Mandatory Voting

Given a choice, I go to the polls. Not because there is a social contract, and not because “voting fixes everything”; but because it should be in my best interest to participate in the political process.

Like everything else in the world these days, there are some people who seem to think that we shouldn’t be given that choice. Stumbled across a three year old article from Nixon associate John Dean concerning the appalling voter turnout at recent elections. The obvious solution to a Nixonite is (Nixon being known for his fondness of price controls and other top down gov’t interference) mandatory voting. Well, we are talking about John Dean, and it was three years ago. What about today?

Doing a bit of sniffing around, I turned up another more recent article from Norman J. Ornstein. He’s concerned about the polarization in congress. In his opinion, the cause of this is low voter turnout. His solution? Mandatory voting.

Personally, I think that congress isn’t polarized enough. They still seem to pass way too many laws in any given term; laws that, in most cases, are probably beyond the authority of the US Congress. In any case, I very seriously doubt that mandatory voting will affect the makeup of congress. Opinion polling being what it is, it seems to me that even if you forced everyone to vote, blue states would remain blue, and red states would remain red. Could be wrong, but let’s not go there anyway.

Ornstein bemoans the defeat of ‘centrist’ Joe Lieberman in the most recent primaries in Massachusetts by Ned Lamont, a darling of the left, with an anemic primary turnout of 46%. Shocking, isn’t it? That the Democrat party would nominate a left/liberal candidate rather than a centrist? Here’s a thought; why is the public expected to fund and participate in party primaries at all? Where is it written that there are only two parties, and participation in their nomination process should be mandatory for the public?

I think it’s great that the Democrats should nominate candidates that agree with their platform. That was my major complaint against John Kerry; he wasn’t a Democrat. If having to choose between the lessor of two evils is distasteful to Mr. Ornstein, perhaps the solution is to open up the political process, not attempt to control it more with mandatory voting.

It’s not the first time I’ve heard this suggestion. It seems to roll out with nearly every election cycle; pundits bemoaning the lack of interest in the general population for the political process. As usual, most of the pundits simply have it backwards. People aren’t interested because there aren’t any real choices to be made. The average citizen knows that no matter what the candidates say in order to get elected, their votes in congress are bought and sold by the backers who get them there.

Why bother voting, when the real decisions are made by others? My answer is to vote in protest. Cast a ballot for any candidate that isn’t an incumbent. Vote no on all bond proposals. Let them know we aren’t happy with the way things are going. Vote third party (Go LP!) if it’s available to you.

But now, turn it around. Voting is mandatory. What’s a self-respecting protest voter to do in that instance? Don’t vote. Imagine the headache that would cause. They’d have to hire every other citizen as a cop just to have enough people to enforce the law. Or, if you wish to avoid a costly legal penalty, cast a blank ballot. Nobody wins the election, does that mean the gov’t has to close up shop? What a nice dream that is.

It’s mandatory to vote in Australia, and many other places. In Australia, they have actually attempted to enforce the law, which has given rise to the “donkey vote”; pinning the tail on the donkey, pulling the lever for whoever because you are required to. The gov’t estimates that this is a rather low percentage of the population (1 or 2 percent) but I’d be willing to bet that half the people who show up to vote simply pull the lever next to the name they recognize. Voila, instant incumbent re-election, at very low cost.

Which is, I think, the real reason that mandatory voting is even discussed. To artificially prop up the legitimacy of the sitting gov’t, and to insure that it continues to sit for as long as it wishes. After all, if they aren’t seen as legitimate, what’s to stop them from going the way of the USSR?

…And if the population is really that apathetic, who’s to say they shouldn’t?

Editor’s note, 2018. This is another one of those subjects that look different when thinking clearly; when your thinking isn’t muddied with the duplicity of trying to arrange a society without force when there is force being applied around us all the time by the very constraints of physical existence as a living creature.

Try not eating, not breathing, not sleeping if you think you aren’t forced to engage in these behaviors. Let me know how that works out.

Voting should be mandatory with a minimal fine for failing to vote. The funds can go into a coffer that is dedicated towards elections and campaigning. We need to stop this delusion that you can abstain from society while living in it. If you want to live like Robinson Caruso, I suggest you find an an island and get to it. The rest of us like the benefits of society. Things like computers, automobiles and smartphones. Things that take a society to build.

Primaries should be partiless. All candidates running for an office go on a single ballot, and the top two vote getters then go on to the general election regardless of party. Faction is the problem here and removing the factions from the process is the cure.

I’m compiling notes for the Politics 101 that I’ve been threatening to write for quite some time now. It’s starting to take shape, finally.

The Unmourned End of Libertarian Politics

Read a rather amusing hatchet job the other day “The Unmourned End of Libertarian Politics”. The poster who forwarded it didn’t include a source for the article. I am always suspicious of articles that are posted without source reference, It makes fact-checking that much harder. So I decided to take the time to look up the source for this one.

As for the content of the article, the author takes many liberties with the label “Libertarian”. Most of them erroneous. While his examples are indeed libertarian positions (ending Social Security was one of them) the people who are promoting them are far from libertarian in belief. Most of them tout the ideas a conservative, and the politicians promoting these ideas would never admit to having any libertarian leanings.

In browsing the write up on his book, It looks as if Ronald Reagan is one of his heroes. Reagan too promoted libertarian ideas cloaked as conservative ones. One of them was the the foundation of the Savings and Loan debacle. Just like his current peer in office, Reagan’s attempt at ‘free market’ corrections to the Savings and Loan mess were only free market in name, and left the industry wide open for the type of theft that eventually brought Savings and Loans to an end.

So too the ‘privatization’ of Social Security proposed by ‘W’ wasn’t privatization at all; and the voucher systems intended to correct the failing public schools were not rejected by the citizenry but were in fact shot down by teacher’s unions nearly everywhere they were proposed. Some limited voucher systems have taken hold. Find the info here.

The foundation that the author is part of also leaves me cold. New America? What’s wrong with the old one? How about we just discover Real America, and leave it at that, eh? Like the New Deal, I don’t think there’s very much American over at New America. Maybe it’s just me.

As it is, the Libertarian Party is still alive and kicking (albeit hampered by a core constituency that seems to think not voting is some form of effective protest movement) Mark Twain’s quote sprang immediately to mind when I read the article title.

“The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated”

What has come stumbling to it’s ineffectual end is the illusion that we have two parties in the US today. Anyone who has been paying attention should have a hard time determining the difference between Liberal and Conservative right now; trying to separate the Socialists who are only looking out for our best interests, from the Fascists who are only doing what’s right for the rest of us. Personally, I don’t think it’s worth the effort.

2019. You know, once you pull your head out of your big, fat ass the world tends to look completely different. What amuses me about posts like this these days is how convinced I was that everybody else was clueless and I was the only one thinking clearly. Now I’m just happy to still be thinking, muddled as it all seems to be. Saner but sadder, from a philosophical standpoint.

Once again, I cite the Big Bowl of Crow I ate a while back. Still trying to digest some of that.

Voting vs. Abstaining

I keep running across well intentioned individuals who seem to think they are achieving something by abstaining from the political process. Other Peoples Politics and Madness of Voting are two of the more recent examples of articles that I’ve read; however, there is a long standing tradition of not voting amongst anarchist and hard-core libertarian types that dates back to the days of Lysander Spooner. Just wander by the Voluntaryist some time, and have a look at the amount of work that’s been put into justifying non-participation in the current political process.

I got a kick out of the Voluntaryist statement of purpose; “Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society” Politics is the process by which groups make decisions. That is the definition for the word politics. Apparently they advocate a society that makes no decisions, which is an oxymoron. A society that makes no decisions is not a society.

This approach amounts to nothing more than sour grapes; I’m not playing until the rules are the way I want them to be. In the world the way I think it should be, a simple majority would be a meaningless political concept. Rights would stand inviolable by ignorant voters, who simply believe what the school board tells them and raises taxes for everyone because “The schools need more money”. In a properly set up government, every citizen would be pre-qualified to hold office. At election time, a name is drawn for each office that needs a new occupant, and the person attached to that name gets that job for the duration. None of these popularity contests, no owing favors to your backers once you gain office. The only thing binding you is your oath to uphold the constitution.

Unfortunately that isn’t the world we currently live in. The process outlined above is another form of democracy known as sortition; a process we should have adopted from the Greeks (rather than going with the beauty pageant, the essence of election) but did not.

I’m no devotee of elections (as the above should show) but the game stands as it was set by the people who preceded us here. Either you play the game before you, or you don’t play at all. You can pick and choose which parts of the game you will take part in; but the game will be played the same way it always has been.

When the major parties pay lip service to getting out the vote, while all their ads are clearly slanted towards convincing their opponents core constituency to stay away from the polls, it seems foolish in the extreme for the average libertarian to hand them precisely what they are asking for. The protest non-voters are simply lost in the shuffle, 10% (at most) of the roughly 50% to 60% who simply don’t vote in any given election.

However, if that 10% voted Libertarian, someone would notice. And imagine what would happen if the other half of the country showed up and voted LP at the same time? It might actually make some changes around here.

Jim Davidson (of Indomitus, linked above) has other things to say on the subject of voting. Like this bit of amusement that he titled Head Shots over at The Libertarian Enterprise. Other than his confederate sympathizers reference to Lincoln, I think it’s an excellent proposal. Perhaps I should get in a bit more silhouette practice.

Unfortunately a good many of his arguments refer back to the issue he has with Lincoln and the Civil War as his objections to this blog entry also make reference to the behavior of Lincoln in relation to the Constitution and what a proper society looks like.

I’ll leave the discussion of what a proper society is to another blog entry, as well as the subject of the kinds of confederate folly that Jim Davidson engages in, and address the points on voting that this entry is about.

I’ll beg Jim’s leave to reprint the salient points here:

I’m not a libertarian, RAnthony. I have signed the covenant of universal consent, so I am not average. I’m a propertarian and a free marketeer. Which is precisely why I cannot consent to a process that defrauds many and imposes force on all.

Those who choose to vote have given their consent to be governed by whomever has been chosen in the polls. As George Carlin explains, if you vote, you shouldn’t complain. The guys who counted the votes told you who won. You agreed that whoever the guys who counted the votes said was the winner would govern you. Carlin also noted that he doesn’t vote because he doesn’t consent to be governed.

Except for Carlin’s comment, granted on the above. I take the opposite tack from Carlin. Those who govern do so whether you consent to it or not. We had a discussion not so long ago concerning the nature of property (also a subject to be discussed elsewhere) where Jim took me to task for holding positions, and how that behavior was self-defeating. I submit that standing on the idea that you are refusing to consent to be governed, and so do not vote, you are in fact defeating yourself by holding an indefensible position. Those who govern will exert their authority whether you will it or not.

There is nothing that is right about this, it simply is.

I maintain that those who do not vote have no room to bitch about government. They have forfeited that right by refusing to participate in the process (rigged as it is) and should simply accept whatever raw deal is handed to them in consequence. Since Genghis Khan (and every other dictator in history) didn’t even bother with the trouble of a popularity contest before doing as he wished, I’m inclined to accept the (ridiculously) limited avenues of political expression available to me in exchange for my intention to rant on incessantly about every little thing that pisses me off in the current state of affairs.

The majority of people who don’t vote (and yes I know, the true majority voices no opinion at each and every election. It’s one of the things I find amusing when pundits talk about how “the majority has spoken”. Clearly they don’t get it) don’t bother to get active in the political process, and take no interest in politics, are the ones who enable the charade that we call government in the US to continue.

While the above description probably doesn’t apply to Jim and other activists that I correspond with, it definitely does apply to 90% or more of the non-voting public; the apathetic non-voter. Will voting change anything? I sincerely doubt it. But it beats sitting around doing nothing while the the current government destroys what little is left of the country.

It’s the Environment, Again?

There is a recurring cyclical argument in politics that is due for another ressurection. Every election cycle some variation of Clinton’s “It’s the environment, Stupid” is trotted out by desperate Democrats, and it generally plays well.

Global warming is just another variation on the theme, as Al Gore and his film An Inconvenient Truth readily prove.

The real Inconvenient Truth is; politicians lie, and Al Gore is just another politician. As Thomas Sowell points out in his latest column over at The Atlasphere, “Studies Show” is a phrase you should immediately discount:

More recently, the National Academy of Sciences came out with a study that supposedly proved beyond a doubt that human activities were responsible for “”global warming”.” A chorus of voices in the media, in politics and in academia proclaimed that this was no longer an issue but a scientific fact, proven with hard data.

The NAS report not only had statistics, it had an impressive list of scientists, which supposedly put the icing on the cake.
The only problem was that the scientists had not written the report and in fact had not even seen it before it was published, even though they had some affiliation with the National Academy of Sciences.
At least one of those scientists, meteorologist Richard S. Lindzen of M.I.T., publicly opposed the conclusion and has continued to do so. But that fact was largely lost in the midst of the media hoopla.
Besides, what is a mere meteorologist at M.I.T. compared to Al Gore and his movie. The environment is the Democrat’s terror war; and it has even less substance. The answer to the problem of the environment is to get the gov’t out of other peoples business…

[In other words, allow individuals to pursue polluters instead of placing the EPA in the way of progress on the issue. Which is what the EPA’s purpose is. Don’t beleive me? Explain superfund sites, then. Government forgiveness for polluting businesses. Taxpayer funded cleanup of corporate pollution.]

…And let the concerned private citizens handle the issues. As the world’s biggest polluter, the US gov’t doesn’t have any business pretending to care about the environment.

I have eaten a Big Bowl of Crow since publishing this and other thoughts on many subjects.  This is from my last post on climate change;

I was slow to buy in to the idea that climate change was a thing because of this, and for a brief time was in the same camp as several of my friends (and the late author Michael Crichton as another example) that climate change was some kind of conspiracy. It wasn’t until I ran across this argument presented on that I realized just how demonstrable AGW was

The EPA is necessary. In fact, the EPA isn’t powerful enough which is its major flaw. Superfund? That is a bought congress weakening the EPA from outside. The corrupting effect of money on the government. What we need is a global authority on the environment. I just hope we’re smart enough to craft an organization that will do the job it needs to do without becoming a totalitarian regime all by its lonesome. Able to protect natural resources without crushing human ability to use them. That task will redefine the phrase balancing act

Boiling Frogs

A message titled DC City Council Approves Temporary Expansion of Video Surveillance was posted to a list I belong to today with the body of message being just the phrase “And so it begins”.

Begins? This is just the latest phase here in the US. In Britain and in many other places across the world, this type of technology is already in place, being used by gov’t to keep track of its population on a day to day basis.

This is not a beginning, it’s an ending. The beginning is lost to history. Perhaps it occurred following the Civil War; when the gov’t that succeed Lincoln’s, fused what was a collection of independent states into a federal conglomerate that would be henceforth declared “indivisible”. Perhaps it goes all the way back to the time of the founders, when Alexander Hamilton got in bed with the bankers of his time and created the first central bank in the US.

Whenever the ‘beginning’ was, it makes very little difference now. The current (and growing) police state has very little to do with the free nation that existed before it. As the old adage goes, frogs will jump out of hot water, but will stay put until it’s too late if the temperature is slowly raised.

…It’s getting very hot around here.

Editor’s note 2016. The entirety of this post is a slippery slope fallacy.  As much as any one of us can see 1984 in the surveillance technologies in use today, there is also no denying that crime is averted or solved, lives are saved, with this technology.  The real question is, where do we draw the limits? That is the conversation that (still) needs to occur.

The title is a reference to a myth, as is the closing statement. As this article points out,

First, a frog cannot jump out of boiling water. Remember the last time you dropped some egg white into boiling water: the proteins coagulated into a mess of thin, white strands. Unfortunately, the proteins in the frog’s skinny legs would do the same thing. So the frog in boiling water could not jump anywhere. It would die a nasty death.

Second, a frog would notice the water getting hot. Professor Hutchison states, “The legend is entirely incorrect! The ‘critical thermal maxima’ [the maximum temperature an animal can bear] of many species of frogs have been determined by several investigators. In this procedure, the water in which a frog is submerged is heated gradually at about 2 degrees Fahrenheit per minute. As the temperature of the water is gradually increased, the frog will eventually become more and more active in attempts to escape the heated water.”


No Fluids Now

I’m just not buying this latest wind up. What commonly available household fluids could be taken on board a plane (in sufficient quantities) and when mixed, would yield a high enough explosive result to bring down a plane?

Lots of talk about TATP, Acetone Peroxide, as the culprit. However, that explosive is a powder. How much fluid would be required in order to yield enough powder to create an explosion of sufficient size? (found this page on a possible detector)

I can’t help but think how convenient the timing of this all is. Senator Lieberman, the only pro-war Democrat in congress looses his parties nomination. Blair, Bush, et al are looking more and more like idiots these days; Iraq is a morass, the Middle East is in full melt down mode, and the UN is trying to stop Israel from cleaning house in Lebanon.

…What better way to motivate the populace to get back on the “Terror War bandwagon” than a good ol’ foiled terror plot?

Codes and Jesus the Superstar

I was reading a review of the Da Vinci Code movie over at the Atlasphere (The Da Vinci Code: Fighting Faith and Force) the other day, and noticed one of the links at the bottom of the page labeled the U.S. Catholic Bishops Brown-bashing site” I found the link intriguing, so I clicked on it.

The title of the page was the funny part. Jesus decoded, it proclaims.

That’s a great idea. Maybe they can explain the trick with the fishes and the loaves of bread, or perhaps the walking on water. That would be good to know. The most important trick to know is, of course, changing water into wine. That trick would be very popular at parties.

Too bad this sort of insight wasn’t available to Judas back in the day. Might have saved him a lot of missteps. “Who are you, what have you sacrificed?” One of the most memorable lines of lyrics from Jesus Christ Superstar. Judas, as one of the disciples, should have known how to decode Jesus. Obviously it isn’t as easy as the Catholic Bishops would have us believe.

A fondness for Jesus Christ Superstar is one of the few things that remains constant from my days as a ‘born again’ to my current ascribed atheism. I picked up the DVD recently and watched the movie for the first time. Alamo Drafthouse aired snippets of the movie between showings of The Da Vinci Code (I have written about the movie and the book before) and it intrigued me. I’ve listened to the Jesus Christ Superstar soundtrack since the early eighties, but I’ve never had the occasion to watch the film made from the play. Little did I know that the soundtrack was in fact the original version, created before the play even took shape.

That makes it all the more interesting to me that they chose to alter some of the lyrics from the soundtrack in making the play and the film. One of the most telling lines, for me, has always been Jesus’ despairing declaration to the lepers “Heal yourselves!” which is the last line in that song on the soundtrack. The movie uses a much more ambiguous “Leave me alone!” to end the song.

I prefer the more empowering declaration, myself. More fitting in describing what is wrong in the world today. The vast majority of people seem to think that what they need to fix themselves is external to their selves; when, obviously, the answers lie within.

Judas fails to comprehend were the answers lie as well. The movie, album, etc. ends with Judas still asking questions of Jesus (which still plays quite well) when the real question is why Judas would turn in the man he professes to love. Jesus Decoded, indeed., just like being back in school

I’ve had a running battle with for years. I originally joined up in order to reconnect with fellow Government School survivors, see if any of them have managed to pull it all together and make something of themselves.

Little did I know that the website is run by the same quality of petty little modo that they hire to administrate the average Texas School District. I’m surprised that the world continues to exist with the weight of so many soul-less creatures living on it.

Yepper, being on the classmates site is almost exactly like being back in school. Customer service reps like the average teacher, happy as can be until you question their judgment. The bullies have changed a bit. Now the nerds who program the site are the bullies (it’s probably revenge) setting up a confining little rats maze of questionnaires that are supposed to let everyone know who you are; but don’t let you give answers that actually describe yourself. And, of course, it wouldn’t be school without the in crowd. The in crowd is represented by the people so desperate to be loved that they pay the (over priced) subscription fee (revenge of the nerds!) so that they can hang out with all their in friends from yesteryear.

…if only there was a cafeteria stocked with greasy soyburgers and wrinkly green beans, I’d feel like I was back in that nightmare.

Luckily it’s still possible to slip a note in secret to a friend, or I’d have no use for the place, at all.

From the archive:


From: R. Anthony Steele
Date: Saturday, December 21, 2002 01:42 AM
To: Member Care
Subject: RE: Enter Profiles

The section on Politics is wholly inadequate.

It’s pointless to include the questions at all, if a full range of answers is not allowed. Specifically, I am a Libertarian, I have been one for more than ten years. If I continue to participate in politics, I will continue as a Libertarian. As such I am not able to complete the first of the profiles, and I’m not interested in filling out the rest unless some modification of the first is possible.

The structure of the answers also leaves out the possibility of truthfully stating your politics if you are a Green or any other minor party.

I sincerely suggest a re-vamping of the entire structure for questions of politics.

R. Anthony Steele


Dear Classmates Member,

Thank you for contacting Classmates. Our members are at the heart of our business, and it’s your involvement that helps us continue to grow and change to meet your needs. We appreciate and value your taking the time to provide feedback.

In response to your feedback, we will forward your message directly to a Product Manager for review. While Product Managers generally can’t respond to all feedback directly (with millions of members we get a lot of feedback), please know that member comments were responsible for the current change and have been responsible for many improvements in the Classmates site.

Again, thank you for your suggestion. We appreciate your help in making Classmates a better Web site.


Member Care Team


Sounded promising. A few months later, they sent me an invite back to check out the ‘all new’ bio questions.


From: R. Anthony Steele
Date: Saturday, January 25, 2003 01:42 PM
Subject: Enter Profiles

I got an e-mail today claiming the profiles were “all new”. However I still can’t get past the first three questions, because ‘Libertarian’ is not an answer that I can give.

So I’ll never know what the rest of the profile looks like.

-R Anthony Steele


Dear Tony,

Thank you for contacting Classmates. You can only access the first 3 questions for a profile because you are a Basic member and not a Gold member.

If we may assist you further, please do not hesitate to contact us.


Member Care Team
Classmates Online


Kitty is clearly a rocket scientist. She has stumbled across the coincidental facts that:

  1. I am a ‘free’ member, and
  2. free members are restricted from viewing the bio’s of other members past question three.
So she helpfully sends me a note. She has blithely ignored the obvious and relevant fact that don’t want to see other peoples bio’s, I simply wish to edit my own. She also calls me “Tony”. A bit familiar, don’t you think?


From: R. Anthony Steele
Date: Monday, January 27, 2003 09:24 PM
To: Member Care
Subject: RE: Enter Profiles

I’m sorry, but you’ve missed the point.

I’ll never get past question number two, because question number three’s choices preclude an accurate answer. There is no dichotomy of politics; no left/right liberal/conservative contrasting of political views.

I am a libertarian and an objectivist. As such I am clearly not encouraged to participate at Classmates, since the questions are designed to exclude me.

Why would I want to pay a membership fee to a website designed to exclude me?

-RAnthony Steele

PS. Tony is a nickname I reserve for friends and family. I don’t think ya’ll have earned the right to refer to me by that name. Mr. Steele would be acceptable.


From: Member Care
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 2:23 PM
Subject: RE:Enter Profiles

Mr. Steele,

Thank you for getting back to Classmates. This is not a political forum here at Classmates. It is about fun and reconnecting with old friends. If you would like for us to remove your registration for you we would be more than happy to comply with that request.

We apologize for any inconvenience this may have created for you. If we may assist you further, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Member Care Team
Classmates Online


From: R. Anthony Steele
Date: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 04:58 PM
To: Member Care
Subject: RE: Enter Profiles

If it’s not a political forum, then why am I REQUIRED to state what my politics are in the ‘profile’? Also, who says politics isn’t ‘fun’?

It’s a simple request. Make the question answerable by those who do not conform to mainstream politics, or remove the question all together. It makes no difference to me, as long as some action is taken.

To take no action at all is to state unequivocally that those who do not conform need not apply; and as I am quite active all over the web, you can be certain that I will let others who share my views know exactly where classmates stands on the issue.

You can consider this an escalation of the issue. Please forward this to someone in a management position; someone who cares more about the client base than the front line techs obviously do.

-RAnthony Steele


After that rant I got the “sending this to the product manager” canned answer again. Well that’s just spiffy-dandy, idnit? The next time they sent me an invite to check out new content, I had a better one for them…


From: R. Anthony Steele
Date: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 07:44 PM
Subject: Other

Ya’ll ‘spam’ me with the latest “come visit us” message so I wander by to have a gander at who has joined. Oh, here’s a name I don’t know, who is it? Let’s check the profile… Oh, I haven’t completed my profile yet, because of the unresolved issue of the required answer to the unanswerable political question… Which still hasn’t been changed (see below) can’t complete the profile without the question, can’t read up on who is new on the site.

Kind of reduces the usefulness of Classmates for me, don’t cha think? Not being willing to include my political views kind of gives me an incentive to *not* be a paying member (something my wife has wanted to do for awhile) Feel free to snub me again, your customer NO-service types have done so before. (also see below)

More than willing to leave my name up for free at this point. Won’t be paying for a thing until something changes in the profiles.

-R. Anthony Steele


I have sent that one each subsequent time that they have sent me a message to “check out” something on the Classmates site. ‘Clarice’ helpfully submitted my address for removal from the optional mailing list (apparently I missed that option. There’s only about 8 pages of options to wade through) The removal didn’t take, and I had a brief conversation with ‘Sam’…


Hi R. Anthony,

Thank you for contacting Classmates.
There is a selection for the political views question that says “I prefer not to answer”.

In response to your feedback, we will forward your message directly to a Product Manager for review. While Product Managers generally can’t respond to all feedback directly (with millions of members we get a lot of feedback), please know that member comments were responsible for the current change and have been responsible for many improvements in the Classmates site.

Again, thank you for your suggestion. We appreciate your help in making Classmates a better Web site.


Member Care Team
Classmates Online


From: R. Anthony Steele
Date: Friday, September 10, 2004 01:15 PM
To: Member Care
Subject: Re: Other

See, that’s the problem. I want to answer; I demand to be allowed to answer since ya’ll put the political question on the bloody thing in the first place. But, I can’t answer, because ‘libertarian’ isn’t one of the pre-set answers you can give, and I can’t just leave the question un-answered or I can’t get to the next page.



…and I get sent to the “product manager for review” again. They’ve since fixed the problem as far as they are concerned. The political question is no longer mandatory, you can leave it unanswered; and they quit sending me messages. I still want to answer the question. I enjoy a good political debate. Apparently I’m not the kind of person they want hanging out on Classmates. Which suits me, I was never one of the in crowd anyway…

Liberty Dollar In the News: Big Bad Black Balloon Dramatizes Debt!

Bernard von NotHaus is staging a media event the day after Bernanke’s next expected interest rate hike (August 9th):

The day after Ben Bernanke raises interest rates for the 18th time, Bernard von NotHaus, noted Monetary Architect, will present a $50 Gold Federal Reserve Note for redemption as specified on the Note and guaranteed by the Constitution, at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York at 33 Liberty Street in lower Manhattan.

Anticipating rejection, von NotHaus will present the sorry outcome of a National Debt gone wild at the Press Conference, while a large black balloon with “NATIONAL DEBT” lettered on it inflates behind him until it bursts, just as von NotHaus predicts the US economy will burst.

The entire press release is located here.

I don’t want to be too hard on ‘Helicopter Ben‘. He really is facing a no-win scenario. There isn’t any way out of the current fiscal crisis. A hundred years of fiat paper is coming home to roost, most likely during his tenure in office. Yep, you can almost feel sorry for him, till you remember all the perks that come along with his job.

Oh, the pain, the PAIN.

The “for coverage by CBS” link at the bottom of the Press Release leads to a totally unrelated, yet interesting, news article about the Chambersburg “Chamberfest” that features Liberty Dollars being used to bolster local commerce. It also features a close up of the ALD vending machines that were rolled out last year at LDU. Don’t know why they felt the need to include that…

Anyone taking bets on whether Bernard gets his gold from the Fed? Didn’t think so. There hasn’t been any gold backed currency since about 1933, and I doubt they left a clause in to cover all that old paper that still says Gold Certificate on it.

…Of course, it helps if the Fed chairman actually does what you say he’s going to do. Who knows why Bernanke didn’t raise interest rates today. The symptoms related to looming inflation are nothing if not stronger today than they were at the last Fed meeting, so why not raise the rates again? Perhaps interest rates really have nothing to do with inflation? Perhaps they actually make inflation worse?

Israel Should be Allowed to Kick Ass

I don’t know, do you think the title is too ambiguous?

There have been a couple of columns from Thomas Sowell over at the Atlasphere on the subject of the latest Israeli conflict. One of them Peacemongers and War I couldn’t agree more with. A good portion of our problems today comes from appeasers who are all too willing to talk to aggressors. You don’t talk to aggressors, you destroy them before they have a chance to act.

The second one, however, I have a real problem with. Is It Time for a Cease-Fire? offers the same old tired argument that I’ve heard from overzealous hawks since the mid-70’s, when I first started paying attention to politics. “We have to be united behind our leadership in times of crisis.” I’ve heard it so many times I can quote it verbatim. Generally they include some wording like the following:

Back then, the president’s defeated opponent in the 1940 election – Wendell Wilkie – not only supported the war, he became a personal envoy from President Roosevelt to Britain’s Prime Minister Winston Churchill.

Personally, I like to hear disagreement. It proves that we are indeed still a free country. The crazy thing is, no matter how many hawks recite history with a solidarity message, there was disagreement in the 1940 election on the subject of war. “Isolationism” was the rule of the day, and Wendell Wilkie and FDR both paid lip service to it. Wilkie flip-flopped on whether he was in favor of going to war or not, but FDR was “dedicated to keeping America out of the war”.

[that he went on to get us into the war by baiting the Japanese with the Pacific fleet is still hotly contested, but I suggest that you pick up a copy of Day of Deceit and give it a read]

On the subject that is really on everyone’s lips, whether or not Israel should be called to heel, I have to stand on defense; real defense, not this “holding some imaginary line” defense that lost us the Vietnam conflict. No, Hezbollah is the latest in a long line of aggressors that has sworn the destruction of Israel (and the US) and has made good on it’s threats by taking hostages and violating borders. As far as I’m concerned Israel should be allowed to continue cleaning house until the last Hezbollah fighter stops breathing or surrenders. This is the only lesson that an aggressor will respect, application of superior force.

I think we should resurrect an old pre-WWII program and lend-lease Israel whatever weapons they need. The more house cleaning they do, the less we will have to do later.