in restaurants.  He likens the current crusade to the anti-smoking one we have been subjected to over the past few decades.  It all started with no smoking sections on airplanes, and now some cities are banning smoking in your car and your backyard…

Williams is right: if they want me to stop eating BBQ and ice cream, they can pry it out of my cold dead hands. 

John Stossel takes on the minimum wage debate and asks why not raise it to $25? 

"As George Mason University economist Walter Williams says, 'It's tempting to think of higher minimum wages as an anti-poverty weapon, but such an idea doesn't even pass the smell test. After all, if higher minimum wages could cure poverty, we could easily end worldwide poverty simply by telling poor nations to legislate higher minimum wages.'"