DIGG THIS

While the world contemplates the meltdown of the financial sector over the last few of weeks, things have not stood still on the campaign trail. The "smearbunds" on both sides, in fact, have been working overtime in a desperate grab for reader and viewer attention. Of course, this is not really about "attention" at all — it’s about engendering a knee-jerk emotional distraction from the real issues. The latest theme is: Guilt-by-Association.

Over the previous week, the McPalin camp fired a couple of broadsides: the first accusing Barack Obama of associating with Bill Ayres, someone who, nearly 40 years ago, was a member of the Weather Underground. The second attacked Obama for his ties to ACORN, a voter registration organization that is currently under investigation in eight states for fraud.

While the Weather Underground did engage in bombings on public property (including the Pentagon), their main goal was to disrupt the Vietnam war machine; Ayres insists today they were not a "terrorist" organization. You can take that at face value, or not. Both organizations, nevertheless, have documented, public record paper trails suggesting Barack Obama has at least a tangential link. Whether that should be sufficient to sandbag his Presidential bid, however, is open to debate (it hasn’t yet).

Given Obama’s lead in the polls, however, one would think liberal pundits, bloggers, and campaign staff would be encouraged to stay on the high road, and not sink to a retaliatory, ad hominem level of campaigning.

One would be wrong. In fact, the liberal punditocracy over a week ago set an even lower bar than the McPalin camp, namely, savaging the integrity of a political opposition group, and then, in the same breath, associating that group with Sarah Palin and her husband. The group in question is the Alaska Independence Party (AIP), a legitimate, third-party political organization with ballot access in that state, whose avowed goal is simply a new plebiscite on Alaska statehood.

For an entire week, liberals pundits and bloggers, including such luminaries as Keith Olberman and RFK Jr., are spewing unimaginable vitriol at this group, tarring them as "extremist," "un-American," and "traitors," for asking for a second public vote concerning Alaska’s political status. Apparently, "secession" is still a very sensitive topic for a lot of people. Given the laughingly hysterical arm-waving on opinion/social network sites like DailyKos, Digg and Huffington Post on this claim, I thought it was time to investigate further. Ironically, I’d never heard of the AIP until all this virtual hysteria metastasized out of proportion, but as a direct result of that, now I’m interested…go figure.

So let’s take a look at the political movement with which the Palins have been associated:

The AIP was founded in the 70′s by Joseph Vogler (1913—1993), a man who was, to put it mildly, a "colorful" character, the kind one would often expect to see in the rough and rugged Alaskan countryside, of that or any era. He loved his chosen home, and wanted to see it free and prosperous. He was also known for a sharp tongue and temper. But all his life, he firmly believed that in the 1956 plebiscite for Alaska statehood, somebody pulled a fast one:

"The basic argument of the Alaskan Independence Party has always been the number one plank in our platform — the question of our vote to become a state. So…the most blaring disparity in that [1956] vote was the definition of an eligible voter. Among those qualified to cast a ballot were 41,000 American soldiers and 36,000 dependants. Now, to the native population of Alaska, to me, these were occupation troops! And they were made eligible and, in fact encouraged to vote. There were educational meetings held on the military bases. I can’t imagine them telling anyone anything but that statehood would be very good for the military — in fact they still have 6, 7 big bases and numerous smaller holdings in the state. Statehood would be good for the military. Now can you imagine the international uproar if American troops had all went and got their purple fingers in Iraq?"

~ Dexter Clark, AIP Vice-Chair

The "smoking gun" video, the one the bloggers are using to nail Sarah Palin as a confirmed member of the AIP, contains much of this information. They claim that originally, in the 1956 plebiscite, all Alaskan territorial residents would be able to vote, and be given a choice on one of four outcomes: (1) Alaska remains a territory, (2) Statehood, (3) an Alaskan "Commonwealth," or (4) a free and independent Alaskan nation. According to Clark in the video, that’s not the way it actually went down — the ballot only offered a "yes-no" checkbox for statehood with no other options listed, and all Native Alaskans were disenfranchised. If that’s true, some could certainly argue that the fix was in.

Given the results of that decision 50 years later, with most Alaskan territory the "property" of the US government, homesteading virtually banned, and the cream of the state’s resources skimmed off for the benefit of the corporatocracy, is it any wonder the AIP is lobbying for a re-do, an honest vote, with all Alaskans participating? (And, by the way, they’re happy to live with the results of that vote, regardless.) How is this a form of "sedition"? After all my digging, I can’t find anything in the history of the AIP documenting them advocating anything but political change through peaceful, democratic means. In fact, many of their positions are very libertarian.

So, why not have a new vote? What’s everyone so terrified of? Quebec has had two votes on whether to leave Canada. The measure lost both times, the second one only barely. The Earth failed to break away from its orbit over this, and I’m certain had the vote gone the other way, the world would have managed to adjust to the new situation.

So why do liberal pundits and bloggers insist — wrongly — that the AIP is a subversive, America-hating "terrorist" organization? It has to do with the volatile personality — and mysterious death — of the founder himself. Joe Vogler disappeared in 1993, his remains were found in 1994. His confessed murderer led police to the site, and then later testified the death had resulted from "an explosives deal gone sour." Essentially, Vogler’s own murderer was accusing him of attempting to purchase military grade C4 plastic explosives on the black market, for what insidious purpose, no one could speculate. But this is the one and only data point by which HuffPo, Kos, et al., are insisting that the AIP is a terrorist organization.

Now, why would a man in the twilight of his years, a man who had devoted the previous three decades to peaceful and democratic change within the system he was compelled to work with, all of a sudden embrace more deadly means of sending his message, and ruining everything he and the AIP had been working for? Vogler’s own family, friends, and political allies never believed that official story, smelling a setup to discredit, in death, the man who was such a thorn in the sides of the US-corporate power elite in Alaska. The FBI has had plenty of time to investigate these allegations, and obviously nothing came of it, as the party still exists, fifteen years later.

There is a fundamental difference between secession and terrorism. If anything, a lot of the AIP’s goals are ones that many liberals would appreciate, like ending sovereign immunity for government agents, and libertarians would like their stance on jury nullification.

While the AIP takes credit for putting together the coalition that got Walter Hickel elected governor in 1990, they have never expressed a desire to expand their influence beyond Alaska. Everything they’ve done has been peaceful, honest, and under the letter of the law. But the liberal tar brush punditocracy continue to chant Vogler’s vague, mysterious death story to substantiate their claim that the AIP is a subversive, unpatriotic, un-American, terrorist group.

Nowhere, in the writings or public speeches of AIP members, is violence ever advocated. No actual violent acts, in all the years of AIP’s existence, have ever been recorded and pinned on AIP activists. I challenge anyone reading this to cite one verifiable example. Just one. (Yes, there have been reports that Vogler had a hot temper, but so does McCain, and he’s angling to have his finger on the nuclear trigger. That should give you far more pause.)

Ergo, to all intents and purposes, the AIP are who they say they are, and frankly, I don’t care if "Caribou Barbie" hangs out with them or not, nor should anyone else. So-called "progressives" betray themselves in their frantic efforts to swift-boat a legitimate political association, albeit one with whose aims they disagree, just to "get" an opposition candidate. If allowed to get away with it, Libertarians or Constitutionalists could be next, between election cycles, especially Libertarians, as we also insist on the fundamental right to secede.

Vogler once said: “I’m an Alaskan, not an American. I’ve got no use for America or her damned institutions.” This was a statement used by the liberal pundits to tar AIP.

Now, let’s change that sentence to read, “I’m an American, not British. I’ve got no use for England or her damned institutions."

Watch out! If one wasn’t careful, one might attribute the latter to someone like Sam Adams or Thomas Paine! Our Founding Fathers — radical, seditious, secessionists, all. True patriotism means love of country, not necessarily love of that country’s government. The Founders, writing in the Declaration, were pretty adamant about that.

There are serious, vital issues to consider in this election, and none of us should be wasting our time with baseless distractions such as this. Put the issue to sleep, HuffPo, Kos. You’re supposed to be better than this. Move on.

Thomas Andrew Olson [send him mail] is a technology consultant, writer, and speaker in New York City.

Thomas Andrew Olson Archives

DIGG THIS

As of this writing, only a handful of states have formally resisted implementation of the draconian REAL-ID act, where the Feds create a de facto national ID card by hijacking the driver licensing agencies of all 50 states. Despite the chilling "papers, please!" overtones to this, some states are falling into line like so many obedient sheep, while the majority have resorted to sending the Department of Homeland Security a letter of intent to comply, which extends them another year or so of lead time before the mandate finally kicks in. Of course that path only legitimizes the law, as opposed to standing up to the Feds and declaring the law the unconstitutional usurpation that it is.

DHS head Michael "Skeletor" Chertoff has made it clear that starting next year the residents of Montana, Maine, et al. will find it impossible to board an aircraft or enter a Federal building unless their state legislatures and governors cave in to his demands.

There is a third way, however. It’s simple, doable, and one that is guaranteed to stop REAL-ID in its tracks. Every state can do it. Its only drawback is that state governments will have to give up certain entrenched powers that they have arrogated to themselves for decades.

To stop REAL-ID, the states only have to get completely out of the drivers license business — by June of 2009.

Libertarians have long lobbied for an end to state-mandated driver licensing. Here is a new opportunity to put that idea back on the table. After all, which is more important, rigid control over driver licensing, or the imposition of a biometric police-state national identity card? State legislatures, even those who are already on record opposing REAL-ID, could simply slip out from under the law’s requirements by closing their licensing agencies for good, and either farming out certain functions to private-sector contractors, or eliminating them entirely.

States could take the lead in redefining what it means to have an "ID" in their state, as well as finding better solutions to controlling "problem" drivers (the primary reason mandatory licensing was started to begin with). Who knows what sorts of creative solutions may manifest when private citizens and entrepreneurs get in on the act?

Meantime, any US citizen can certainly apply for a passport if they wish, and use that to board aircraft or enter government buildings. Of course, the passport agency has been so overburdened with new applications since Jan 1st, with the Federal government’s insistence that passports are now required to enter Canada and Mexico, it’s hard to say how much farther they will fall behind in processing a new and even larger flood of applications in the wake of such state actions. So it may be that they will have no choice but to allow people with more "creative" state IDs to fly until that long backlog can be handled — which could take years.

But any temporary inconvenience would be worth it to see the look on old "Skeletor’s" face if every state told him: "Sorry Mike, but we no longer license drivers in our state, hence it is impossible for us to comply with the provisions of the REAL-ID Act."

Even the majority of states who may loathe the Act but don’t have the guts to confront the Feds directly could, in this passive-aggressive manner, express their independence and gut-level unwillingness to take part in the Bush administration’s schemes to track us all, cradle to grave.

States may not like giving up that kind of power, but there’s a long-term plus in that they will save a lot of taxpayer money, money that can either be used elsewhere, or simply given back.

Thomas Andrew Olson [send him mail] is a technology consultant, writer, and speaker in New York City.

Thomas Andrew Olson Archives

DIGG THIS

Not a day goes by when people I deal with (mostly at the office) complain about the latest record price-per-barrel of crude or the pain at the gas pump. And yes, prices are a bit higher, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than they were the last time we had serious gas-price problems. But there is one crucial difference between 1980 and today: Supply.

Whenever I hear the woe-is-me complaints from my co-workers, I steer the conversation this way:

ME: Were you able to buy gas, at that price, today?

THEM: Well…yes…but…

ME: Is the gas always available?

THEM: What do you mean?

ME: I mean, is the station always open?

THEM: Well, yeah, but…

ME: Isn’t it true there are a lot of gas stations in our area that are actually open 24/7, gas is always available and plentiful on demand?

THEM: That’s true, but…

ME: So there is no gas supply shortage, it’s just that they’re selling the gas at a price you think is too high?

THEM: Exactly!

ME: So…what do you think the government needs to do about it? Price controls?

THEM: I dunno…that might help…

ME: Do you have any idea what happens when governments all over the world have tried to fix the price of some commodity or another, throughout history?

THEM: What?

ME: The demand for that commodity increases at that artificially low price, and you end up with…supply shortages.

THEM: …….

At which point, I return to my office and close the door.

With all the complaints by consumers, pols and pundits alike about gas prices, wanting to blame the war, OPEC, corrupt leaders of OPEC countries, or the horrendous lack of constant government oversight, no one mentions the actual supply of gas available. While financial reporters are always citing "supply concerns" when reporting another rise in the per-barrel crude price, I have never, except in rare circumstances, seen any evidence of actual supplies being unavailable or rationed to consumers.

I’m old enough to have survived the last gas crunch, which went off-again-on-again during the 70′s and peaked in the 1980 election cycle. These periods were marked by such gas-saving measures as mandatory Federal CAFÉ standards, and a Federally imposed 55mph speed limit. Closer to home, such things as "even-odd" days were imposed, where, if your license plate was an even number, you could only fill up on even-numbered days, the same went for odd numbers. "Topping off" your tank on those days was also prohibited. This was to make the available supply distributed as "fairly" as possible. The efficacy of that policy was dubious, at best, but there it was.

In 1980, in Portland, Oregon, I typically filled up, under these draconian conditions, for an average of $1.24 per gallon. Adjusted for inflation, this comes out to $3.18 today. (I filled up in Lodi, NJ, last weekend for $2.92, and that was the highest I’d seen it in quite awhile.) A short year later, however, 9 months after Reagan finished deregulating oil and gas, the price fell to $0.80/gallon.

In 2001 (pre-9/11, pre-war), I could fill up near my home for $1.54/gal. Adjusted backward for inflation to 1981, that price was — you may have guessed it — $0.80. So for twenty straight years, the price (and supply) of gas was actually disgustingly stable, only subject to the effects of currency inflation.

Inflation fools a lot of people. Like the proverbial frog in the pot set to boil, they don’t pay attention to the slow, inexorable erosion of their buying power over time. If you earn $100,000 per year today, you may feel OK about your middle-class lifestyle, but that pre-tax money only had the buying power of $39,037 in 1980, and $16,486 in 1968, roughly my father’s gross earnings that year. Plus, you probably pay a lot more in taxes on that $100k than your father or grandfather did on his $16,486. To avoid those taxes, you put as much as you can into a 401k or IRA, 529′s for your kids college tuition, and pay up for a bigger house than you really need to get the home mortgage deduction. Net effect is that you actually have less spending power. On every real measure, are we, today, truly better off than our parents/grandparents were, just a generation or so ago?

The other side of the "money coin" is the hammering the dollar itself is getting in the global market. As of this morning, the dollar is trading at almost $1.54 against the Euro, when, only a few short years ago, both currencies were virtually at par.

The other day, I saw crude prices hit a peak of $104 a barrel. But that’s about u20AC68. So, if by some miracle, the dollar could restrengthen itself back to par with the Euro (seems like a forlorn hope, I know), the crude price would lower itself accordingly to $68 per barrel, which would mean a savings of about $1.30 at the pump.

But then demand would probably increase, and…here we go again.

The fact that, while there is political pressure to increase CAFÉ standards, after nearly a generation of inactivity, but no pressure to reinstate the hated "double-nickel," even-odd days, or anything else, says to me that there is really no problem with the supply of gas itself, but rather the issue of energy independence we’re trying to grapple with. Then again, no one talks about how the destruction of our currency plays just as important a role in consumer’s perceptions regarding gas prices.

Thomas Andrew Olson [send him mail] is a technology consultant, writer, and speaker in New York City.

DIGG THIS

Last Friday, I watched Lou Dobbs, and his handmaiden, Kitty Pilgrim, get all hot, bothered, and appalled by the Maine state legislature voting overwhelmingly to refuse to enforce any provisions of the REAL ID act, an unfunded mandate passed by Congress in 2005, and which is supposed to go into force in May of next year.

REAL ID is the complex workaround to Congress’ failure to sell a national ID card outright, to a frightened public, in the wake of 9/11. Instead they now insist the states individually comply with precise federal standards (standards yet to be fully developed by the Dept. of Homeland Security) for driver licensing. These will probably include the requirement that residents produce birth certificates upon renewal, plus the collection of biometric data. Then, that state DMV database has to able to be accessed not only by the feds, but all the other states. This is supposed to help us fight terrorism, somehow, because the 19 hijackers had driver’s licenses.

States like Maine protested that not only was this law an unwarranted intrusion on the privacy rights of their residents, but it was a de facto national ID card in its own right, yet another foot in the door towards a totalitarian police state. The costs of implementation would be too high, projected to be in the tens of millions in each state, and would have to be passed on to the citizens somehow.

As usual, there was no federal "carrot" with such legislation, only a "stick." The stick, in this case, was that residents of states who failed to comply would either have to show a passport in order to fly, or they simply would not fly. This reminder was delivered, again, on Dobb’s show, by a sneering angry sycophant from DHS.

But this is standard operating procedure. The feds levy high taxes on the residents of the states, make sweeping, unfunded policy edicts, then enforce them by warning the state governments that failure to comply fully will result in those states not getting their own residents’ tax dollars returned to them (minus a cut) in the form of various subsidies.

But take heart — history has shown us that resistance is not futile. From 1973 to 1988 we were saddled by a particularly egregious and corrupting federal edict demanding that speed limits on highways be reduced to 55mph, ostensibly as a fuel-saving initiative. It was corrupt in that it was a total failure — non-compliance was legion, especially in western states with lots of wide-open spaces, low traffic, and too few cops. Car companies that produced vehicles with better gas mileage did more to save fuel than any federal speed law. But the stick remained: failure to enforce the "double-nickel" would result in a loss of federal highway funding.

In early 1987, then Arizona governor Evan Mecham, no stranger to controversy, had finally had enough, and told Washington they could keep their highway funding — he was raising the limits on all AZ roads to 65mph, and he didn’t care what Washington thought about it. Then, as now, feds and media talking heads alike were appalled by the audacity of a lowly state governor standing up for the rights of his state residents against the needs of the federal government. But his action enabled other states — and their residents — to stand up and cry "enough is enough!"

By 1988, 55 was history — Congress bumped it to 65. A few years later, it was bumped again to 75 in Midwest and Western rural areas, and allowed states far greater leeway to set standards that they believed worked best for them. In the late 90′s, Montana went so far as to revive their original "reasonable and prudent" rule for daytime travel — which essentially meant, "whatever speed you felt was safe under the circumstances." (That was a bit of a rush, believe me, to go 115 mph on a dry, straight, open road, and cops wouldn’t bat an eye — sadly, a federal judge later put a stop to that one.)

Therefore, it’s possible, despite all the posturing by the national-security jackboots in the Congress and DHS, that Maine’s action may have opened the door for other states to follow suit. Similar bills are pending right now in Georgia, Massachusetts, Montana, New Mexico, and Washington state. The question remains whether that door will ultimately become a floodgate.

Thomas Andrew Olson [send him mail] is a technology consultant, writer and speaker in New York City.

DIGG THIS

As it happened for my wife and me, the week of September 11th, 2001, coincided with the week of our wedding anniversary. We had chosen that year to take some time away from our New York jobs and spend it quietly in our “second home” in the Pennsylvania Poconos, about a 90-mile drive from our Bronx apartment.

We were in the throes of remodeling, the weather was great, and there were no “distractions” from cable TV or broadband internet, as we refused to justify the expense at the time. As our place is near the Bushkill river, our cats and the soothing sound of rushing water were our only companions, occasionally punctuated, however, by commercial jets overhead.

Even so, we weren’t completely out of touch with the world. We did have a working land-line phone, allowing a modest dial-up connection for the occasional e-mail. About 9:30 AM, I decided to check e-mail briefly. I received one from a friend in Minnesota asking me for more information about a blurb she had seen on the news earlier, concerning a “plane crashing into the World Trade Center."

While raising my brows a bit, I didn’t think much of it at first, as the context of her message suggested a light plane lost control and crashed into one of the towers — a bizarre and tragic accident for those involved, but nothing earth-changing. There would be recriminations, lurid headlines, and repair work, but life would go on.

Nevertheless, curiosity overtook common sense (recall this was a 44k-at-best dial-up connection, where media-rich websites would slow things to a crawl), and I opted to go to CNN.com just for a “quick” look. I made a fresh pot of coffee while waiting for the page to render.

For the next four hours, that little trickle of digital packets became our lifeline to world events. The first image told me categorically this was no little Piper Cherokee causing all that havoc.

Those images also sent me into paroxysms of grief. One of my best friends was doing consulting work for a financial services firm downtown. He worked on the 97th floor of Tower One. He was a very prompt individual — always at the desk by 8AM, without fail. Ergo, I had convinced myself, he was surely gone.

Each fresh, but agonizingly slow rendering of the pages revealed a new digitally captured horror. After swapping reassuring missives with concerned friends and cohorts, the picture of what had happened to us that day became clear. Our grief deepened.

After a couple of hours, my wife wisely suggested we take a break, log off, and check phone messages. There were already half a dozen, mostly from non-internet-connected family out west. We made the necessary calls and gave assurances that we were all right. Calling west was no problem — calling New York’s environs was a huge problem, however, both from the massive traffic, and the fact that a major communications hub was located in the WTC. My office in Yonkers was as unreachable as my friend’s home in Brooklyn. Many corporate computer networks were offline for the same reason.

Nonetheless, we persevered. We wanted to at least offer consolation to my friend’s live-in girlfriend. She had been a part of his life for quite awhile, and they had plans to marry. We couldn’t imagine what she would be feeling.

So you can visualize my shock and awe when, about 2:30 in the afternoon, I actually got through to Brooklyn, and my friend actually picked up! He sounded as amazed to still be alive to hear my voice, as I was relieved and overjoyed to hear his. Apparently, as destiny would have it, he had decided to go into the office a little late — believing it more efficient to exercise his voting rights in the New York mayoral primary before going to work, rather than endure the longer lines at the polls afterward. His “civic duty” saved his life, as the attacks were underway before the subway could reach its destination. He had to walk back home, across the Brooklyn Bridge, with thousands of other dazed, overwhelmed New Yorkers, and had only recently arrived there.

(A year later, I stood by his side and spoke at his wedding. In January 2004, he became the father of twin sons. Today, there is a third on the way. All of this joy from a single, last minute decision at a key moment in time, a testament to the uncertainty and fragility of life.)

Later that afternoon, we opted to drive into the nearest town, Marshalls Creek, for a meal and to find a TV. This is where we saw our first live news coverage of the events. We also learned that we were cut off from our Bronx apartment. Not only were all bridges and tunnels leading into the city shut down, but even the spans over the Delaware River from PA to NJ, a handful of miles from us, were closed. Even had we chosen to cut short our “vacation," we could not. Everyone around us appeared equally dazed, with a few individuals already beginning to repeat what would soon become the mantras for the next half-decade: “nine-one-one," and “nine-eleven." We got home late, and fell into an exhausted sleep.

September 12th, like the previous day, dawned brightly. I took stock:

1. I was still in shock over the attack, and concerned for the state of the city, and the families of the victims,
2. I was still angry, and wanted to find and severely punish the perpetrators….but most importantly,
3. I was still a libertarian, a peace-preferring free-marketer, a defender of civil liberties, and a global non-interventionist.

Unlike the overwhelming majority of pundits from the New York Post (“kill them all”), to WorldNetDaily (“hallelujah, Armageddon is here!”), I didn’t toss my moral and philosophical principles out the window upon viewing the first video clip of the planes hitting the towers.

We sat on our deck that morning, listened to the river flow past, and appreciated what we realized was an “unnatural” silence — caused by the lack of commercial jets flying overhead, due to the FAA-ordered lockdown. That silence became symbolic for us, in a way we’ve never forgotten.

Within that moment of preternatural quiet, we could literally visualize the fork in the road for our nation and our culture…

Path 1:

• We bury and honor our dead
• We refrain from knee-jerk responses, and resolve to move thoughtfully, with specific goals in mind
• We take a long hard look inside ourselves to determine the root causes of this horrendous, gut-wrenching attack, in terms of our long-term policy decisions over the previous 50+ years
• We reaffirm America’s founding principles that made her great to begin with (particularly the commitment to protecting individual rights and freedoms)
• We make the appropriate (and fundamental) alterations in our foreign policies, to ensure that the root causes of terrorist acts are eliminated, and
• We make use of the overwhelming good will offered us by the rest of the world that day, by enlisting international aid to track down, capture, and bring to justice the perpetrators, and doing so in a way that, to the best extent possible, doesn’t undermine the sovereignty of other nations

Path 2:

• We bury and honor our dead, then callously use them as emotional hostages for domestic short-term political advantage
• We invade other countries (mostly Muslim) in a savage response, and mindlessly destroy innocent people and infrastructure
• We clamp down on civil liberties at home, claiming it’s for “security” — warrantless searches, secret wiretaps and records gathering, national IDs, the works
• We squander that international good will by unilaterally throwing our weight around, abrogating treaties, rattling the nuclear saber, and insulting our allies
• In so doing, we run up huge budget deficits, paid for by our economic adversaries carrying our debt, and thus placing our economy and even the stability of the dollar itself at huge risk

Well, we obviously know the path taken — the words “war on terror," “Homeland Security," “Patriot Act," “Afghanistan," and “Iraq” pretty much say it all. I have nevertheless refused to give in to bitterness and cynicism over this course, as it would be so easy to do. Instead, I have given what I can to add my light, as I see that light, to fight the darkness threatening to descend around all of us.

There is an area of spiritual philosophy which teaches that we all choose our path, our destiny, and even create our own reality, reflective of our own conscious thought. Each new decision creates a new reality; all that we dwell upon, whether good or bad, we magnify and manifest in our lives. (Quantum Physics actually supports this notion.) So by that token, it wasn’t so much the country had chosen a path (although it clearly did), but that we had, ourselves. We opted to go along for this ride instead of that one over there…we could have chosen a different direction for our own consciousness, but deliberately chose that which we currently share. As my wife and I have frequently asked ourselves over the last five years, with a certain sardonic wit: Why would we choose this one?

The only reason
we can come up with, is that it is our path, our purpose, in these
uncertain and tragic times, to observe, record, and bear witness
to the treasonous perfidy of our officials, and others who pretend
to act in our names. It is our task to do our best to set right things
that have gone terribly wrong with the American soul, and proffer
a way out, to peace, stability, and abundance, all of which provide
“security” as a welcome byproduct.

As you contemplate the path this country has taken in the last five years, do not despair. These times shall pass. And when they finally do, there will be a record kept by the uncompromising, freedom-minded people who survived them — people like you and me — a record of those who publicly, on principle, went against the prevailing political winds of the era. A record that will both enlighten, and warn future generations against engaging in what Barbara Tuchman called “The March of Folly." This is why we are here. This is why LRC is here, and TLE, Antiwar.com, the Huffington Post, news anchors like Keith Olbermann, and many, many others. Our ranks grow by the day. The Bad Guys aren’t on the run yet, but it is clear their time is coming.

We shall bear witness to that, as well.

Thomas Andrew Olson [send him mail] is a New York-based writer and speaker, whose topics range from technology and the future to politics and policy. Here is his blog, where this week he is reprinting “9/11″ columns from his old Lycos page.

But there are
some places where I feel he glosses over a topic in exchange for
a good sound bite. The two cases in point regard his views on a
proposed minimum wage increase and the overall economics of illegal
immigration.

In a recent op-ed,
Dobbs claimed that an increase of the minimum wage to $7.15 an hour
is long overdue, will help bring people out of poverty, and will
not hurt overall unemployment statistics:

“The myth
that raising the minimum wage will lead to job cuts is just that:
a myth. In fact, research suggests just the opposite. According
to the Fiscal Policy Institute, since 1998, states with higher
minimum wages experienced better job growth than states paying
only the federal minimum wage. Among small retail businesses in
those higher minimum-wage states, job growth was double the rest
of the country.”

What does one
have to do with the other?? The vast majority of jobs in this country
already pay more than the minimum wage. We need to look at the general
economic picture of those states before we jump to any conclusions.
What kind of jobs are they talking about, and who is doing them?
A hot local job market will demand higher wages across the board,
regardless of what the mandated minimum wages are.

Here are some
other pesky facts that Dobbs failed to mention in his op-ed:

• According
  to the Bureau
  of Labor Statistics 2002 report, of the 72.7 million hourly-wage
  workers in the US, only 2.2 million, a mere 3%, received minimum
  wages. While that’s bad for them, it’s not a national crisis.
• Only 5.3%
  of minimum-wage workers come from families below the poverty line.
• The highest
  proportion of minimum wage workers were in the retail trade (8%),
  whereas agriculture only claimed 2%.
• The vast
  majority of minimum wage workers either have second jobs or live
  with other family members and are not sole-source providers of
  income.
• Minimum
  wages provide artificial barriers to those seeking their first
  job experience. Unemployment among 16–19-year-olds was 17.3%
  in 2005, as opposed to 5.6% overall. When split out by ethnicity,
  Hispanic and black teens had unemployment rates of 25% and
  40% respectively. Analysts have been railing for decades about
  the social effects of youth unemployment, without even considering
  as a potential causative factor the ever-increasing minimum wage
  during all that time.

While the idea
of raising minimum wages may provide a feel-good sound bite, it
does nothing to address economic issues in specific sectors of our
population that are affected most by unemployment. A productive
employee won’t be getting minimum wage for long, as it’s in the
employer’s best interest to retain productive talent, and they know
have to pay more for it or lose it to the competition. And, as many
have argued at Mises.org, Cato, and elsewhere, if minimum wages
were an economic panacea, why stop at $7.15? Why not $12, $20, or
$100?

A Dime-A-Head
Increase for $16/hr?

It also appears
that the minimum wage issue doesn’t affect illegal immigrants,
either.

“Amnesty” proponents
often proclaim that the so-called “undocumenteds” do work that American
citizens either (a) won’t do, period, or (b) won’t do for the kind
of wages and benefits offered by employers, particularly when it
comes to harvesting produce.

Again, according
to Lou Dobbs, “undocumented” lettuce pickers in California earn
an average of $9 an hour. This is significantly higher than
the minimum wage, however, which suggests there is actual competition
for those jobs even among so-called undocumenteds. Nevertheless,
the message is that US citizens fail to show up, and there is an
abundance of illegals willing to work. So the farmers do what they
have to in order to get the crop in – nudge-nudge-wink-wink
– and of course conveniently save a lot of money in wages and
benefits while they’re at it.

But what Dobbs
recommends as a remedy is something out of Engels. He claimed that
if growers raised the price of a head of lettuce by only ten
cents, they could afford to pay the harvesters Dobbs’ idea of
a “living wage” of $16 per hour. This sea change, combined with
tough enforcement of laws banning the hiring of illegals, would
somehow attract heretofore recalcitrant US workers. Seeing the opportunities
dry up in the face of newly inspired domestic competition, the undocumented
Mexicans would drift back over the border of their own accord, and
that would be that.

There are several
problems with this idea:

• In the
  first place, I can see them trying to jack up the price a dime
  a head and even forcing employers to pay more – but they’ll
  never combine that with strict enforcement of labor laws, which
  would leave the US more attractive to undocumented workers than
  ever. Think it’s bad now? Try doubling the wages and watch the
  Mexican flood come in.
• According
  to Safeway, the price this
  week for a head of iceberg lettuce is $1.49. So raising it a dime
  makes it 1.59. If you eat two heads a week, that’s a $10.40/annum
  increase. Now multiply that times all the other fruits
  and veggies you and your family would like to consume in a year
  – it adds up quickly. If you are at the low end of the economic
  scale, the pinch is even tighter, and you may end up being unable
  to purchase all the nourishing food you require, settling for
  either reduced quality, or alternatives that aren’t as nutritious,
  which could impact your long term health.
• The last
  time I checked, there wasn’t a veggie-grower cartel in
  this country, involved in uniform price-fixing. Perhaps if there
  were, Dobbs’ plan could be carried out via some sort of egregious
  federal legislation – and you could count on the Congress
  to do it, if it would placate enough voters. There are still –
  albeit subsidized – independent growers of produce in this
  country, who remain at least nominally in competition. Even if
  some growers were convinced to raise their prices and pay their
  workers more, they would be under increased economic pressure
  and risk losing significant market share, as others would not
  see the need for change. Ergo, unless everyone agreed, or were
  forced to by law, it simply will not happen.
• If such
  a plan was legislated by Congress, we would all pay a high price
  for it. The agricultural lobby is powerful, their clients having
  received subsidies for seven decades or longer. You can bet such
  a bill wouldn’t be passed unless those subsidies were increased,
  as well. Of course, as it costs the government thirty cents or
  so to deliver every dime’s worth of “benefit”, the increased costs
  to taxpayers for that “living wage” head of lettuce could really
  add up.
• But wait,
  the nightmare isn’t over. Now we have lettuce growers being forced
  by government fiat (and increased subsidies) to pay $16/hr and
  “hire American”. Where will they find the workers they need if
  they can’t hire illegals? I can visualize this flood of unemployed
  youth from South Central L.A. spreading out into the central California
  countryside and trying to harvest vegetables for the first time
  in their lives. A sudden, dramatic increase in wages might indeed
  attract more homegrown workers, but are they the workers the farmers
  need? Will they actually bring some coordination and a good work
  ethic to the job? Presumably not. So the farmers, despite their
  subsidies, now have to contend with a bunch of overpriced, inexperienced,
  attitude-challenged workers to bring in their crops. Expect reduced
  productivity and a lot more waste – and I would also expect
  the cost of a head of lettuce to go up a lot higher than a dime.
  Say what you will about “living wages”, but those new-hire’s skills
  would not be worth $16/hr. They’re probably not worth $9. It will
  be an economic disaster for all involved, and the growers (and
  their customers) will be pining for the “illegal” Mexicans to
  return and restore stability.

One could not
pass legislation enforcing this without violating the rights of
farmers, farm workers, taxpayers, and Americans of more modest means
who can’t afford higher grocery bills.

Conclusion

The
minimum wage pseudo-debate is a typical election-year red herring,
and Lou Dobbs should have known better than to fall for it. Our
present immigration situation is the price Americans are willing
to accept, whether they’ll admit it or not, to have low-cost, plentiful
and nourishing food on their tables, not to mention a lot of other
services they don’t want to pay a king’s ransom to obtain. Dobbs’
economic notions in both these debates are simply unsupported by
political and economic reality, and would engender a social and
economic nightmare to implement, but with no discernible long-term
benefit.

June
23, 2006

Thomas Andrew
Olson [send him mail]
is a New York-based writer and speaker, whose topics range from
technology and the future to politics and policy. Here is his blog.

He writes
articles decrying the “500,000 illegal handguns” that apparently
flood this city. He writes with approval of Mayor Bloomberg’s recent
lawsuit against out-of-state gun dealers, whose legally purchased
products end up involved in violent crimes in New York. In his thinking,
it’s clearly the gun’s fault these heinous crimes were committed,
not the gun user’s.

Now Daly wants
to emblazon Times Square with a gargantuan map of the US, and, using
data from the BATF, mark the places where the most guns are sold
and distributed in this country. Presumably, the result of this
would be a giant public outcry, democracy would somehow happen,
and the scourge of guns would be magically and forever erased from
the body politic — we would then all love each other and sing kumbaya.

No one likes
to see anyone — children and elderly in particular — tragically
caught in the crossfire of urban violence. But banning guns and
going after out of state dealers is only a lame attempt to place
blame for New York’s urban problems elsewhere. It’s a shallow and
self-serving political move that will achieve nothing of substance.

The world in
which we find ourselves is a direct result of policy decisions made
decades ago, with those presently in charge unable or unwilling
to risk major reform. Because we have created a massive bureaucratic
welfare state, where drugs are illegal, and entire population groups
— mostly people of color — see little hope for a better economic
future, we have urban social decay, a degraded education system,
and local drug gangs fighting over turf and cash. We need to strike
to the root of the problems, not just keep on applying layer upon
layer of band-aids, in vain hopes of keeping the lid on.

If we declared
the Drug War a failure, legalized them, and then when the dust settled,
found creative ways to give every American a real stake in his/her
own futures (perhaps by deregulating the economy, for starters),
such violence and decay would dramatically diminish. A simple solution
— implementation, however, is the hard part. It would require
massive public will and a major turnaround in attitude of the entrenched
political class, with a reborn desire to show real leadership.

Guns are a
tool of violence — just one of many — and admittedly one
of the most effective. But they are not the cause of violence
in and of themselves. I can’t bring myself to believe the liberal-statist
illusion that if we just eliminated guns, somehow, we’d see no more
dead children. Well, last I checked, handguns were, in effect, “banned”
in New York City. Do you know any New Yorkers with a legal conceal-carry
permit? Thus is the source of that massive gun influx — as repressive
laws against guns and (some) drugs have taught us, people will obtain
whatever it is they need to obtain, for whatever reasons.

So I will
offer here a modest solution to the problem of a half-million illegal
handguns in New York. And I stole it right out of George W. Bush’s
playbook. We’ll offer a “path to legalization” for these weapons.
(Please don’t call it “amnesty.”) Those who own these guns will
be asked to simply register them. After standing in line, filling
out forms, paying some fines, and solemnly agreeing to attend gun-safety
classes, these gun-owners will be henceforth “legalized,” with full
conceal-carry permits, and all the rights, privileges and responsibilities
accorded thereto. These new legal gun-owners will now become proud
responsible citizens, give up their old ways, pay their taxes, and
even assist the police in defending the innocent and apprehending
real criminals — those who aggress against persons and property.

Of course they
will. And New York cops will let them.

I
would suggest to people like Mr. Daly and Senator Charles Schumer,
who recently described those defending our fundamental right to
self-defense as having a “misguided,
ideological fetish,” that the true “sickness” in this
culture today isn’t the desire to own a gun, but rather to render
every law-abiding hard-working citizen in our society a potentially
helpless crime victim. Scratch the surface of a gun-grabber, and
underneath you will find a fear-mongering control freak.

May
19, 2006

Thomas Andrew
Olson [send
him mail] is a New York-based writer and speaker,
whose topics range from technology and the future to politics and
policy. Here is his blog.

With
winter here, there is no heat, and temperatures drop to near freezing
at night. The guards dress warmly, yet the prisoner is not allowed
heavier garments, or an extra blanket. His jail-issue clothes provide
little protection from the cold. He keeps warm as best he can by
stuffing newspapers underneath them. He is continually shivering.

His
health has suffered. His dietary needs, prescribed for a heart ailment,
are not being met. A handwritten sheet detailing his requirements
was returned to him because there were numbers on it, and therefore,
his keepers claimed, he was writing in code. The previous summer
he contracted a severe respiratory infection that went untreated
for weeks. He has lost significant weight.

His
only writing paper is the back pages of old legal documents. He’s
not allowed any personal items on the walls. Incoming mail is often
lost or delayed. Outgoing mail often disappears or is very late
in arriving. It is difficult to obtain stamps. When a friend tried
to send some in a personal letter, they were confiscated, and he
was warned that this action could be logged as an “escape attempt."

Documents
pertaining to his case were taken away and stored, for “safe keeping."
Books that friends attempted to send him were often returned, unopened.
There are frequent random searches of his room, and letters or articles
he had been in the process of writing are confiscated.

He
cannot use the telephone on any regular schedule, and the rare call
he can make is limited to ten minutes duration, and is monitored.

Visitations
are difficult. Though he is accused of a “white collar” offense,
he is nonetheless treated like a dangerous violent criminal, led
to and from the visitation room in shackles and leg irons. Conversations
consist of yelling back and forth through inch-thick glass, as the
speakerphone rarely works, making it difficult to communicate with
attorneys or family. There is no privacy. Visitors themselves are
often subject to humiliating harassment by guards before being allowed
entry – if they are.

This
almost seems like “One
day in the life of Ivan Denisovich," but this is America
– this is the daily existence of former telecom executive and venture
investor Walter Anderson, 52, awaiting
trial on twelve counts of federal and district tax evasion, for
which he was arrested February 28th.

It
would be only natural for Walt to take this treatment personally.
But, according to a prominent Denver-area defense attorney I spoke
with about his case, Anderson’s plight is actually not “personal”
at all. It’s the situation that every person accused of a crime,
and cannot make bail, endures while awaiting trial in the United
States today.

Anderson
has been in the Segregation unit since he was discovered with a
contraband cell phone on October 20th. Prosecutors convinced the
warden that he now, by virtue of this new offense, has become an
“escape risk," and should be kept isolated indefinitely “for his
own protection."

Anderson
is in his 10th month of captivity, as the judge in the case declared
him a flight risk. His case has been described as the “largest tax
evasion case in history," but the “flight risk” argument was not
about the tax case, but rather about the books he reads
– some of which you may own. It’s about maps of foreign
countries he’s visited being found in his condo – you may have similar
maps in your study, if you’ve ever travelled outside the
US in your life.

The
entire Walt Anderson case has become this bizarre, Kafka-esque nightmare,
and, when reading transcripts of the hearings,
one questions if we’re even in the same country anymore.

Walt
Anderson has never engaged in fraud, or physically harmed another
human being; nor has he ever threatened to do so. While prosecutors
claim he made lots of money, stashed it offshore in a web of holding
companies, and never paid taxes, he should not be considered a “threat”
to the safety and security of Americans.

Prosecutors
claimed that if Anderson was allowed to go free on bond, he’ll immediately
bolt to a lush offshore exile, where all his ill-gotten gains are
stashed, and live out his life free from American Justice. Except,
the only evidence they have for this assertion is that they
found books in his condo on creating new identities and living underground
lifestyles. No actual hard evidence of hidden cash, or assets
that he could liquidate, has been found. Anderson’s lawyers tried
to explain how he technically lost most of the money earned
in the telecoms back in the 90′s as soon as he made it. Through
his offshore holding companies and investment firms he put tens
of millions into other telecoms, and space companies that were his
personal passions. All this money was lost via business failures
and the general collapse of the telecom market. But the Feds wouldn’t
listen, and after nearly six years of “investigation," coming up
empty, they can’t afford to back down now.

Walt
is not a “tax protester."
While he is openly no friend to Leviathan, Anderson remains adamant
in his assertion that everything he did to avoid US and District
taxes was absolutely legal and fully transparent – all he wants
is a fair chance to prove his case in court. But to achieve that,
Anderson faces an uphill battle reminiscent of the Myth of Sisyphus.

To
even hope to compete with prosecutors on a level field, Anderson
will need a host of Expert Witnesses and Forensic Accountants. The
pre-trial “discovery” process will involve sending investigators
overseas, to take depositions from business associates and bankers.
Walt also needs the freedom to hire the best legal help he can find,
and be able to work with them in sorting through the 100,000+ pages
of documents needed to craft his defense.

But
all this costs lots of money – and therein lies the rub, and a crowning
example of what the Feds will do to get a conviction, particularly
if their case may not be airtight:

(1)
To start, Justice and the IRS lied through their teeth concerning
their intentions. Anderson had known he was under investigation
more than two years before his arrest. His understanding, as conveyed
by his attorneys, was that he would turn himself in at Pre-Trial
Services and immediately be released, on recognizance or bond, as
is the norm in tax cases. He would surrender his passport and go
about his business of preparing his case. Instead, prosecutors arranged
a media circus at the airport, and hauled Walt off in chains as
he disembarked a flight from London (coming into the US,
not attempting to leave it, by the way – something
he had done 40 times during that two-year period).

(2)
Next, prosecutors spun a web of circumstantial evidence convincing
the judge that he was a flight risk, including dramatic (but later
proved unsubstantiated) tales of safe deposit boxes stuffed with
cash in London and Switzerland, a home in Spain, and especially
those pesky, suspicious books about forging new identities, along
with maps of foreign countries. They even tried to claim he had
a false passport, but that was also later proven to be nonsense.

(3)
Negotiations on “conditions for release” fell apart. In considering
house arrest, prosecutors asked that one of the most high-priced
security agencies available be engaged. Anderson was expected to
bear the costs personally, at $180,000 per month. Even
if he was able to pay, prosecutors then reversed themselves, insisting
it still wasn’t enough, as though Anderson was some sort
of super-James-Bond character, who could jimmy the electronic bracelet
with a paper clip, leap out a third-story window, land on his feet,
and jump into a waiting Aston-Martin and speed off to safety – all
in thirty seconds or less, when the guards weren’t looking.

(4)
But Walt couldn’t make that deal, because at the same time, the
Feds were already sticking their fingers in his business. The IRS
has allegedly worked with creditors to block a bankruptcy sale of
assets for a firm in which Anderson had a stake – his share of the
proceeds, Anderson claims, would have paid for both the “security”
services and his legal defense. But when the sale was blocked, he
could no longer pay his attorneys, who asked to be removed from
the case. Walt was then forced to claim indigence, and request a
Public Defender.

It has also been reported that personal assets have been seized
by the IRS, and are being liquidated for pennies on the dollar.
The purpose of this, it has been argued, is to render Anderson penniless
and ruined. If this bears out, the picture becomes clear – collecting
taxes is not the goal in the Anderson case. It is simply to nail
Anderson by any way possible, and thus set an extreme example for
others. Anderson is far more valuable to the IRS as the poster boy
for bad behavior, that they can trot out every tax season for the
next 20 years.

(5)
Finally, of course, is Anderson’s physical and psychological “torture”
in the detention facility itself. When he finally goes to trial,
he will physically “look guilty” to a jury totally ignorant of what
actually goes on in those facilities. His battle will only get worse.

If
the Feds can prevent Anderson from adequately defending himself,
the better chance they have of overwhelming a jury into convicting
him.

The
outrageousness of all this is exceeded only by its hypocrisy. O.J.
Simpson and Robert Blake were
allowed to pay their lawyers from personal assets. Those
involved in the Enron,
WorldCom
and Tyco scandals
all ran around free – for three years, in some cases –
before even being indicted.

Although
a lifelong resident of the DC area, Anderson never sought to “buy
influence” on Capitol Hill. Because of that, he may be considered
an easy target, as opposed to a Ken Lay,
Richard
Scrushy, or Bernard
Ebbers.

The
Anderson case has chilling portents for liberty in two distinct
areas:

–
The fact that someone merely accused of a white-collar
offense, with no prior criminal background, can be held indefinitely
solely on the basis of the books they read. If allowed
to stand, it isn’t a big stretch to assume that next they’ll begin
to scrutinize all people who own certain books, whether
suspected of a crime or not, like in the film Minority
Report. (“Mr. Olson, you bought books two years ago
entitled ‘How
to Be Invisible‘ and ‘Where
to Stash Your Cash – Legally‘, ergo you must be planning
some sort of high crime and intend to flee the country. We have
to arrest you on suspicion, and investigate further.”)

–
The other main goal of this case is to intimidate high-net-worth
individuals and corporations from operating offshore, even in completely
legal ways – stay home and pay up. And if you’re already offshore
– “we’re coming for you."

The
ACLU has been completely MIA on this. At least
five different ACLU offices have been contacted by an associate,
concerning the Anderson case. In each attempt, staffers either “blew
off” the caller, or simply failed to return recorded calls.

In
contrast to the official propaganda, Walter Anderson should be held
up by all freedom-loving Americans as the highest example for prosecutorial
abuse – slammed by corrupt officials for the sole
purpose of career advancement, as happens every day in thousands
of other cases, involving citizens of more modest means whose names
we’ll never know.

The
abusive conditions in the jail system – again, where people are
held who are merely accused, not convicted of
any crimes – needs to be exposed and reformed. Officials in those
institutions, who care so little for proper maintenance of infrastructure
or the health of the inmates, should be removed from their posts
and charged with human rights abuses under
both the US Constitution and all international agreements and treaties
to which the US is a signatory.

Dr.
Walter Block, in his landmark book Defending
the Undefendable makes the case for many human activities
our culture deems sordid or unacceptable. However he fails to mention
one other “undefendable” person in his book – the tax evader,
for such a person serves a valued function as a lightning rod for
egregious behavior by government officials, allowing them to show
their true colors as violators of human rights, human dignity, and
civil liberties. Perhaps an updated version will one day include
this.

Trial
for Walt Anderson has been set for early May, 2006. You may send
him a holiday greeting here.

December
24, 2005

Thomas
Andrew Olson [send him
mail] is a New York-based systems engineer, writer and
speaker, whose topics range from technology and the future to politics
and policy.

“War”
is a fact of life in governments and their attendant bureaucracies.
They declare “war” on everything – terrorism, drugs, crime, smoking,
trans fats, you name it. (And it’s not limited to government. The
major music labels have been declaring
war against their own customers for some time now.)

Well,
today, a new war has been declared. It began with a handful
of states, but it now appears that the Feds want to get into
the act. Congress is preparing to declare war against — (insert ominous music here) — over-the-counter cold medicines.

A Dec. 10th Wired
article outlines a hidden passage in the hotly-debated Patriot Act
extension bill, the compromise version of which having just got
out of the Senate
committee. That passage would severely limit the distribution
of any over-the-counter cold medication containing pseudoephedrine,
including Claritin-D and the ever-popular Sudafed.

Why attack a common, effective sinus remedy that has kept me functional during cold/flu season for over 30 years? Because
apparently, the active ingredient is also a necessary ingredient
in the making of methamphetamine.
So, in typical Congressional thinking, the idea is, if you limit
the distribution of this key ingredient, it follows that you limit
the proliferation of meth labs. Wrong and wrong.

Making Sudafed difficult to obtain will have the same
result as making every other “illegal” drug difficult to obtain
(read: not). Instead of buying large quantities of Sudafed
at Walgreen’s, meth lab chemists will now import the raw chemical
in cans, boxes, or drums, from Latin America or Asia. So while total
numbers of meth labs may temporarily decrease in the short run,
thus allowing lawmakers to declare victory, it’s really only the
“mom and pop” shops that will close down. The remaining, more “professional”
labs, run by larger criminal organizations able to implement economies
of scale, will be able to place their product in greater quantity
at lower cost than ever before. Thus overall meth supply will continue
to keep pace with demand. These new laws change nothing at the street
level, i.e., fewer labs, more meth.

Meanwhile, workers with miserable colds, balking at
having to sign a logbook for their favorite sinus remedy at an inflated
price (or even be forced to get a doctor’s prescription), unfazed
by pseudoephedrine “replacement” products that don’t
work as well, will opt instead to call in sick — thus there
may be a long-term effect on GDP during cold/flu/allergy seasons.

An admission: Back in the 80′s, I was a “drug smuggler”
of sorts. I lived in Seattle, and several times a year I enjoyed
taking extended-weekend trips to Vancouver or Victoria, BC. I got
to know the proprietors of a B&B in the area. They loved Sudafed,
but hated having to get a doc’s ‘script for it, as has always been
the rule in Canada. On the other hand, aspirin with codeine, a product
unavailable except by prescription in the US, was over-the-counter
in Canada. Hence an informal non-cash trade arrangement was made,
in the pure spirit of better health-care choices for both parties.
This is an example of the absurdity of all State attempts at control
of drugs of any kind, and the creativity of individuals to work
around them. Expect sinus cold sufferers to begin making similar
arrangements in Mexico shortly, or simply stocking up on large quantities
of the medication before the new laws take effect.

So, thanks for nothing, all you meth-lab proprietors.
Not only do you distribute addictive poison, you have been lazy
in so doing
by obtaining your key ingredients at drug stores, thus raising red
flags with those who pretend to “govern” us. You deserve to go out
of business, regardless of its legality.

Governments at the state and federal levels, thanks
for nothing to you, as well, for once again, you’ve created
a “solution” that won’t work to a “problem” you’ve blown out of
proportion to its actual impact on our lives. Drug use may be the
scourge of some communities, admittedly, but libertarians maintain
(insist, really) that it should be treated as a public health problem,
as opposed to a criminal problem.

Ha-choo. Sniffle. Snort.

December
13, 2005

Thomas
Andrew Olson [send him
mail] is a New York-based systems engineer, writer and
speaker, whose topics range from technology and the future to politics
and policy.

I
could see where the untimely death of Rehnquist would give Bush
a golden opportunity to place his stamp on the bench, and, disappointingly,
most of the Senate fell into line. But again, that’s a separate
topic.

What
finally sent me over the edge was today’s announcement of Bush’s
new
nominee to replace Sandra Day O’Connor, Harriet Miers, someone
whose entire career has been nothing more than that of political
operative and water carrier, with no judicial experience of any
kind. This had me thinking of the Roman emperor Caligula, who was
alleged
to have appointed his favorite horse a consul. (The parallels
of the misadventures of certain mentally unstable Roman emperors
with the Bush Administration are too delicious to ignore.)

Of
course, it wouldn’t be the first time Bush has promoted people utterly
unqualified for their jobs. The case of Michael
Brown, as head of FEMA, is now a classic in the annals of Bush
Blunder. Ms. Miers, while once being touted as a "pit
bull in size-6 shoes," has never been a judge, never argued
a case before the high Court, and never been other than a Bush loyalist
who is now getting rewarded for that loyalty.

But
Bush’s off the cuff description is an insult to pit bulls, and I’m
sure I’m not the only one to find it mildly disturbing that Bush
would know her shoe size.

But
all of this raises the more fundamental question of how does one
really Qualify to be a Supreme Court Justice, or Chief Justice of
that court? We all may make certain assumptions without really thinking
about them – I know I did, and I intend to correct them here.

According
to Wikipedia:

"The
Constitution does not explicitly establish any qualifications
for Justices of the Supreme Court. However, Presidents normally
nominate individuals who have prior legal experience. Typically,
most nominees have previous judicial experience, either at the
federal or state level. Several nominees have formerly served
on federal Courts of Appeals, especially the Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit, which is often considered
a stepping stone to the Supreme Court. Another source of Supreme
Court nominees is the federal executive branch—in particular,
the Department of Justice. Other potential nominees include members
of Congress and academics. On the current Supreme Court, seven
Justices previously served on federal courts (including three
on the D.C. Circuit); two served on state courts; three were former
law school professors; and three held full time positions in the
federal executive branch.

Nominees
to the Supreme Court, as well as to lower federal courts, are
evaluated by the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee
on Federal Judiciary. The panel is composed of fifteen federal
judges (but not Supreme Court Justices), including at least one
from each federal judicial circuit. The body assesses the nominee
"solely to professional qualifications: integrity, professional
competence and judicial temperament," and offers a rating
of "well qualified," "qualified," or "not
qualified." The opinions of the committee bind neither the
President nor the Senate; however, they are generally taken into
account."

So,
after reading that, I decided to do some more digging. As there
have been over 100 Supreme Court Justices, appointed over our nation’s
history at an average of one every 22 months, time did not permit
me to look at the rsums of all of them – so I concentrated
on the Chief Justices, as there have only been 16, prior to the
current one.

The
first three, John
Jay, John
Rutledge, and Oliver
Ellsworth all served with distinction in the Revolution, were
accomplished jurists, helped draft the Constitution, and Ellsworth
was the first Senator elected from Connecticut. They clearly earned
their positions via their service.

John
Marshall (appointed 1801): Revolutionary, diplomat, jurist.
A Congressman from Virginia and Secretary of State under John Adams
before being appointed. He was the first to stamp the court with
the authority of "judicial review" of laws, in the landmark
Marbury vs. Madison decision. His 35-year tenure was the
longest. However, once we leave the "Revolutionary generation",
things begin to take a decided turn.

Roger
Taney (appointed 1836): This was a political appointment by
Andrew Jackson to reward loyalty. A leader of the Federalist party,
Attorney General of Maryland, then US Attorney General, he also
served a brief stint as Secretary of the Treasury, where he helped
Jackson in his war against the Second Bank of the United States
(an area where many hard-money libertarians might consider him a
hero). He drafted Jackson’s veto message for renewal of the Bank’s
charter. But when William Duane, Jackson’s Secretary of the Treasury,
refused to withdraw the federal government’s deposits, Jackson appointed
Taney in his place, who then promptly carried out Jackson’s order.
This, historians say, helped bring about the "Panic of 1837".
The Senate was unforgiving, and refused to confirm Taney’s re-nomination
to the position, the first time in history the Senate failed to
approve a cabinet nominee.

Salmon
P. Chase (appointed 1864): Senator from Ohio (Free Soil Party),
Governor of Ohio, and Secretary of the Treasury under Lincoln, where
he was tasked with the design of the first federal paper currency
– many of the denominations were adorned with Chase’s
own face. Assumed to be another appointment for political loyalty.

Morrison
Waite (appointed 1874): First a Whig, then a Republican; a jurist,
served briefly in the Ohio state senate. His term dealt mostly with
interpretations of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments.

Melville
Fuller (appointed 1888): Jurist, minor figure in Illinois politics;
a presumed political appointee by Grover Cleveland.

Edward
D. White (appointed 1910): Here’s one that actually came up
through the ranks. He was studying law in the North when the War
Between the States broke out. He returned to his native Louisiana
to enlist, rose to the rank of Lieutenant before being captured
in battle. He became a lawyer during Reconstruction, was elected
to the state senate, became an associate justice of the Louisiana
supreme court, and then became a US Senator. Grover Cleveland made
him an Associate Justice in 1894, and William Howard Taft made him
Chief Justice in 1910.

William
H. Taft (appointed 1921): Assoc. Judge 6th circuit appeals,
Governor-General of Philippines, Sect’y of War under Teddy Roosevelt,
then 27th President, but lost his second term bid to Woodrow Wilson.

Charles
E. Hughes (appointed 1930): Governor of NY, Assoc. Justice,
Sect’y of State under Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge. Led fight
against New Deal legislation as unconstitutional.

Harlan
F. Stone (appointed 1941): Attorney General under Coolidge,
Assoc. Justice, appointed Chief by FDR. Presumably he was a compromise
candidate, after FDR was accused of trying the stack the court to
approve of all his New Deal legislation in the 1930′s.

Fred
M. Vinson (appointed 1946): State Rep from Kentucky, he sat
on the federal bench from 1937, appointed Chief Judge to US Emergency
Court of Appeals, 1942. As Sect’y of Treasury under Truman, he was
responsible for the creation of the IMF and Bretton Woods accords.
He was a lifelong friend (and poker buddy) of Truman.

Earl
Warren (appointed 1953): District Attorney in California, CA
Attorney General, and Governor of CA, where he supported internment
camps for Japanese Americans; ran for VP with Dewey in ’48, appointed
Chief Justice by Eisenhower, who later claimed the decision "was
the biggest damned fool mistake I’ve ever made in my life",
as Warren proved to be far less conservative than everyone thought.
He set the tone for "making law from the bench", beginning
with Brown vs the Board of Education, and also led the controversial
"Warren Commission" to investigate the JFK assassination.

Warren
Burger (appointed 1969): Lawyer, law school professor, Asst.
Attorney General under Eisenhower, appointed by Eisenhower to US
Court of Appeals DC Circuit. He was appointed by Nixon to Chief
Justice in 1969 as a "strict constructionist" – but,
as with Earl Warren, he proceded to fail to live up to his benefactor’s
expectations – instead making very "judicial activist"
decisions on topics such as school busing and the death penalty.
He voted with the majority on Roe v Wade, and later rejected
Nixon’s privacy arguments in the Watergate tapes. But in 1983, in
a view that could be interpreted as out of character, he dissented
from the Court’s holding in the case of Solem v. Helm, that
a sentence of life imprisonment for issuing a fraudulent check in
the amount of $100 constituted cruel and unusual punishment.

William
Rehnquist (appointed 1986): Lawyer, clerked for Justice Robert
Jackson, wrote a memo in 1953 defending "separate but equal"
during Brown case; when asked to explain, he claimed he was
merely reflecting Justice Jackson’s views, not his own. However,
Jackson voted with the rest of the Court in the unanimous Brown
decision. Encouraged to withdraw to private practice, he was an
aide to Barry Goldwater and an Arizona Republican operative until
1969. He was accused of discouraging minority voters in Arizona
as a "poll watcher". He became first an Asst. Attorney
General, then an Associate Justice under Nixon in 1971. He wrote
the dissenting argument in Roe, appointed Chief Justice by
Reagan, and in 2000 wrote the concurring opinion in Bush v. Gore.

As
you can see from this history, there is no clear pattern one can
discern that shows boldly the path one must follow if one is to
become an Associate or Chief Justice. The path has always been marked
with opportunism, connections, rewards for loyalty, and other political
chicanery. But as history unfolded, there was one pattern
that one could plainly see: that which ultimately led to a political
"litmus test" for court nominees. It began after the FDR
appointments in the 1930′s, and has grown worse from each administration
to the next, until today, the Court sits in danger of having "Caligula’s
horse" as one of its members.

October
5, 2005

Thomas
Andrew Olson [send him
mail] is a New York-based systems engineer, writer and
speaker, whose topics range from technology and the future to politics
and policy.

Of
all the cogent arguments offered on these pages about the failure
of government at all levels in the New Orleans disaster, there has
yet to be any analysis of how much of the chaos, death and mayhem
could have been averted had only individual people been
simply more aware of their situation, as it unfolded, and been better
prepared to cope with it.

It
should now be abundantly clear to anyone with a pulse that in a
huge crunch, the Powers That Be won’t be able to get to you in a
timely fashion. More and more, people are coming to realize that
they must depend on themselves first and foremost, before any trust
could be given to the State, if ever. It’s up to you to
keep yourself alive until you can either get yourself out of harms
way, or rescuers can eventually reach you. Unfortunately, "emergency
survival skills" aren’t something the schools teach –
yet another indictment of our wretched public school system. As
the system is now designed to create sheeplike "followers"
instead of self-aware, critical-thinking "leaders," the
resultant loss of life in disaster zones should come as no surprise.
In New Orleans, and now Houston, I’ve never seen so many people
standing around waiting either for handouts, or for someone else
to tell them what to do, instead of organizing themselves more efficiently
or just keeping their own counsel and figuring out a way to get
to safety. This, I am convinced, is a result of decades of federal,
state and local "dependency creation", to justify the
ever increasing grab of our tax dollars.

Thus,
"survival" courses are generally only offered by private
institutions, like Outward
Bound, or as electives in community colleges. Only a tiny fraction
of us bother to participate, usually due to the expense. Most courses
or books, however, dedicate themselves solely to wilderness survival,
or home emergency preparedness (something you should do anyway).
But what if "cars collide seconds ahead of the car you’re
riding in. Your seatbelt’s unbuckled. It’s too late to stop…"?

Also
(and I think John
Lott and L. Neil Smith
would agree), a populace that owns and is trained in the use of
pistols or rifles could have gotten a rather quick handle on the
New Orleans looting and violence, wrought by social malcontents
who seek opportunity in disaster, and thus restoring order. But
what if your hunting rifle and ammo are safely tucked away in your
home, and you are stuck in traffic across town, as the flood waters
are rising? Little is said about the real things one can do in real
emergencies, emergencies that most often occur when one least expects
it.

In
1967, at the tender age of 13, I saved my allowance to purchase
(for 95 cents) a remarkable book, one that is still on my shelf
to this day. It’s called The
Book of Survival by Anthony Greenbank, published long before
the name "MacGyver" was ever heard of. I was happy to
find that this book is still in print, and revised for today’s new
realities.

This
not a text about survival in the wilderness, with the assumption
you planned to be hiking out there of your own free will and just
happened to get lost. This is not a book about home preparedness
in the event of disasters about which you may have advance warning.
This is a book about what to do now, quickly,
be it in the urban jungle or the original one, offering inventive
and practical ways to handle crises at the time they happen.

It’s
a book about fires, floods, earthquakes, traffic accidents, train
wrecks, plane crashes, power blackouts, assault, kidnapping, nuclear
attack, terrorist acts, first aid, and yes – even survival in the
wilderness or desert, but assuming the contents of your car, purse,
pockets, or wallet are the only tools you have handy, and you’re
probably wearing a business suit, as opposed to heavy-duty "outdoor
gear".

According
to the author, this book assumes you’re "paunchy, pregnant,
or generally past-it." But the real tone of the book is one
of attitude: Greenbank constantly drives home the point
that you are not "lost" unless you decide you
are, so never give up – ever. (Read the first few pages
from Chapter One on the Amazon site and you’ll see what I mean.)

If
you can scrounge a tin can or bucket and a piece of plastic sheeting,
for example you can make a solar still for fresh water. Your car
keys are a defensive weapon against an attacker – so is your sense
of humor, depending on the situation. Your camera lens or car battery
can start a fire. Your trousers can become an emergency flotation
device. He shows you how to make a raft out of oil drums, how to
scale a rope, a building, or a mountainside, using whatever you
can scrounge from the landscape to help you. He gets your creative
juices flowing. Just two nights ago there was a report on MSNBC
in New Orleans, about a rescue operation for a single individual
trapped in – get this – a grocery store! For a week! What
items in the store could that person have used to rescue himself,
days sooner??

The
book isn’t perfect. In the author’s zeal to cover every possible
contingency, there is a section or two where some of his prescriptions
appear a bit unlikely, particularly when dealing with gang attacks
("…back up against a wall….if you can dispatch one
of them in a timely fashion, perhaps the rest will think twice before
attacking you" – yeah, right…maybe if I’m Wesley
Snipes..). And one simply has to laugh out loud when he advises
on how to deal with space aliens exiting their UFO craft, as he
did in my first edition: "Avoid rapid forceful movement;
use no shrill sounds; breathe quietly; avoid giving a direct menacing
gaze." (Perhaps learning a few simple phrases in Klingon
would be more appropriate.) But at least the topic was
covered…

Although
obviously no longer 95 cents, this book is nonetheless affordable
by every family in virtually every economic situation. If nothing
else, it gives you, at minimum, the resolve to give yourself
a fighting chance to pull through, with the confidence that comes
from knowing that what one human can do, another can also do. It’s
certainly a "must read" for anyone who’s lost faith in
FEMA (which should be just about everyone by now). Make sure your
kids read it.

For,
as far as the government’s ability to protect you goes, I think
the lead-off quote says it all.

September
9, 2005

Thomas
Andrew Olson [send him
mail] is a New York-based systems engineer, writer and
speaker, whose topics range from technology and the future to politics
and policy.

May
I call you "Rick"? Having received so many letters from
you these past couple of months, I feel we should be on a first-name
basis. Even though these letters were most likely penned by staffers,
you signed off on them, so I must infer their content reflects your
own thoughts and beliefs regarding the issues raised.

The
internet is a wonderful thing. The reason I received all those letters
from you in the first place was because of the issue-driven
bulk e-mail distributions that reach my inbox each week, from
various groups promoting particular legislative agendas, offering
one-click links to our specific Senator and/or Congressman to express
our views. While the agendas of these “e-mail
rings” tend to be extreme left-liberal in most cases, they nevertheless
provide a valuable service by encouraging constituent advocacy in
a user-friendly manner. You don’t have to necessarily agree with
the views of the sponsoring organization – you can express
your own. So I click the link, express myself in the box provided,
then send. A week or so later, your generic response arrives in
my mailbox, a result in turn of the generous franking privileges
a US Senator receives, courtesy of us taxpayers.

However,
Rick, I must say that, most of the time, the response I receive
from you is gibberish that has little if anything to do with the
issue being raised, or when it does, is exactly the opposite response
that I would expect or desire. Let me offer just a handful of the
most recent examples out of over a dozen received in the last four
months:

Example
1: To my comments concerning the lowering of federal gas taxes
as a hedge on the spike in gas prices, you sent me a letter dated
July 13th. In it, you evaded my questions entirely, in lieu of an
impassioned speech on how you valiantly resisted the “Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century” (TEA-21), and instead helped lead
the fight to pass the “Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient
Transportation Equity Act” (SAFETEA). Your proudest goal in this
was to insure that PA would now receive back from the feds $1.07
in highway spending for every dollar paid in by PA residents, as
opposed to the $0.97 spent/dollar of tax paid proffered in the original
bill. You metaphorically puffed out your chest and declaimed: “This
[$1.07 received for every dollar contributed] is an important benchmark
for our state, because it is essential that the Commonwealth remains
a “donee” state rather than a “donor” state.”

“Essential”?
I never understood the logic behind this attitude that we must rip
off another state’s taxpayers to disproportionately benefit our
own state, and I never would have approved of sending anyone to
Congress with that singular goal in mind. In fact, Rick, it is expensive
and bureaucratic to take gas tax money collected in the state, pour
it in the DC pot, then let them dole it back out again as they see
fit, forcing you to engage in power plays on the Senate floor to
ensure your constituents don’t get screwed. Isn’t this a profound
waste of your time? Wouldn’t it be cheaper and more efficient just
to let PA keep all gas taxes collected in PA to use
for road improvements as PA sees fit, without the high-cost
federal middleman? You can blather on about the Fed’s role in “regulating
interstate commerce” as an excuse for maintaining the status quo,
but frankly, I imagine that most Pennsylvanians just want to see
the potholes fixed, and encourage
the truckers to take a nap now and then, so they’re not a navigation
hazard.

Example
2: On July 19th, you subjected me to a litany about all the
issues surrounding the pending CAFTA treaty, and your unqualified
support for it. Now, admittedly, I am ambivalent about this issue,
as I don’t think NAFTA or the WTO has done us any favors, and yet
another “free trade” agreement that serves only to export more US
jobs and artificially maintain a cheap labor force in Latin America
for the benefit of your large
corporate campaign donors, would not seem to serve the best
interests of your own constituents, particularly in a state that
literally defines the term “rust belt."

However,
that’s not why I wrote you about it. My only concern with CAFTA
was the “fine print” language that binds all parties to a serious
consideration of the United Nations-backed CODEX
standards for nutritional supplements, standards that have no
basis in sound medical science, and look as though they could have
been written by the big pharmaceutical companies. If those standards
were applied in the US, the multi-billion dollar nutritional supplements
industry would be thrown out of business, as US citizens would be
forced, for example, to get a doctor’s prescription for Vitamin
C in greater dosages than 100 milligrams or so. You never even commented
on this insidious intrusion into the health care choices of American
citizens.

Example
3: Not willing to let you go on the “supplements” issue, I fired
off an additional e-mail to ensure you got the message. Your response
(also dated July 19th – I guess it was a good day for bulk
mail) was, again, characteristically evasive. You stated that dietary
supplements are “not approved by the FDA for safety and effectiveness”
(probably a good thing, as the FDA does not have a single testing
lab), and encouraged all users of supplements to “consult with
a healthcare professional” (I won’t go into the appalling lack
of market-based healthcare solutions here). You then, however, went
way off track and began to lecture me on Anabolic Steroids legislation,
DHEA (currently not labeled as a steroid), and pending legislation
in committee that seeks to change this. Again, there was no coming
down on one side or another by you regarding the supplements industry
in general, or American’s freedom to make their own choices regarding
health care.

Virtually
all your response letters are heavily laden with “buck passing”
comments, i.e. “I am not a member of the Senate XYZ committee,"
or “This is before the House currently, and I am not a Congressman.”
Well, why should you get off so easily? I am confident you have
the names of those key Republican Senate committee members,
along with influential House Republicans, right there on your speed-dial.
A few phone calls to the right people would go a long way, even
if only to get yourself educated on the issues at hand, and would
certainly be the right thing to do by your constituents. If you’re
not on a particular committee, then, OK, take a few committee members
out for dinner and cocktails and figure out what’s going on, before
whatever it is they’re doing hits the full floor. Do the same with
key Republican congressmen.

Example
4: In a surprising development, in a letter dated August 1st,
responding to my views on the Estate Tax, you actually painted yourself
into a corner. You stated that “Senator John Kyl of Arizona introduced
S. 420, which would permanently repeal the Estate Tax.” As you
are a member of the Senate
Finance Committee, you have no excuses in this regard. I expect
you to come down in support of this bill, with no reservations whatsoever.
As you recently published a book
on family values, I would expect you to practice what you preach,
and allow families to recover from the devastating loss of a loved
one by removing all federal tax intrusion into the deceased person’s
final wishes for his/her estate, thus ensuring greater security
for their designated heirs. In fact, why don’t you push for repeal
of the Marriage Penalty, as well?

Because
of people like you, Hillary, Schumer, and Feinstein, I am unshakably
convinced that the worst constitutional amendment ever passed in
the 20th century was not the 16th, as many believe, but rather the
17th,
which allowed Senators to be elected by popular vote. While
the system enacted by the Framers – that of having Senators
elected by State legislatures – had
its share of flaws, it still more or less required that a prospective
Senator show a little honest statecraft in the course of a lengthy
political career at the local and state levels, before being elevated
by their peers to that august position. Today it’s all about pandering
to special interests with big bucks, and fooling half the voters
into believing you are smarter than your opponent. You don’t even
have to live in the state you represent for any length of time to
establish local credibility. Just ask Hillary. If the 17th had never
passed, it is doubtful that the majority of the Senators presently
sitting would have ever gotten their jobs.

Bottom
line, Rick, most of what you write me is self-serving, fatuous nonsense,
perpetuating the notion that only well-connected, sanctimonious
bottom-feeders are best suited for a political career in the USA.
But I must admit to a certain guilty-pleasure entertainment value,
as it gives me a deeper insight into your thought processes. I only
hope you don’t have a taste for “higher office," as your career
to date is yet another proof of the Peter
Principle in action.

Now,
while we’re at it – what about getting our troops out of Iraq?

Warmest
Regards,

Your
constituent,
"Tom"
Marshalls Creek, Monroe County, PA

August
24, 2005

Thomas
Andrew Olson [send him
mail] is a New York–based businessman, computer
consultant, writer and public speaker. His official residence is
in the Pennsylvania Poconos, where he receives lots of fan mail
from his elected representatives.

~
Henry David Thoreau

Thoreau,
of course, lived in a kinder, gentler time, when people still recognized
the true source of human rights and freedoms, and were diligent
in keeping them. Mr. Thoreau was a strong believer in civil disobedience
as a means of changing unjust law; Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther
King, Jr. could certainly attest to their own success using non-violent
civil disobedience as a tool of political reform – but none
of these gentlemen were trying to reform the tax laws. The State
can tolerate, in relative degrees, large and well organized public
protests, so long as said protests do not extend to the root means
of the State’s livelihood. That way lies revolution, of which there
have been few that were successful.

Until
a couple of days ago, most of you reading this had probably never
heard of Walt Anderson. Preferring to keep a low public profile,
he made himself very wealthy in the telecommunications industry
in the 1990′s, both in the "Baby Bells" and in the European
telecom industry. His work in telecom satellites offered people
in developing nations, starved of needed land line infrastructure,
an open door to the 21st century. When he cashed out (or in one
case, was forced out), his net worth topped the billion-dollar mark,
at least by some estimates.

As
a huge supporter of privatized efforts for space transportation
and development, he helped bankroll such organizations as FINDS,
the Space Frontier Foundation,
the Mars Society, and the
International Space University.
He’s been an investor in Rotary
Rocket and spent $31 million of his own money in an attempt
to rescue the Russian
Mir space station. His current venture, Orbital
Recovery, will build small robot probes that, when launched,
attach themselves to satellites in decaying orbits, then fire a
small rocket to boost the comsats back where they used to be, thus
saving those satellite’s owners tens of millions in replacement
costs.

Those
who have worked with him attest that, despite his sometimes mercurial
moods and intense desire for privacy, Anderson was also a man of
unimpeachable integrity, both in his personal and business dealings.

But
now, apparently, the amassed government kleptocracies have taken
umbrage that Mr. Anderson might want to actually keep the
profits he worked so hard to earn. He was arrested Saturday, February
26th, as he disembarked a plane from London at Dulles airport, and
charged with a dozen counts of tax evasion on nearly $500 million
in allegedly unreported income to the US and the District of Columbia.
He continues to be held pending a bail hearing Thursday, March 3rd.

Three
things strike me immediately from all this: (1) the incredibly savage
hatchet job being done to Anderson by the media, trying and
convicting the man well in advance of any trial, (2) the gross hypocrisy
of the government’s action, given that better politically "connected"
miscreants, such as Marc Rich or Halliburton, get a free pass, and
(3) the absolutely hideous nature of what our system has morphed
into, whereby a successful man like Anderson is compelled to go
to such great lengths to keep the wealth he peacefully and honestly
earned.

The
press have painted
a damning picture of Walt Anderson as a quixotic and aberrant
individual obsessed with phony identities, "underground books"
about "disappearing," and of course all those questionable
offshore business dealings allegedly designed solely to hide income.
I mean, my God, he reads unusual books and he wears black clothes.
He must, therefore, be a deviant, malcontent tax evader!
(Never mind that my teenage daughter also dresses in all-black
"goth" fashion, black clothing has always fashionable
in the "hip" circles from the East Village to L.A., the
"underground books" they mentioned are openly
available for sale on the Internet, and while performing certain
activities under an assumed name may be considered illegal, having
a second passport – under your own name – definitely
is not.)

While
the $210 million in taxes the government claims is "owed"
by Anderson is touted as the biggest "tax evasion scam in history,"
keep in mind that even if they succeed in collection, that money
will only enable the federal government to function for about
44 minutes. The US this year will spend more money in 10 minutes
than Joseph Strauss spent building the entire Golden Gate Bridge,
even adjusted for inflation.

An
associate spoke directly with Anderson today, and he claimed to
be extremely puzzled about the government’s motives, in that he
had offered to come in whenever they asked and thus was completely
surprised at being arrested at the end of a long flight. It seems
to me from that, that Anderson genuinely believes he did nothing
illegal to protect his assets, actions which are virtually identical
to what thousands of other wealthy citizens do to protect theirs.

But
at the end of the day, it’s really not about the money. It’s about
IRS bureaucrats getting a "trophy" arrest in time for
tax season.

In
case you hadn’t noticed, about this same time every single year,
the media are rife with reports of IRS harassment, arrests, and
confiscation of property, from people usually demonized as "tax
protestors," with the sole purpose of intimidating the masses
into complying with the "tax laws," laws which IRS
agents themselves can’t figure out. The Anderson case will give
these people massive propaganda opportunities for years to come.
Also, the US and other big-tax governments over the last five years
or so have been giving extra scrutiny to offshore tax havens, and
putting political pressure on the nations offering them. So with
Anderson, Uncle Sam gets a double play – a way to scare the
"sheeple" and send warning signals to the more fiscally
sophisticated to give up on those offshore shelters and simply pony
up.

It
will be interesting to see how the actual legal wrangling plays
out, once the media frenzy subsides. From the tone of the articles,
some of Anderson’s machinations might appear fishy – but I
just can’t conceive of someone at his level deliberately doing something
blatantly illegal. People at that level surround themselves with
lawyers and accountants – I can’t fathom how all that advice,
would collectively be that bad. As I suggested earlier, Mr. Anderson’s
problem isn’t so much that he avoided paying taxes on lots of income
legally earned – the real issue is that he is an open opponent
of Big Government Statism, and thus isn’t sufficiently politically
connected to save himself all this grief.

Halliburton
has been caught gauging Big Uncle in numerous ways since the
whole Iraq War got going, in amounts that would make Walt blush,
but I don’t see any of their execs doing any perp walks for the
cameras – that’s because they have friends in Dick Cheney and
Donald Rumsfeld. Marc
Rich blatantly sold arms to every side carrying cash in the
Middle East – but his pal Bill Clinton pardoned him.

The
final issue becomes one of Anderson just being another of a long
string of victims of the "Age of Envy" in which we find
ourselves. Everybody hates taxes, but figure they’re "stuck"
paying them – so it’s easy for the media to sow the seeds of
resentment (and sell papers) by painting Anderson as an evil capitalist
exploiter who won’t pay his "fair share" – as though
there is this general belief that if you have superior business
acumen, and create jobs and wealth, you also still "owe"
fifty percent or more of what you worked so hard to earn to "benefit"
those less capable than yourself. And if you refuse to pony up,
you are therefore evil and should have everything stripped from
you in the name of "justice." That, apparently, is the
philosophy of the majority of columnists writing about Anderson.

In
the world of the wealth redistributionists, the Unwritten Rule is:
"Thou shall not make too much money too quickly, unless
you play ball with the Big Boys first." Events would appear
to teach us that that particular number is about $500 million. In
the 80′s, former US Attorney Rudy Giuliani went after Michael
Milken after the "junk bond king" earned that much
in a single year – a "trophy case" that led Giuliani
to the New York Mayor’s office. Today, they’re going after Walt
Anderson for taxes on a similar earnings windfall from the late
90′s. And today the details of Howard
Stern’s $500 million deal with Sirius are being investigated
by the SEC for possible insider trading violations by members of
his staff and outside columnists close to him. In all these cases,
none of these individuals were/are well-connected in the "right"
circles, and, in the case of Stern and Anderson, are openly against
government intrusions into our lives. In the eyes of Big Brother,
these people can be sacrificed as a lesson to the rest in the real
exercise of government power.

I’ve
heard all the arguments about how we are a "nation of laws,"
and we must either obey them or work to change the System, for if
we do not we end up in Anderson’s position – but I no longer
buy those arguments. The original purpose of "the law"
was to establish justice – but the tax laws today
have nothing to do with justice or fairness, but merely to enhance
the power position of the State. Take a look at the tax code. Virtually
every line in it is the result of a successful lobbyist representing
a particular special interest group. "Fair shares" don’t
enter into it.

The
government and their media sycophants are working overtime to ensure
that, in the minds of the public, Anderson is a totally unredeemable,
indefensible character, which will make it next to impossible for
him to get a fair trial. They have piled on charges in the hopes
of getting one or two to stick. They will look for some sort of
plea bargain, where Anderson gives up most of what he’s earned,
and possibly does some jail time – full acquittal is extremely
doubtful, given how the deck is being stacked, but given his resources,
there is always hope.

We
all need to speak up for and stand with the Walt Anderson’s of the
world, as their persecution is a symbol of what has become so tragically
wrong and perverted with the American system. He is a unique individual
who simply wanted to keep the money that he worked so hard to make,
despite the government wanting to redistribute that hard-earned
income into their wasteful abyss of war, social engineering, and
dependency creation. What happened to Anderson is happening to thousands
of Americans at a far lower level, every year, but they are generally
powerless to mount a proper defense.

"Mr.
Montag, you are looking at a coward. I saw the way things were
going, a long time back. I said nothing. I’m one of the innocents
who could have spoken up and out when no one would listen to the
‘guilty,’ but I did not speak and thus became guilty myself. And
when finally they set the structure to burn the books, using the
firemen, I grunted a few times and subsided, for there were no
others grunting or yelling with me, by then. Now it’s too late."

~
Ray Bradbury, from his classic novel, Fahrenheit
451

Free
Walt Anderson.

March
4, 2005

Thomas
Andrew Olson [send him mail]
is a writer and public speaker on technology issues, and humanity’s
future in space. He is Space Commerce Editor for The Libertarian
Enterprise, and is an occasional contributor to The Space
Review. Although an Advocate of the Space Frontier Foundation
and a Founding member of the Mars Society, he writes in his own
personal capacity, and not as a representative of either group.