Nicky Cheese

According to self-described “futurist” Richard Neville, due to hyper-consumerism and its detrimental environmental effects, “there are going to be very turbulent social times ahead”.

[youtube]8_MovAWNxMc[/youtube]

What individuals will be the “target for outrage in the future”, the object of this turbulence? His hit-list includes:

1. economists

“People are going to start getting very angry at economics because their whole profession is based on encouraging growth.”

2. directors of corporations:

“[C]orporations also need to promote growth and, of course, we love them–how can we know who we are unless we identify with a brand.”

3. the rich

“How can you be rich and be carbon-neutral?”

Ah, the very individuals who create the conditions, materials and investments necessary for prosperity. A winning formula to be sure!

Less than a year after being released from prison, Dr. Jack Kevorkian is running for Congress in Michigan’s 9th District as an independent.

[youtube]hGCztCsCOfk[/youtube]

If elected, the right-to-die advocate will (predictably) focus on changing the Ninth Amendment to allow for assisted-suicide; he has also expressed opposition to the U.S. war in Iraq. I’m ignorant to the rest of his platform but–if those issues are in anyway representative–if given the chance, I would totally vote for him! Fo’ sure.

Of course, my political views are rarely mainstream, which this comparison–found in an Oakland Press story–makes quite clear:

Oakland County Prosecutor Dave Gorcyca, whose office was responsible for sending Kevorkian to prison, was dismissive of Kevorkian’s candidacy.

“I would place Jack Kevorkian’s candidacy in the same ranking with (Texas U.S. Rep.) Ron Paul’s (presidential run),” Gorcyca said.

My poor heart…

Self-ownership. To own one’s life. To live on one’s own terms. The ability to end one’s life when it is no longer of value is a logical and necessary component to this conceptual framework.

I’m really interested in what Kevorkian’s overall personal and political philosophy is. If anyone knows of a good book or insightful resource to this end, send it my way. I’ll definitely be following this.

From citizen-times.com, a story of the feds busting up an illegal moonshine distillery in the south-east boonies:

Maggie Valley moonshine legend Marvin “Popcorn” Sutton is in jail again after authorities in east Tennessee said they uncovered a large whiskey distillery housed in a barn near his home. He also faces charges coming from a Monday seizure of moonshine in a Haywood County storage facility…he was making untaxed whiskey at multiple locations in Parrottsville, Tenn., about 50 miles east of Knoxville near the North Carolina state line.

Yes sirree! There he is, my main man “Popcorn”!

Woulda gotten away with it too…if it wasn’t fer that blasted book. And, well, I suppose the film didn’t help of much either…

Sutton’s craft has brought him a level of fame in the mountains, especially in recent years with the release of his film “The Last Run of Likker I’ll Ever Make” and book “Me and My Likker.”

But, say what you will about the self-promotion, the punishment hardly fits the crime.

Sutton faces up to 10 years in federal prison on a charge of possession of a firearm by a felon and five years for each of the three moonshining charges. He could also face heavy fines…

And, of course, the fed’s bullshit attempt to spin the story:

But U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearm agents who helped arrest Sutton said moonshine operations like his should not be treated lightly.

“Moonshine is romanticized in folklore and the movies. The truth, though, is that moonshine is a dangerous health issue and breeds other crime,” ATF Special Agent James Cavanaugh said in a statement. “The illegal moonshine business is fraud on taxpayers in Tennessee and across the country,” he said.

…a “fraud on taxpayers”. Yeeaah…gimme a break. It’s tax evasion or fraud on government and I support it. Put it to a vote, I’m sure the tax-paying public feels the same way. Because we’re all really counting, depending, on the government services that come from liquor taxes…

Virginia Postrel, author of The Future and Its Enemies–one of my favorite pieces of political nonfiction–is featured in reason.tv’s latest video entitled Organ Transplants: Kidneys for Sale (I had a blog post with the same subtitle here).

‘What’d she do–donate her kidney?’

Why yes she did! In order to save an ally’s life. In order to make a larger political and moral point. In order to make some money. Err, can’t do that…

[quicktime]http://s3.amazonaws.com/reasontv-video/reasontv_video_333.mp4[/quicktime]

Hands down, the most absurd argument against organ-markets comes from UCLA’s Dr. Gabriel Danovitch, stating that money compromises what was previously an altruistic donation, that the dollar signs negate the selfless goodness of the action.

“Because they don’t care about each other…We’re going to take the caring about of it and it’s becomes a matter of paying off people.”

What is he, crazy? Pushing a form of Kantian duty as the legal standard?! Yamma-hamma. Now I don’t tow the Randian line when it comes to detesting all things Kant–she definitely threw out the baby with the bathwater in that regard–but her diagnosis of Kant’s moral philosophy is right on:

What Kant propounded was full, total, abject selflessness: he held that an action is moral only if you perform it out of a sense of duty and derive no benefit from it of any kind; neither material nor spiritual; if you derive any benefit, your action is not moral any longer.

Not the best criteria to base legislation upon.

On the other hand, maybe it does work! Courtesy of the Onion, Anonymous Philanthropist Donates 200 Human Kidneys to Hospital:

[youtube]D_5nLxZVoPo[/youtube]

UPDATE: I wish I was clever enough to think of the following title for this post: Kant get a kidney? No Wonder. It’s an article by Thomas L. Knapp that I found after the fact in Rational Review. Great stuff that goes further to make the Kant/kidney connection.

Adbusters. What a piece of work. If you thought last week’s rant against Menial Matters was harsh, you have yet to hear my thoughts on the misanthropic, anti-consumerist luddites at Adbusters. Suffice it to say, they’re not positive.

But that diatribe will have to wait as I’m limiting this post to their unsuccessful lawsuit, which–in ten words or less–was an attempt to force TV networks to air their advertisements. From Adbuster’s 3/3 press release:

On Monday, February 18, Adbusters lost its court battle against two of Canada’s television networks that refused to sell airtime for its commercials. Adbusters claimed the CBC and Canwest Global had violated its right to free speech under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by refusing to sell air time, but the court decided that the Charter does not apply to private corporations.

The fact that Adbusters sued both a private and a public corporation makes the case not so cut and dry. For, it seems correct that there ought to be equal-access to entities that are government-funded–in this case the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation). But in press releases and other articles, Adbusters has largely ignored this element, focusing instead on the fact that their free speech “does not apply to private corporations”. Which leaves me to believe that the private sphere is their real target and CBC was thrown in there for strategic purposes.

Coming from imcWINNIPEG:

For over 10 years Adbusters has been trying to pay major commercial broadcasters to air its ads, only to be routinely blocked by network executives, usually with no reason given. This amounts to censorship and suppression of free speech, says Lasn.

“Lasn” is Adbusters’ Editor-in-Chief Kalle Lasn. He believes–as the quote demonstrates–that people have a right to free speech on other people’s private property, that (to frame it more generously) people have a right to demand purchase of another person’s product–in this case, advertising airtime.

…an understanding of private property and ownership that, if you ask me, makes the concepts completely meaningless. For, what good is private property if I am unable to qualify what activities occur and what activities do not, if any outsider can at any time come in and use it? What value does ownership have if at any time you can force me to make a sale?

Not much.

Now I’m not all that familiar with the world of broadcast licensing but, if I’ve correctly interpreted the situation–and let me know if I haven’t–the philosophical and moral principles of self-ownership seem completely applicable.

And that is that you do not have a right to my production, even if you pay for it. Even if you pay market value, even if you pay 10x the market value–you do not have a right to purchase product x. Who cares that you have the means to do so? I always retain the right. I determine whether or not I want to sell my property to you. Trade is always contingent upon my consent.

I mean, using Adbusters’ logic, McDonald’s has a right to buy advertising within the pages of the magazine. And if you’ve ever seen anything Adbusters has put out, you know they’d first buy something on Buy Nothing Day than allow that.

In any case, I’ve been looking for a reason to link to this audio for some time now: a 911 call on behalf of an unsatisfied Burger King customer. It’s a hilarious situation that includes the same I-have-a-right-to-purchase-your-product mentality, demonstrating the ridiculousness of such a philosophy.

It’s so well-done I actually can’t stop playing it. Inspirational and moving. Too bad it came out three months too late…

[youtube]-3MLTvYBQy0[/youtube]

Instead, when it really counted (Iowa and New Hampshire), we were left with these clunkers…

[youtube]30yxHqSUva8[/youtube]

[youtube]2T-iJKwskH4[/youtube]

A shame, yes. But it’s okay. The r3VOLution will go on.

H/T: Liberty Girl

For those of you who didn’t know, I’m living in Houston now. Tonight will be two weeks. Woo-wee, Texas!

Anyhow, over the weekend, my roommate and I drove a couple hours to Austin to go to a few bars and check out the atmosphere of SXSW. I wasn’t really interested in any of the bands except Digitalism, a German-based act that I really like dancing to. But yo! At over $500, I wasn’t about to buy a festival pass for a mere two hours of enjoyment.

So we went to a (surprisingly) non-celebratory Irish pub and, following that, the club next door, Molotov Lounge. The artist playing there: Nullsleep. See below and notice the tee.

Not one to pass up a conversation with contentious political potential, I asked him about the tee-shirt and its associated message (I figured it was predictable environmental alarmism). He tells me, ‘kinda but more’. Not only did he think that the Earth was environmentally “dead” but culturally, socially, politically and philosophically as well. Yeah, the whole gamut. Whatever. Generally when your critique is that broad, it’s bordering on meaninglessness and not worth getting into.

So I move on and talk with other SXSW enthusiasts, where I learned that — because of the festival’s decentralized, multi-venue format — one can, in most instances, actually see a single show without paying the entire SXSW price-tag.

And that’s all it took. Current time: 12:15am. The time Digitalism took the stage: 12:30am.

I power-walk a mile to the venue in question, the roommate (& her acquired company) trailing at least 10 feet behind me. No diff. I have a goal in mind and altruistic social norms aren’t about to get in the way.

By the time I get there, it’s 12:25am and I have 5 minutes. Sweet. Moreover, I find out that the venue is, in fact, allowing “walk-ins” to trickle in at $20 a pop. Sweet! But argh! I need cash. Quickly. I look around and see an ATM about thirty feet away.

And then the whoa. As I’m working the ATM magic, I receive an unprecedented proposition, an offer that–up until that point–hadn’t ever entered my universe of discourse (…to borrow a term from logic class).

Yes, the highest ATM fee I’ve ever seen: $5.25.

Caught off guard, my immediate impulse was to hit “cancel” and search for more options. But the show, the line, the time! Hell, all things considered, I was pretty lucky–yes, lucky–in finding an ATM so close. So after quickly weighing my options, I decide that, yes, the fee is well worth the convenience because that very convenience consequently enables me to do what I really, really wanted to do that night: to see Digitalism in person and dance my ass off. So, exercising my volition, I choose to accept the $5.25 fee. I owned the decision.

However, as I’m sure you’re well-aware, this is an unpopular view, rarely shared by others. People like to prop up the “victimization” of capitalism and ignore the daily benefits it breathes into our lives. Pretty one-sided.

Yes, free-market opponents will go on and on, and point to situations like my own as evidence that the system is fundamentally exploitative, that it’s always out to get you at your expense. But notice that, as an individual who paid $5.25 for an ATM fee, the system didn’t hurt me. No, it helped me have an awesome night!

Are free-markets opportunistic? Definitely, but so what? It goes both ways. Without a profit-driven market, ATM convenience wouldn’t exist in the first place.

Are they exploitative? Gimme a break. The choice is always in the hands of the individual.

UPDATE: I think Liberty Girl’s gas-station comment (see below) was in some way prophetic. Coming from reason.com, check out I’m Not Going to Pay a lot for that Gasoline. Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter is making gas stations engaging in “excessive pricing” give refunds to customers.

Suppose you pull into a gas station and notice that the price for a gallon of regular unleaded seems awfully high—more than $4, compared to the $3.30 or so you’re used to paying. If you’re in a hurry, you might decide to pay the premium. If you have a couple minutes to spare, you might go to the station down the street where prices are lower. In Indiana, you would have a third option: Buy the gas and call the attorney general…

Last week Tuesday, the Center for Union Facts launched the “Ten Worst Union-Protected Teachers” contest:

Thanks to outmoded, union-defended employment laws and policies, it can be impossible to fire a bad union-protected teacher. That’s why the Center for Union Facts is going to pay the ten worst union-protected teachers in America $10,000 apiece to get out of the classroom – for good. Dedicated, professional teachers have nothing to fear from this contest (in fact, it’s teachers unions who oppose paying better teachers more money); we’re here to showcase the worst of the worst.

They’ve received over three hundred nominations already, a sample of which you can see here.

Coming today from Orange County, FL, here’s a story with a likely nominee: Boy Says Teacher Forced Him to Urinate in Lunchbox During Class.

From the popular blog Stuff White People Like, we get #82 on its running list: Hating Corporations.

It’s hilarious and dead-on:

One of the more popular white person activities of the past fifteen years is attempting to educate others on the evils of multi-national corporations. White people love nothing more than explaining to you how Wal*Mart, McDonalds, Microsoft, Halliburton are destroying the Earth’s culture and resources.

While the growth of multi-national corporations can be attributed to a number of complex social, economic and political factors, many white people prefer to take the word of two trusted sources: No Logo and AdBusters.

…buy a copy to leave on your coffee table. When white people see it, they will recognize you as someone who can see through the advertising and has a proper perspective on life.

When engaging in a conversation about corporate evils it is important to NEVER, EVER mention Apple Computers, Target or Ikea in the same breath as the companies mentioned earlier. White people prefer to hate corporations that don’t make stuff that they like.

UPDATE: Skimming the site a little more, I see that #8 on the list is “Barack Obama“.

Going full circle, you’ll remember that back in late February, Mrs. Obama (who makes plenty of money sitting on corporate boards herself) told women in economically troubled Zanesville, Ohio (where the median income for female workers last year was $20,142) the following:

“We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we’re asking young people to do,” she tells the women. “Don’t go into corporate America.”

Scientific approach, indeed!

I really just don’t get the purpose of Media Matters. Are they for anything beyond thrashing (anything and everything associated with) conservatism? I mean, I’m no conservative but — jeesh — the empty, yellow-journalism that comes out of that organization is ridiculous. Seriously, any affirmative values whatsoever?

The Media Matters Who We Are section states that they’re:

“a progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media”.

But everything I’ve witnessed is either a.) worthless, pedantic nit-picking or b.) blatant misrepresentation.

Let’s begin with the nit-picking. On Tuesday, Denver-based Fox 31 reported the following:

[quicktime]http://colorado.mediamatters.org/static/video/fox31-20080311.mov[/quicktime]

Colorado Media Matters then goes off the deep end because “besides not identifying the Independence Institute as a ‘free-market, pro-freedom’ policy research organization, Fox 31 failed to mention the think tank’s campaign against the FasTracks referendum in 2004″.

No value judgment on the actual content of the story. The fact that the government is forcibly taking private property and turning it over to private developers, that a voter-approved transportation project has turned into a illegal redevelopment scheme — it doesn’t get a response from the organization. (One can only assume they support it.) But the fact that the local Fox affiliate dared mentioning II and the Colorado Property Rights Coalition without additionally providing both biographies and a response by the RTD, by all accounts unnecessary — that gets a huge write-up.

Worthless, pedantic nit-picking.

Of course, this is small beans compared to the national organization. Moving on to the blatant misrepresentation…

On Tuesday, March 4th of this year, Glenn Beck made fun of conservatives freaking out about Obama’s popularity, and in jest asked Pastor John Hagee: “Odds that Barack Obama is the Antichrist?”. Hagee answers “No chance” and they both laugh, acknowledging of the silliness of the question.

Then, Media Matters and Co. effectively spin this innocent exchange as a serious diatribe, managing to even get it in a New York Times piece. Nothing short of incredible. You really have to check it out; the whole step-by-step process is conveniently (and legitimately) documented on Beck’s site with video.

Even in the rare instance where there is philosophical agreement between MM and the conservative punditry — like, say, in mutual opposition to racism — the former instinctively finds a way to denigrate the latter. Late September of last year, Bill O’Reilly had an uncommon radio broadcast of constructive, argumentative clarity, advocating for racial equality, multiculturalism and uplifting black pop-culture. Media Matters then stripped a few key sentences out of context — out of the overall positive message — and, in doing so did a public smear-job on O’Reilly.

After the MSM blindly blew the story up, Matt Lauer took Media Matters to task:

[youtube]eIP1SjYfjQ0[/youtube]

My favorite line from Lauer:

“Have we gotten into a situation in this country where its the gotcha mentality, where basically we look at every little thing and we look for the negatives because the negatives make headlines? Even if we don’t think that in the bigger picture Bill O’Reilly is at all a racist, we like these little negative comments just because they make headlines?”

Hit the nail on its head. That “gotcha mentality” is what Media Matters is all about. That is their modus operandi. They are out to discredit anything that may indirectly or incidentally “forward the conservative message”. And that includes instances where conservatives appear to be normal (Glenn Beck making a joke) or, worse yet, uplifting (in the case of O’Reilly).

It’s parasitic intellectual dishonesty for the purpose of idealogical gain.

Really, Media Matters deserves — and I’m not the first to think of this — the nickname Menial Matters.

Menial, meaning “unskilled”, “tedious”, “demeaning”, and by association, worthy of complete avoidance.