The Dodd Presidency

In 2004 I ran for U.S. Senate, as the candidate of the Libertarian Party, against long-term incumbent Christopher Dodd, and two others. In the course of that campaign I was invited to both of the televised debates, one on Public Television, and the other on one of the state's major regular media stations.

I met Senator Dodd, of course, and found him to be very personable, even charming. After the first debate, he shook my hand at the studio door, put his other hand on my shoulder, and very seriously told me I had done a good job. Then the first person behind him in his entourage (his chief-of-staff, probably?) asked me what town I was from, and made a note of it. I took this to suggest that I had done a good enough job that they were going to remember me - not because I was even the slightest threat to Dodd's re-election but - they might have considered recruiting me at some future time to run for a Democratic office.

Near the end of the second debate, an opportunity arose for me to specify each tax cut that he had opposed since his last election, and to point out that he had voted for every single spending bill, which, incredibly, he had. After the debate he came over to me and told me that he felt like a pinata. Then he introduced me to his wife, and was again gracious in his comments on my performance.

Obviously I don't support his politics but I am surprised that his personality never comes through from the stage. He seems to fit a vision of the "Stepford Husbands" or perhaps the "Stepford Senators" is more accurate when he is on stage. But obviously his warmth when he is face-to-face has overcome the stiff stage persona as far as the voters are concerned.

Libertarians need to notice that most of the successful long-termers like Dodd never seem to really say anything. Nonetheless, they are virtually invincible in their political races. What does this mean? Maybe it means that after thousands of years of civilization, people still vote on personality and banalities, and prefer to remain intellectually lazy. That's my view on a "down" day anyway.

Iraq - the real toll in human lives and suffering

In the past week President Bush has come up with an additional $ 200 billion needed for the coming year in Iraq. The original estimated cost of the Iraqi war by this administration was about $ 70 billion. Oops, slight mistake, now we are looking at $ 1.2 trillion, or perhaps more.

Numbers like this mean nothing to anyone other than the few hundred crooks who decide how to spend our money (the hours of our limited lives). But consider this: instead of invading Iraq based on a single "intelligence" report of dubious accuracy, we could have - done what? Well, we could have CURED CANCER.

This is not a guess. The human genome project has mapped all human genes. Now there is a need to identify the genes related to cancer, and to determine the best way, in each case, to interfere with the cancerous process. This is rocket science (or brain surgery), yes, but it is realistic. It can be done. See http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/001474.html. The estimate is that less than $ 200 million is needed.

Instead, a handful of people decided to invade Iraq. They had to know that tens of thousands of civilians would become "collateral damage", that thousands of U.S. troops would be killed, that hundreds of billions of potentially life-saving dollars would be wasted.

And what did we achieve with this? For one thing, the Iraqi contracts with French companies for oil were voided, and now the oil is contracted to U.S. companies. In addition, U. S. defense companies have reported record profits (see NY Times and others). Does Bush have any friends in these constituencies? Who benefited? And are U.S. citizens (including our military) now safer than before the invasion of Iraq?

I'm sorry but this is drop dead simple. We traded the opportunity to cure cancer, and probably the next four or five killer diseases, on an invasion of a country that was not threatening our security. We left a lot of American citizens underfed, without medical care, and homeless, because we had to pay for high-tech missiles to attack a distant land. And even after curing cancer, we could have infused our ports and airports with a level of security that would guarantee that no WMD would cross our borders.

Now I don't believe that government functions very well in any case, so I would not normally advocate that a Trillion or more dollars should be taxed and handed out to my favorite causes. But since our wonderful, caring, humane representatives in the Federal government decided to spend the money anyway, I can only rage - and feel deep sorrow - over the incredible, CALLOUSNESS of these representatives (President & Congress).

Why, among nine Democratic candidates for President, does not one of them, not even one, make it clear what the choices were? How can such "leaders" be such a pathetic group of cowards? What do you think, I am very interested in how others see this.

For this purpose governments are instituted among men...

Governments are needed only to establish and enforce practices that enable humans to live and trade with one another. Any purpose established for government beyond that always appears to embody a cause, program, advantage, or moral belief that one group of people seek to impose on all. ALL VIOLENT CONFLICT in the world today within and between nations derives from these additional, but inappropriate and usually immoral, extra functions that have been tacked on to government's responsibilities (and powers).

One person, living on an island, does not need a government. Two people, however, immediately need to establish rules of some sort in order to live in the same proximity. As you add more people, the issues that need to be covered by the rules increases; the advance of civilization will also increase the number of issues and the complexity of the rules.

Morality and the rules of government (laws) have nothing to do with one another. For example, it is not necessary to introduce morality in order to have laws against murder or theft; if human beings are to gain an advantage by living together, they clearly are going to have to agree not to kill or steal. OR, to look at this from another perspective, of the Ten Comandments, only two are actually incorporated in the laws of the United States.

There are many people who share my perspective. Some of them alteady have blogs. I have created this one to add my voice to theirs, with the hope that at least a few readers will see politics and economics in a perspective that is, for them, new.