I knew that there were actually people who took the word seriously, and through a tip, I discovered an aromatherapy class being held close to my house. I checked it out and since I’ve been reading a little about alchemy, perfumery, and its roots in early Islamic science, I felt that I might as well learn what I can first hand.

The woman who ran the class, Kath Koeppen, of her own company Aromaceuticals, is a pioneer because she’s not only a teacher, but also a practitioner and an importer of the same goods she dispenses. As a pioneer, she is not motivated solely by money, and by her own admission, she is not rich, but she indeed believes in what she does, and her authenticity shined through the whole day. Just as is the case in every other one of the healing arts, there is a lot of misinformation afoot, and Kath spent a good hour or so dispelling some common myths. Essential oils, which are not actually oils, but are called that because they do not mix with water, are in all plants, but only 8 to 10 percent of them give up enough of their “life force” for it to be economically and medicinally viable. Depending on the plant, essential oils originate in the flowers, fruits, bark, leaves, trunk, blossoms, roots, branches, sap, or seed. Plants produce their essential oils for different reasons. Some oils will repel fungus, others will attract a certain type of insect. The black walnut tree will only produce its essential oil as a sapling and its purpose is to keep other things from growing around it. As the tree matures, it stops producing that oil and other lifeforms will begin to grow again. That made me think of how humans, at different stages in their development, may produce an ethereal repellent, but once a certain level of security is met, those people generally go back to being their usual charming selves.

Many essential oils are incredibly expensive because it takes so much matter to produce such a small amount of oil. Naturally, sheer economics comes into play as well. For instance, roses are very common, but the rose that is most suited for aromatherapy is of one type alone and it can only grow in Bulgaria and Turkey. Since very little oil is present in the flowers, it can take thousands of roses to make just one ounce of essential oil. Then the prices are bid up by affluent Arabs who will spare at no expense to get the very best rose oil to pour on their carpets. Considering these factors, it’s no wonder why a five-milliliter bottle — the size of my thumb — costs over $200. Prices of other oils are also influenced by a number of geopolitical issues. The bergamot tree can only grow in certain parts of Italy and due in part to the Mafia, its production is purposely limited to maintain price. Frankincense and myrrh come from Somalia and Yemen, and though the political instability might mean fewer taxes, tariffs, and regulatory schemes, the countries’ limited infrastructure makes it costly to import these Biblical resins. Sandalwood is the blue whale of essential oils since overharvesting has led to a near depletion of the tree in its native India. Fortunately, huge plantations are popping up in Australia, but since it takes nearly two decades for the tree to mature, Sandalwood oil will be an elusive one for a while longer yet.

So there are definitely people who take aromatherapy seriously, but when will this healing art go mainstream? In a way, it already has. Pharmaceutical giants have been using plant matter for over a century, one of the most common ones being an extract from the eucalyptus tree. Instead of using the whole oil, the pharmaceutical companies will usually just take the one bona fide active ingredient, eucalyptol, leaving behind what they call a rectified oil, which has a nice name, but it’s just the oil without its most powerful component. The rectified oils are then dumped back on the market, and if you’re an uneducated buyer, you may end up purchasing the aromatherapy equivalent of a soccer player with no legs. You must know your source!

Since aromatherapy is not as mainstream as Western medicine, there is less official regulation of the practice. In the long run, I would say it’s better if the aggregate of aromatherapy practitioners stayed far away from the slippery slope of official oversight. For instance, a bottle can say “100% pure frankincense oil” when in fact it’s 100% pure frankincense oil adulterated in a carrier base of jojoba oil. This means in theory, the bottle you are purchasing might have two parts of 100% pure frankincense oil to every ten parts of jojoba oil — pretty sneaky. Many practitioners, if they were given an option, might call for a “truth in aromatherapy labeling” bill, to help consumers make proper choices. Yes, that might be effective in the short run, but that also invites the possibility of future rules that aromatherapists may not approve of on the whole, such as where aromatherapists can practice, how many hours are needed to become registered, etc. That’s not to say that there shouldn’t be standards, but I believe that those standards can be created and maintained privately. Underwriters Laboratories and the Orthodox Union are two very powerful privately held regulatory agencies that are the gold standard of their respective fields.

Even now, one can see that precise designations have popped up to help the true-religion aromatherapists differentiate themselves from the charlatans. One common misnomer in aromatherapy and perfumery is the word “water,” as in rose water or lavender water. For instance, the kind of water aromatherapists are keen to use is the liquid that’s left over after the distillation process once the essential oil has been siphoned off. This distillate has naturally been infused with ingredients that are quite different than the oil and have very different indications in aromatherapy. As it is, if you go to the market and purchase rose water, it could be the liquid I just described, regular water mixed with true rose oil, or water mixed with a synthetic. Aromatherapists coined a word, “hydrolat," which is the industry term for the distillate. So now discerning buyers have an easier time finding the product they want. Yes, the perfumers could co-opt the term and sell their inferior product as a hydrolat, but the world is not a safe place, so it’s still up to the buyer to know their producers and keep tabs on them just like any other good or service on the market.

Another appellation that helps shrewd aromatherapy practitioners is the Latin binomial nomenclature on the labels of better brands. If you see the word “lavender” on a bottle it could mean you’re getting the proper Lavandula augustifolia or it could mean you’re getting a sterile hybrid called lavandin, which is easier to grow and produce, but is not nearly as therapeutic as the augustifolia. By using the Latin, producers of essential oils are telling their customers exactly what species of plant is in the bottle. Thanks to this simple yet important stroke of genius, consumers can have better confidence that they are not being defrauded. Therefore, it is possible for members of this particular field to spontaneously and fruitfully come together on the key issues that are mutually beneficial to producers, practitioners and their patients.

Just like with mainstream medicines, aromatherapists create compounds to treat conditions that are multi-symptomatic. Fortunately, they are built the same way as perfumes with top, middle and base notes. That is, the top notes are the most volatile and diffuse after 20 minutes or so, the middle notes come into play next and last for a couple of hours, and lastly the base notes come into full force, taking over for the rest of the day. A proper blend will not smell of one ingredient in particular, but will have its own unique scent, just like a good perfume or cologne.

After many hours of this crash course seminar, we finally had the chance to make two concoctions. My first was a combination of vetivert, a viscous oil produced from a grassroot native to India, frankincense, the pathological secretion of the tree Boswellia carterii from Somalia and clary sage, a flowery herb grown in Europe that has little in common with regular sage. When mixed together and put in a base of macadamia oil, the solution can be used to induce meditative states that encourage creativity. I called it, “Todd’s nighttime tripnotic oil.” The second mix was lavender, frankincense and rosemary, which is supposed to effect a calm, focused state of mind where the memory becomes sharper. I dubbed that one “Todd’s daytime brainbending serum of clarity.” Despite the names, I assure you that both blends are 100% safe and legal. Though I am not quite ready to pack a few cases on the back of my wagon and ride into the county fair, I am having fun learning about the healing effects of an alternative medicine that’s taken a century off due to the rise of pharmaceuticals, but is now making a comeback thanks to the efforts of people who believe that healing doesn’t just have to just feel good, it can smell good too.

Todd Steinberg [send him mail] or [friend him on Facebook] is creator of the upcoming series “Don’t Tell My Wife I’m a Cult Leader” and a principal of a wholesale teddy bear company in Dallas.

Todd Steinberg Archives

Let us test Dr. Block’s hypothesis in David Letterman’s recent case and perhaps discover a new perspective on the morality of blackmail.

According to Block, blackmail is simply an offer to keep silent in exchange for another good, usually money. If the offer is accepted, then the blackmailer keeps quiet. If the offer is rejected, the blackmailer exercises his freedom of speech, which in this case is to go public with a certain truth.

By telling the truth no crime is committed, so why should an offer to keep silent be illegal?

Walter Block defines in general terms that blackmail is the threat to do something — anything which in itself is not illegal — unless certain demands are met.

Take for instance a potential boycott. Perhaps a nationwide religious group’s leadership meets and demands that their constituents should no longer buy from companies that advertise on The Late Show until David Letterman is replaced with Kirk Cameron. Couldn’t this threatening action be construed as blackmail? If Company X does not give in to Demand Y, then Action Z will be taken. Logically, blackmail and boycotts work on the same principle.

In another example, CBS makes their employees sign non-disclosure agreements. These contracts protect the network from leaks that could damage its ability to attract an audience. Couldn’t non-disclosure agreements be construed as blackmail? If Person A does not maintain silence, he will be fired and possibly sued. Isn’t this a threat? Possibly, but it’s perfectly legal and no network would allow its employees — or even visitors — leave the premises without signing these documents. Can’t networks instead pay their employees and guests to stay quiet about a show until it is aired? Doesn’t that make more sense? Perhaps we should boycott the networks until they change their policy…

Lastly, if blackmail were legal, it may have prevented David Letterman from acting immorally in the first place. Perhaps he was a day away from putting himself in a situation where he would give into his temptations and sleep with a staffer. If blackmail were legal, there would no doubt be more blackmailers, so Letterman would have to factor that into his decision. He would have to know that there might be little chance to keep such an action a secret. Factor that in with the huge numbers of marginally paid employees at CBS and his chances of having wanton sex without consequences would be close to zero. With this knowledge, wouldn’t Letterman think twice before dropping his pants?

As humans with certain natural rights, we have the freedom to speak, and we also have the freedom to not speak. We also have the right to make offers and engage in trades. Therefore, the person in the wrong wasn’t necessarily the blackmailer since he did not commit any real crime.

I for one do not condone blackmail. It is my hope that in the future, the thought of committing a crime or immoral activity would be incentive enough not to engage in the action. Until that time is reached, perhaps we are better off with blackmail than without.

Todd Steinberg [send him mail] or [friend him on Facebook] is creator of the upcoming series “Don’t Tell My Wife I’m a Cult Leader” and a principal of a wholesale teddy bear company in Dallas.

Todd Steinberg Archives

Use Only the Best Toilets: Toilet prices range from modest to ultra-expensive. The very best in home and commercial toilets is the Toto Neorest 600. Upon approach, the lid automatically opens and the air purifier activates. The built-in washer and dryer make toilet paper optional. Six seconds after leaving the commode’s sensor zone, it flushes and lowers the seat and lid. With the touch of a button, you can warm the seat, change the water temperature, and perform a “Cyclone flush” if needed. At nearly $5,000 apiece, this is the highest-quality toilet available and thus, the one that’s best suited for every American’s rear end.

We pass various pieces of legislation that call for the gradual elimination of the substandard toilets and their replacement with the superior model. Obviously, seniors and people below the poverty line would qualify for free toilets, all others must pay for their own or have their employers include it as part of their compensation package. There are approximately 350 million private and public toilets in the United States. That comes out to $1.75 trillion before installation, but I’m optimistic that we’d receive a discount on such a big order. Either way, you’re looking at the horizon of what will be a multi-trillion dollar recession-proof industry. Investors anyone?

Only the Best Toilet Makers and Technicians: Using the bathroom plays a pivotal role in the life of every American, therefore we’d only want the best companies to fashion the toilets. The makers of the Neorest 600 can’t fulfill such a large order, so they will need to license the manufacture of their design to qualified companies. Each state legislature should make the qualifications so stringent and exacting that only the best companies could bid on the project. Since these thrones use the latest in toilet tech, only highly trained technicians may install and repair your commode. They must go through a few hundred hours of training at schools your state legislatures have deemed appropriate. The number of schools and seats available must be kept at a minimum lest you flood the labor market and push wages down. Combine high wages with the high cost of goods, and you’ll have families reeling when they are beset with so much as a faulty flapper. The elite toilet repairman class is too few in number to make house calls, so if your toilet is clogged you will need to make an appointment for the following morning and find a way to bring it to the shop.

The Outcome:

After a few years of this system, we will see a vast increase in the number of middle-class Americans who can no longer afford a decent bathroom. Some families band together and buy a timeshare toilet, but others will have no choice but to go in the streets. Imagine that! America… the most industrialized nation in the world, and still there are people who don’t have a comfortable place to eliminate bodily wastes. With a world like that, do you think people will complain about the cost of healthcare?

The Solution:

If my plan were implemented, it would undoubtedly become a hot-button issue in the next presidential election. Government is in the right place and has the right resources to ensure that every American has a decent place to go to the bathroom, and for free. Having a $5,000 toilet in the house is a right, not a privilege.

Voters will be looking for answers, so we must correctly place blame. Under no circumstances can we let people know that the aforementioned policies artificially limited the supply of labor and goods, which precipitated the astronomical rise in prices. We can easily place blame on the toilet manufactures, the toilet installers, or the training institutes even though their every move has been dictated by a complex code of laws that was supposed to keep everything under control in the first place. Government can easily convince the public that it has the ability to bring prices down, even if it means nationalizing parts of the toilet and bathroom industry. The government can even justify oversight on diapers since babies who don’t use the toilet are indirectly affecting the industry. Toilet paper too can be managed, perhaps rationed, with exceptions given to those with irritable bowel syndrome, who would be allowed to get a permit by visiting the Department of Toilets and standing in a very long line.

After blame has been sufficiently passed, then it is up to Congress to hammer out a 2,000-page piece of legislation that further controls the toilet industry and ultimately makes it more expensive and inconvenient. It will be penned in English, but the bill will not make sense. Congress will raise taxes, borrow money, and pass strict laws, but amazingly prices will go up and availability will go down. By then, people will all have forgotten about healthcare and will demand even more government involvement to control the spiraling costs of toilets.

Problem solved.

Todd Steinberg [send him mail] or [friend him on Facebook] is creator of the upcoming series “Don’t Tell My Wife I’m a Cult Leader” and a principal of a wholesale teddy bear company in Dallas.

Todd Steinberg Archives

Another advantage of making decisions at the individual level is that the authority and responsibility rest with me. If my decisions do not bear the fruit I had in mind, I can quickly rectify the plan rather than waiting until the next election cycle to throw the bum out. I am the sovereign, the pater familias of my own person. I am a nation of one.

So when it comes to healthcare, I have my own personal national plan that I signed into law about three years ago. Once again, it was a nonpartisan decision, thoroughly studied, budgeted correctly, and it currently enjoys widespread support throughout the dominion. Essentially, all inhabitants must commit to three sessions of yoga and five sessions of cardiovascular exercise a week, and must limit the amount of food taken into the body, especially sweets and fatty foods. All citizens supplement their diet with fish oil, multivitamins, and plenty of fruits and vegetables. Occasionally, the healthcare plan calls for periodic acupuncture sessions, massages and chiropractic adjustments.

I have enacted other measures that keep healthcare costs down. For instance, alcohol and intoxicating drugs are banned and prohibited from entering the nation. I’m able to enforce this policy without a drug enforcement agency because I run a very tight border patrol. Also, my national healthcare plan is underwritten by Blue Cross Blue Shield in case any of my citizens require hospitalization.

Unfortunately, I am not a sovereign nation. I am actually about three or four levels down in a vast tributary system where much of my money is taken from me before I get it. Some of that money goes to pay for a healthcare system that helps the elderly, the poor, and the vets, but at least with the money I have left over I can fund my own plan over which I have complete control… for now.

My big fear is that before too long, my national healthcare plan may cease to exist. I see it being pushed to the margins if a United States healthcare plan gets brought into being. It could be that the doctor types I hire and supplements I use might be banned outright or bureaucratized into inaccessibility. I would wager that if a national healthcare act were enacted, the bill would be written almost exclusively by the pharmaceutical industry and thus the cure or balm for anything would be a drug. That’s the major reason I don’t go to regular doctors; you tell them your symptoms and they look them up in a big book and prescribe a pill. The presumed relationship between a person’s health and the right pill is so strong, that the industry is now urging children to take cholesterol medicine.

I cringe in horror imagining what other nefarious plans might be written into law, but even if the policy is a lot more liberal than I imagine, I know one thing for sure: more taxes… a lot more. This means that my own national healthcare plan might be preempted because the dollars used to fund the budget of my Department of Health are competing with other needs such as those in my Departments of Housing.

I support a single national healthcare plan: my own. With whatever money you have left after paying taxes, I urge you to enact your own so that in the end, we will have over 300 million healthcare plans in this country, all approved and funded voluntarily. Perhaps the more people who decide to follow their own healthcare plan, the more likely they will reject one that is imposed on them.

Todd Steinberg [send him mail] works with his family at a wholesale teddy bear company in Dallas. In his spare time he is furiously working on his cartoon, "Don’t Tell My Wife I’m a Cult Leader," which he plans to unleash on the Internet and beyond in 2009.

Todd Steinberg Archives

Two years ago, when professional football player Michael Vick was arrested for financing and organizing dog fights in his backyard, he didn’t have a single friend. When a person leaves a dog in his car without rolling down the windows, we look upon the owner as an irresponsible felon, so you can imagine the outrage when people learned that Michael Vick had trained dogs and put them in harm’s way for the sake of sport.

Now that Michael Vick is out of prison, perhaps we can have a conversation as to why he was arrested in the first place. I take the position that animals are private property and that as long as Michael Vick peaceably acquired the dogs, it’s nobody’s right to tell him what he can and cannot do with his possessions.

$15 $13

Though some may find dogfighting to be barbaric and uncivilized, that is no reason why the practice should be outlawed. Currently, there are thousands of businesses whose purpose is to raise animals, slaughter them, cut them into manageable pieces, package them, and ship them worldwide. There are advertising and marketing operations that aim to increase our consumption of animals. Television networks regularly feature people who demonstrate their ability to cook animals in novel ways so that we do not grow bored of their taste. These people learn their techniques from schools built for this purpose and some of the graduates write books about the art of cooking and eating of animals.

So if one believes that fighting animals is barbaric, then certainly eating them is just as barbaric if not worse. Some people believe it’s inhumane to use animals for any purpose, whether it be for food, clothing, shelter, milking, sport, burden, service, companionship, exhibition, or experimentation. If we were to take the position that animals have equal rights, then no human has more rights than any other animal. We couldn’t make any distinction between an elephant and a nematode for if we did, we’d quickly revert to a system where humans are more equal than cows, and cows are more equal than chickens. For a system of animal rights to work, humans could only do what they wanted to do so long as they weren’t infringing on the rights on any other animal.

If an absolute system of animal rights were adopted, then we’d have no choice but for all of us to go vegan. However, even if we all unanimously decided to refrain from consuming meat and dairy, it wouldn’t be enough to save us from having to violate the rights of animals on a regular basis. If we were to dig up a parcel of land to plant crops, we are disrupting the ecosystem of whatever animals reside there. Even if we were to forgo cultivation and revert to the gathering of nuts and berries, we are again encroaching on the private property of animals such as bears and squirrels who acquired homesteading rights to the nut trees and berry bushes long before humans arrived there.

Though we may personally feel it’s immoral to eat animals or milk them, keep them as pets or beasts of burden, it’s equally immoral to throw someone in a cage and take their property for not adequately following someone else’s arbitrary rules on the proper treatment of animals. Declaring animals as private property is the only moral and consistent way to deal with the topic of animal cruelty. It is your right to do what you will with the animals you own just as it’s your neighbor’s right to tell you how much better your life would be if you’d minimize your animal consumption.

Greater than the cruelty of animals is the cruelty of hypocrisy. The day Michael Vick was charged with the crime of endangering animals, how many of the arresting FBI agents had bacon with their breakfast?

Todd Steinberg [send him mail] works with his family at a wholesale teddy bear company in Dallas. In his spare time he is furiously working on his cartoon, "Don’t Tell My Wife I’m a Cult Leader," which he plans to unleash on the Internet and beyond in 2009.

Todd Steinberg Archives

Now imagine a situation where it was just like a regular casino except that some of the people have the fortunate privilege of keeping all their winnings, but socializing all of their losses. As long as these gamblers are winning, you as a casino-goer might never become aware of the flip side to their deal: that if they began to lose, money would be taken from your pocket to cover their losses. And so it was for a long time, these privileged gamblers never had to ask anyone else to pay for their bad bets since they never really lost a hand.

Then the privileged ones’ luck changed. At first they’re able to cover some of their losses themselves, and they do this by placing bigger bets hoping that on the next hand they’ll win. They lose yet again, and at a certain point they no longer have enough reserves to cover the next bet. Their only choice now is to enact the other side of their predetermined policy: to force everyone in the casino to hand over some money so that these gamblers can keep playing.

At this point, many of the other casino goers are very upset at this deal. After all, they thought everyone was responsible for their own losses, and surely not for the losses of anyone else. Even those who were betting conservatively the whole time now have to give up their profits that were painstakingly made in spite of all the bad bets the other guys were making.

Reluctantly, everyone gives their portion of the money to cover the other people’s losses because they have no choice. They can’t cash in their chips without paying their share and they aren’t allowed to leave the casino either until they make good on the lopsided deal that others made on their behalf.

The privileged gamblers are back in business. However, the policy that enabled the foolhardy gambling to begin with is still in place and in short order the losses again become insurmountable. The dark side of the policy is once again activated and the people are forced to pay for the others’ losses a second time. On this occasion, the other gamblers do not have enough money in the present to pay the losses, so the original plan is a bust. The solution is to have a huge loan taken out, to be paid by the other gamblers over the course of a number of years. The rationale is that the new loans will enable the bad debts to be paid and to pave the way for future prosperity.

Unfortunately, by now everyone is a whole lot poorer and very upset at those who have made their lives so miserable. They don’t know whether to blame the house, the foolhardy gamblers, or the policy that made it possible. The gamblers are told that if the privileged gamblers’ losses aren’t addressed, it would doom the whole casino. People bicker and point fingers, but one thing’s for sure, they no longer gamble as much and they do whatever they can to hold onto their money.

The casino remains open even in spite of less business and eventually the loans are called in to be repaid, but there is not enough to make good on the debts. At this point no more loans can be created, and no more money can be extracted from the other gamblers, so the only choice left is for the house to create a huge number of new chips to pay back the loans and to put money back in the hands of the gamblers so they can continue doing the same thing they were doing previously.

Everyone reluctantly agrees to this policy since the only other option is for the casino to go bankrupt. However, the new chip creation policy only helps out a few: the ones who lent the money and amazingly, the well-connected, high-rolling gamblers who got everyone in this mess in the first place.

By the time the less-connected gamblers get their chips, the minimum bets at all the tables have become too high for most people in the casino. Even among those who can afford to sit at the table now see that their winnings don’t go as far as they used to. Because of all these wealth extractions, loans, and chip creation policies, everyone on the whole is much poorer than they were a few years ago and there wasn’t much they could have done anyway since these decisions were being made for them.

What is the solution? At this point, it’s anyone’s guess. The gamblers might go along with the scheme indefinitely so long as they have some minimal needs met, or the gamblers might storm the house and take over the casino. There are too many variables to adequately know what the future might hold in the short term.

However, if the gamblers could go back in time, they would make sure that there’s a sound policy of keeping profits and losses in the hands of the individual who makes and puts the money on the table. They would also ensure that no one ever creates new chips out of thin air since doing so only helps the well-connected and devalues the chips for everyone else.

In short, they would be vigilant in ensuring that everyone would have an equal opportunity to succeed or fail. Nobody would be forced to pay for the mistakes of others and because of this, less mistakes would be made since all gamblers would know that nobody is covering for them should they lose. It is only natural that the people would want to prosper in an environment where everyone is financially responsible for their own actions, and not for the actions of everyone else.

Todd Steinberg [send him mail] works with his family at a wholesale teddy bear company in Dallas. In his spare time he is furiously working on his cartoon, "Don’t Tell My Wife I’m a Cult Leader," which he plans to unleash on the Internet and beyond in 2009.

Todd Steinberg Archives

DIGG THIS

What do we do now? That’s the question millions of Obama supporters asked themselves the morning after Election Day when the high of winning a historic election subsided. Waiting four years for their next fix was out of the question, so they’ve quickly been devising new ways to express their love and devotion for Barack Obama. Some have proposed creating a national holiday in honor of him, which I wholeheartedly support since any day the federal government takes off from work is a good day for all Americans.

However, I believe Obama’s supporters should redirect their energy towards an existing national holiday: Christmas. Santa Claus has been the king of Christmas far too long and I believe the time is right for a new Toymaker-in-Chief. The ugly truth is the only Santa Claus we’ve ever had has been an old white man and it is time for change.

As Santa Claus, Obama would make Christmas even better. For instance, the current Santa makes a list of naughty and nice children, and gifts them accordingly with either shiny new toys or lumps of coal. Obama Claus wouldn’t give coal to naughty children since it’s a polluting energy source and would instead leave behind a small can of ethanol. Not only does that teach misbehaving children a lesson, but it provides families with free fuel during the unforgiving winter months.

Naturally, you don’t want a true radical to take over operations at the North Pole, so allow me to point out some obvious similarities between Barack Obama and Santa Claus. Both began life as ordinary men, but over time people revered them as saints. Americans everywhere regard both Obama and Santa Claus as our economic saviors. Santa’s staunchest supporters, retailers, rely on his ability to inspire consumers to spend and make businesses profitable. Likewise, Obama’s supporters believe he can make us all prosperous soon after he is inaugurated… somehow.

The two men use earth-friendly vehicles: Obama owns a Prius and Santa Claus uses a sleigh powered by animals that feed on naturally growing tundra. Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer even sports a non-incandescent light source on the end of his nose. I’m sure Obama would give up his Prius and graciously take the reigns of such an energy-efficient form of transportation if he were to become our next Santa.

Both Barack Obama and Santa Claus have numerous corporate sponsors. Though financial institutions such as Goldman Sachs have funded Obama’s campaign quite significantly this election cycle, I’m sure the Coca-Cola company would have fun creating a new advertising campaign depicting a big-bellied Obama balancing a boy on his lap who’s asking Santa for peace in Iraq, a job for Daddy and a bailout for the auto industry.

The most important similarity between Barack Obama and Santa Claus is that people love them for the same reason: they both deliver free gifts for anyone who deserves them. Just as naïve children believe Santa creates Barbies, bicycles, Legos and lightsabers using elves and magic, people believe Barack Obama can create homes, jobs, stimulus checks, college tuition, and healthcare using similar techniques.

Naturally, as children reach a certain point of intellectual maturity, they realize that Santa Claus is not real; that in fact the idea of Santa Claus is actually a massive redistribution program where money is taken from the producers (parents) and given to the non-producers (children). The children learn that only so much can be spent on toys before it cuts into money that must be spent on food, shelter and other necessities. Even at an early age, children become aware of this economic reality.

However, die-hard Obama supporters aren’t as keen as the children who awaken to the sobering fact that Santa’s plan for economic prosperity is nice in theory but impossible in practice. They believe we have the right to certain goods and services and do not care where it comes from or how much it costs. All they want is to wake up in the morning and see their entitlements appear underneath their Christmas tree.

Since there is virtually no difference between having either Barack Obama or the incumbent as our Santa, then why bother going through all the trouble of getting a new one anyway? In one word, change. This can be a historic Christmas and those who choose to support Obama as our next Santa Claus can all be a part of history.

Todd Steinberg [send him mail] works with his family at a wholesale teddy bear company in Dallas. In his spare time he is furiously working on his cartoon, "Don’t Tell My Wife I’m a Cult Leader," which he plans to unleash on the Internet and beyond in 2009.

Todd Steinberg Archives

DIGG THIS

As someone who only began studying Austrian economics less than 18 months ago and whose only contact with the people at the Ludwig von Mises Institute had been through e-mail, you could say that attending the Supporters Summit this past weekend was a milestone for me. I had a few goals other than to listen earnestly to all the lectures. One was to meet Ron Paul and Lew, introduce myself to them and ask a few questions. Another was to get a feel for the institute as a whole, that is, to take in the intangible qualities of the organization, to "catch the spirit" if you will. Lastly, and perhaps my most important goal, was to crystallize my personal philosophy as it relates to Austrian economics. I wanted to fly back to Dallas and know exactly what to do next. I’m happy to report that for all three goals it was mission accomplished.

Knowing that so many of the supporters have been fighting this uphill battle for decades, while I just started a short time ago, I felt like the slacker who didn’t prepare for the big midterm exam and instead cheated by peaking over the shoulder of his studious classmates. Knowing the amount of sacrifice and scholarship that went into building the foundational principles of Austrian economics, I felt like the guy who rented a golf cart and hired a caddy while the other players walked the entire course and carried their own clubs.

Those feelings of unworthiness lasted about five minutes. The folks at the Mises Institute are so generous and welcoming with their product they even provided a live feed of the conference for those who couldn’t attend. A friend watching the feed called and asked that I wave for the camera during an intermission so he could send me a screenshot. I was happy to oblige.

As the conference closed, I realized why the Austrian school is such a strident adherent of a gold standard, which was the topic of focus for the summit. Whether gold, paper, or some other currency is more productive is not the point: the fact that gold is honest money is what matters. It cannot lie like other forms of currency. Gold is a straight shooter; if you ask it of a price, it will generally tell you the same price over time. Paper money is very unsure of itself; it keeps changing the answer every time you ask. How can an entrepreneur predict the future needs of a market if the main determining mechanism arbitrarily changes over time? What’s the point of a working person to save money only to see the value of his measuring unit vanish before his eyes? Imagine if a dieter had to find out the new weight of a pound every time he got on the scales.

However, the main reason the Austrian school exhorts a gold standard is because it is the linchpin in the fight against the practices of force, violence, constraint and oppression. Paper money has always been a scheme of governments, and they always print more money than they should. They’ll often get into fine messes such as wars and depressions because of superfluous printing. If governments only used gold for money, they couldn’t easily wage costly wars, and they wouldn’t inadvertently put us in recessions, depressions, and panics.

Once the governments’ hands are pinned down by the weight of honest money, it would minimize crises. Crises are often used by governments as an excuse to flip back to paper money and increase spending. When it becomes available online, I suggest watching John Denson’s talk “Unsound Money and War in the 20th Century.” Though crises would be minimized, rest assured one will always manifest, and the government will find a way to take advantage of it. That is why economic education for the masses is needed if we are to be serious about creating and maintaining peace and prosperity.

Education works. Back in the day, people were sacrificed to appease the sun god. Bad harvest? The sun god needs fresh blood. We now know that bad harvests are caused by many factors and once the people no longer accepted the violent exhortations of the sun god’s priests, human ingenuity gained an upper hand and led to new ways to deal with a bad harvest such as building granaries, rotating fields, or inventing new tools and methods to increase yields.

If our government told us that the current depression is caused by a lack of virgin blood for our thirsty sun god, we’d all reject the reasoning because we now know better thanks to so many people having an education grounded in sound science. We Austrians know that the cause of the current depression is due to government intervention, but since so many people are unaware that this competing theory even exists, they continue to believe that government is in no way at fault and that worst-case scenario it was asleep at the wheel. The government manages to convince the masses that it will get the economy fixed right up in no time and it’ll even pinkie swear that another depression won’t ever happen again since there will be new regulations in place to prevent it.

So the philosophy I walked away from Auburn with is this: get back on sound money, so we can minimize crises brought on by government spending, and to prevent the wool from being pulled over our eyes when crises do occur, we must teach as many people as possible about Austrian economic principles.

This is where we can help. Teaching and learning do not have to happen in a classroom. Thankfully, the faculty at the Ludwig von Mises institute have steadfastly put together a corpus of knowledge that is by far the largest of its kind in the world. In these halls thrive thousands of books and essays, and many hours of lectures. Most of it is free for the taking. That means there is no financial excuse for you not to do your part and learn. If you’re too busy to read an electronic version of What Has Government Done to Our Money?, then listen to one of Robert LeFevre’s lectures during your morning commute. Looking for the perfect Christmas gift for all your family and friends? Buy 10 or more copies of Economics in One Lesson and they’re only nine dollars apiece. I suggest reducing paper waste by wrapping your perfect gift with a single golden bow.

The basics of Austrian economics are not difficult to understand. It is easier than you think to tell others about them. Now is the time to do the teaching. When the economy is up thanks to an artificial boom, nobody wants to listen, but when things are bad, that’s when you have an ear. That’s when people are asking the question, "What went wrong?" If you wait, then you’ve lost your opportunity to tell the truth to someone.

This is what I’ve gained from the Mises Supporters Summit: a deeper respect for the science’s founders and scholars, a better understanding of what Austrian economics means to me, and a strong desire to tell others what I have learned, despite my limitations in knowledge and ability.

Todd Steinberg [send him mail] works with his family at a wholesale teddy bear company in Dallas. In his spare time he is furiously working on his cartoon, "Don’t Tell My Wife I’m a Cult Leader," which he plans to unleash on the Internet and beyond in 2009.

Todd Steinberg Archives

DIGG THIS

As a fan
of many of Michael Moore’s films and projects, I now see them in
a new perspective since I began my studies in Austrian economic
theory. I believe that laissez-faire capitalism and democratic socialism
have a similar goal, but a different means of achieving it, with
the former being the only real way to realize the goal. I write
this open letter hoping to educate him and his fans on some basic
economic facts and myths that I took the time to learn about this
past year. Here I humbly state my perspective so that new knowledge
may be passed on to Michael Moore and others who share his well-meaning
philosophy.

Dear Michael
Moore,

I saw your
interview on Larry
King Live the other day, and enjoyed it very much. It made me
think of my two favorite stunts you orchestrated. First was the
time on The
Awful Truth when you staged a mock funeral for a man who
was denied a pancreas transplant by Humana, which he eventually
received thanks to your actions. The second time was in Sicko
when you took several chronically sick 9/11 emergency workers to
Guantanamo Bay Naval Base so that they could receive the same level
of medical care the terrorists receive.

I believe your
heart is in the right place. I believe that the vast majority of
Americans want the same things for all people: more wealth, prosperity,
freedom, access to healthcare, better education, world peace, adequate
job opportunities, and so on. The difference between you and me,
that is, the difference between a laissez-faire capitalist and a
social democrat, is that you believe prosperity can be achieved
by redistribution, whereas I believe prosperity is a natural effect
of allowing people to live freely and respecting their right to
the private ownership of property.

Based on your
rhetoric, you believe that big business is the mortal enemy of the
21st-century common man. You posit the notion that big businesses
only got that way by ripping off their customers, their employees
and then bribing government officials to look the other way. Your
solution to this: elect Democrats and they will fix everything.

However, based
on an omission during your interview, I don’t think you have faith
in the Democrats’ ability to fix things either. You lambasted McCain
for voting for the $700 billion bailout, exclaiming what an outrage
it was to steal from the poor and give to the rich, but you didn’t
mention the fact that both Obama and Biden voted for the bailout
too. How are the Democrats on your side when so many voted
for the bailout?

I don’t believe
either the Democrats or Republicans are on your side or my side,
because I believe they are both on the same side. That is,
they are both on the side of taking from the many and giving to
the few. The bank bailout is just business as usual, only this time
people paid attention because of its huge scope and ramifications.

In
your interview, you seemed so excited at the prospect of having
a Democratic President, House, and Senate so that an FDR style administration
could be enacted to fix the problems caused by six years of a Republican
majority. I urge you to read the chapter on FDR from the book The
Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, by
Thomas Woods. For starters, I would hate to see the Japanese be
put into prison, gold to be made contraband, and for crops and livestock
to be purposely destroyed to raise prices. Read the free e-book
America’s
Great Depression by Murray Rothbard for a sound argument
that government intervention, not the free market, caused the Great
Depression.

Instead of
educating you merely on what’s wrong with big government, I’d rather
tell you what’s right with laissez-faire capitalism, how it has
benefited you, and how it’s the only fair and just economic system
that has been discovered.

Your movie,
Fahrenheit
9/11 broke many records. It grossed over $23 million in
its first week in release and over $100 million during its entire
run. You sold two million DVDs on its first day of release. Surely,
there were other filmmakers vying for the number-one spot on the
same weekend you released Fahrenheit. Many of them poured
their heart and soul into it and probably risked a higher budget
than you did. Yet, if I asked you to share some of that $23 million
with the 2nd through 10th place finishers, you’d look at me as if
I were crazy – likewise if I demanded you split up that $100
million you earned with other documentary makers who put out films
that year and lost money. Didn’t they try just as hard as
you? Didn’t they believe in their project as much as you did? Why
should they be allowed to go broke if they worked hard and played
by the rules?

The reason
you wouldn’t share your box office receipts with them is because
you earned it. Being an entrepreneur, you felt that back in the
summer of 2004 the world was ready for a movie about George W. Bush
and would be willing to pay money to see it. You put up the risk,
produced it and released it at what you thought would be an opportune
time. Obviously, you guessed well. The masses agreed that a movie
about George W. Bush was what the market needed and it acknowledged
this through record box office receipts. The people did this voluntarily
and without coercion. Likewise, you did not cheat, steal, or bribe
your way to the top; you earned that money honestly by providing
something the people wanted. Had you made a poorly made movie, released
it a week later when Spiderman
2 came out, or done anything else out of step, you may have
lost your shirt.

Your
box office success is an example of economic freedom. You got your
money because millions of people gave it to you. Your number-one
market position for the week of June 27th, 2004 wasn’t determined
by a Senate subcommittee or a House resolution; it was determined
by the market, that is, the people. What’s more is that the
people who revile your name and your works didn’t have to contribute
to you; only the ones who wanted to did.

This is the
way laissez-faire capitalism works: you produce something you think
other people want, and if indeed they do, they’ll trade something
you want in return. In your case, each consumer traded eight dollars
for a theater seat and a screening of your movie. What’s more is
that both parties benefited from the trade: you’re better off with
the eight dollars than you were with an unwatched movie, and in
theory, they’re better off seeing your movie than they were keeping
the eight dollars.

We do not have
pure laissez-faire capitalism in this country. As it is with honest
businessmen such as yourself, if you earn a lot of money by providing
people with what they want, the government takes away a good portion
of it in the form as taxes and spends them on wars and other projects
you don’t like. If you lose your investment, the government does
not refund the debts you incurred. That’s the story with the American
economic system: do a good job, get taxed; do a bad job and you’ll
have to lick your wounds. That is, of course, unless you’re politically
connected.

The bank bailout
is a great example of what is not laissez-faire capitalism.
When a business achieves a prominent position through political
maneuvering, it is known as crony capitalism or corporatism. Crony
capitalists use regulations, subsidies and get laws passed that
favor their business or industry. All of these methods require the
heavy hand of government to make it all possible. Obama, McCain,
and Biden all voted for crony capitalism this October.

In your movie
Sicko, you showed us another example of crony capitalism
at its finest. President Nixon’s HMO act of 1973 set a precedent
that is still with us today. Under the act, grants and loans were
provided to investors who created HMOs, the kind you deplored in
your movie. This was a vicious government intervention because it
steered investors in the healthcare industry towards HMOs rather
than alternatives that could have served the people better. If you
were an investor, would you be more inclined to invest in something
that provided free money and cheap loans or would you try your luck
in a sector of the healthcare industry that provided no such safeguards?
With a looming subsidy hanging over the creation of every HMO, can
you really blame the investors for taking an advantage that only
the government could provide?

Michael,
if you trade your ball cap for a Sherlock Holmes hat and investigated
the machinations behind what you perceive as unfair business practices,
you will see a government rule, ordinance, subsidy, or law backing
it up. This is the status quo of our American economic system.

I am not an
expert on Austrian economics, just a movie fan who sees a kindred
spirit in you, someone who wants to leave the world a better place
from whence he came. If your predictions for a Democratic majority
come true, I urge you to do two things. One, keep an eye on the
Democrats and see what they do that is indeed different in principle
from the Republicans. Secondly, do as I did and read a few books
on Austrian economic theory and decide for yourself which system
is best suited for achieving a sustained level of peace, justice
and prosperity for the 21st century. I recommend Economics
in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt, Economics
for Real People by Gene Callahan and most importantly,
read What
Has Government Done with Our Money? by Murray Rothbard,
also available as a free e-book
from Mises.org.

When you’re
done with those, and if you are so moved as I was after reading
them, I would urge you to make a movie based on your new experiences.
If you’re at loss with where to begin, then start on one of the
greatest obstacles to peace, prosperity and wealth the world has
ever known: the Federal Reserve System.

Sincerely,
Todd Steinberg

October
25, 2008

Todd Steinberg
[send him mail] works with
his family at a wholesale
teddy bear company in Dallas. In his spare time he is furiously
working on his cartoon, "Don't Tell My Wife I'm a Cult Leader,"
which he plans to unleash on the Internet and beyond in 2009.

DIGG THIS

I am not big
on national policies. I believe as many decisions as possible should
be made by the individual since there are big advantages when compared
to making decisions as a nation. For instance, when I commit to
an action it’s always a unanimous decision, so there is zero chance
of vetoes, strikes, or revolts. The money spent towards the decision
was given to me voluntarily and appropriated without pork barrel
spending, featherbedding, or corruption.

Another advantage
of making decisions at the individual level is that the authority
and responsibility rest with me. If my decisions do not bear the
fruit I had in mind, I can quickly rectify the plan rather than
waiting until the next election cycle to throw the bum out. I am
the sovereign, the pater familias of my own person. I am
a nation of one.

So when it
comes to healthcare, I have my own national plan that I signed into
law about two years ago. Once again, it was a nonpartisan decision,
thoroughly studied, budgeted correctly, and it currently enjoys
widespread support throughout the dominion. Essentially, all inhabitants
must commit to five sessions of yoga and six sessions of cardiovascular
exercise a week, and must limit the amount of food taken into the
body, especially sweets and fatty foods. All citizens supplement
their diet with fish oil, multivitamins, and plenty of fruits and
vegetables. Occasionally, the healthcare plan calls for periodic
acupuncture sessions, massages and chiropractic adjustments.

I have enacted
other measures that keep healthcare costs down. For instance, alcohol
and intoxicating drugs are banned and prohibited from entering the
nation. I’m able to enforce this policy without a drug enforcement
agency because I run a very tight border patrol. Also, my national
healthcare plan is underwritten by Blue Cross Blue Shield in case
any of my citizens require hospitalization.

Unfortunately,
I am not a sovereign nation. I am actually about three or
four levels down in a vast tributary system where much of my money
is taken from me before I get it. Some of that money goes to pay
for a healthcare system that helps the elderly, the poor, and the
vets, but at least with the money I have left over I can fund my
own plan over which I have complete control… for now.

My big fear
is that before too long, my national healthcare plan may cease to
exist. I see it being pushed to the margins if a United States healthcare
plan gets brought into being. It could be that the doctor types
I hire and supplements I use might be banned outright or bureaucratized
into inaccessibility. I would wager that if a national healthcare
act were enacted, the bill would be written almost exclusively by
the pharmaceutical industry and thus the cure or balm for anything
would be a drug. That’s the major reason I don’t go to regular doctors;
you tell them your symptoms and they look them up in a big book
and prescribe a pill. The presumed relationship between a person’s
health and the right pill is so strong, that the
industry is now urging children to take cholesterol medicine.

I cringe in
horror imagining what other nefarious plans might be written into
law, but even if the policy is a lot more liberal than I imagine,
I know one thing for sure: more taxes… a lot more. This means
that my own national healthcare plan might be preempted because
the dollars used to fund the budget of my Department of Health are
competing with other needs such as those in my Departments of Housing.

I support a
single national healthcare plan: my own. With whatever money you
have left after paying taxes, I urge you to enact your own
so that in the end, we will have over 300 million healthcare plans
in this country, all approved and funded voluntarily. Perhaps the
more people who decide to follow their own healthcare plan, the
more likely they will reject one that is imposed on them.

August
15, 2008

Todd Steinberg
[send him mail] works with
his family at a wholesale
teddy bear company in Dallas. In his spare time he is furiously
working on his cartoon, "Don't Tell My Wife I'm a Cult Leader,"
which he plans to unleash on the Internet and beyond in 2008.

DIGG THIS

The Internet
has been the capitalist’s best friend, where virtual unknowns can
quickly rise to the top of the pack if they have the right idea
and a good plan. You mainly hear from the big winners such as the
founders of Google and the like. However, there are many people
who may not have become billionaires, but nevertheless they benefit
in their own right by leveraging the ingenuity of the web.

In just under
a month, over six million viewers have seen the YouTube video, Dancing,
a low-tech, yet colorful video of Matt Harding traveling around
the world doing a jig in dozens of locations with hundreds of people,
many of them children. The producers took a simple, campy premise,
filmed it in front of vivid backgrounds and synched it to music.
Any one of us could have been Matt, that is, if you’re able to grin
and flap your elbows and knees in front of a camera, but the difference
is that Matt took the initiative to make it happen and created it
in such a way so that people would enjoy it and tell their friends.
After the success of his first self-financed video in 2005, the
popularity compelled Matt to envision and plan loftier videos, and
after finding a sponsor he has been able to create two more, each
one bigger and better than the one before it.

For me, the
most relevant aspect of the video is the sheer number of people
whose lives were improved in the process. Naturally there was Matt,
a man who loved to travel, and thus became a wealthier person by
being able to fulfill that dream. If he’s lucky, he’ll leverage
his success into a travel show or book. Another beneficiary of the
trade was Stride gum. Unlike other corporations that subsidize these
types of ventures, Stride did not ask that Matt wear a logo t-shirt
or pass out Stride gum to people he met. Instead, there was a moment
at the end of the video where the producers thanked Stride for making
it possible. Will that improve sales? Yes. While at Sam’s Club today,
I purchased a box of Stride gum since in a world of parity products,
what have the other chewing gums done for me lately?

There were
many other parties that benefited from this trade other than of
course YouTube. Amazon MP3, an online music store and a much-needed
competitor of iTunes, got a boost in sales and clout by becoming
the exclusive distributor of the song used in the video, Praan,
which is now one of their bestsellers. Thanks to the publicity that
six-million viewers can give you, the singer, Palbasha Siddique,
will surely get several more contractual offers to sing.

Then there
are the six million viewers who didn’t benefit financially from
the venture, but nonetheless became a little bit richer after watching
the video. It might have been a lesson in geography and anthropology
for some. For others it might have been a heartwarming experience
to realize that children from far-flung places like Bhutan and Zambia
act just as silly as American children when allowed to let loose.
For me it meant that all around the world there are people who are
willing to express themselves in motion with an American they just
met. To me that says a lot about the human race: that despite our
differences in language, appearance and customs, when given an opportunity
we will dance together.

July
16, 2008

Todd Steinberg
[send him mail] works with
his family at a wholesale
teddy bear company in Dallas. In his spare time he is furiously
working on his cartoon, "Don't Tell My Wife I'm a Cult Leader,"
which he plans to unleash on the Internet and beyond in 2008.

DIGG THIS

Last week,
I read with much august your article Religion
and Libertarianism. As a Jewish convert to the Baha’i Faith,
I often feel marginalized by Jews who feel that joining another
religion is a form of abandonment. Likewise I feel marginalized
by the many members of majority religions I’ve met who view the
6,000,000 Baha’is as irrelevant or wrongly guided.

Though the
Baha’i Faith is the second most widespread religion in the world,
you can count on us being an overwhelming minority in whichever
city, country or geographical area we reside. In many localities
Baha’is enjoy religious freedom, though in Iran in particular, repression
of the Baha’i Faith is official government policy. Just last month,
the authorities once again
arrested six members from the national coordinating group for
"security reasons," whatever that means.

Minorities
are always one step away from being an endangered species. In autocracies,
they’re at the whim of whatever dictator is in charge and in democracies
they can be voted out of official existence just like two wolves
can outvote one sheep on what’s for dinner.

The smallest
minority of all is the individual, and he can always be outvoted
in groups of three or more. That is why the promulgation of human
rights is of the utmost importance in this age, because principally
it protects each of us — no matter what our beliefs are — from unnecessary
harm and molestation. Your right to life and liberty should never
be put to a vote. Sure you might be a Christian, but what if you’re
a Christian in Darfur right now? You’d be all for the compulsory
acceptance of the Golden Rule at that point.

So Walter Block,
I am on your side; I am on the side of humanity that venerates human
rights, no matter what humans we are talking about or where they
are found. Under the wide tent of libertarianism, a staunch atheist
and a devoted Baha’i can come together and point to something and
say, "that is not just." I would protect your rights to
be an avowed atheist just as I’m sure you’d protect my rights to
worship God. We both believe that each human is born with God-given,
or in your case, natural, rights.

Though composed
of theists and atheists, libertarians are united in our incredible
faith. As Paul the Apostle said, "Now faith is the essence
of things hoped for and the evidence of things unseen." Unlike
statists, libertarians have faith that humanity has the ability
to find solutions to its problems without the aid of a state-approved
plan backed by the threat of coercion. We believe that the people
of this world will cooperate peacefully and aid one another voluntarily
and generously with a kind and radiant heart if given a chance.
We believe that new technologies and scientific discoveries will
be made that would improve the entire lot of civilization without
the necessity of taxes, regulations, or government programs. Our
common belief is that we recognize the dignity and nobility of humankind.

So thank you
Walter for your encouraging letter. I am delighted to know that
I am your friend, and most assuredly I am yours. My hope is that
all believers and non-believers alike will cultivate a level of
acceptance that matches yours. It is an utter necessity in a world
plagued with the disunifying forces of nationalism, racism, and
religious bigotry.

Cordially yours,
Todd Steinberg

June
24, 2008

Todd Steinberg
[send him mail] works with
his family at a wholesale
teddy bear company in Dallas. In his spare time he is furiously
working on his cartoon, "Don't Tell My Wife I'm a Cult Leader,"
which he plans to unleash on the Internet and beyond in 2008.

DIGG THIS

Like so many
Americans who have received or are expecting their tax rebate check,
you probably imagined what you’d purchase once you got the windfall
in the mail. As reported on many cable news shows, ordinary Americans
are spending their money at Wal-Mart, paying down bills, or filling
up their gas tanks to capacity.

If you are
reading this article, you are probably no ordinary American; you
are most likely someone extremely interested in learning as much
as you can about liberty and its economic counterpart, the Austrian
School.

If you were
like me, you probably have or had a natural aversion to the subject
of economics since the mainstream school of it deals with (gulp)
math and reduces the individual down to a mere digit in some statistician’s
graph. Just turning a few pages in your average economics primer
is enough to induce the gag reflex.

Of course,
I had no idea that economics had four major schools and that the
Austrian school was one of them. It’s no wonder I never heard the
likes of Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Henry Hazlitt until
last year, since a cursory look in the index of any mainstream economics
book will reveal that there are only two economists of note cited:
John Maynard Keynes and Karl Marx.

It wasn’t until
last summer when I heard Ron Paul use certain phrases such as the
gold standard, inflation tax, the business cycle, and several others
that persuaded me to learn more. While researching, the sites that
popped up first were LewRockwell.com and Mises.org. In the following
months, learning about liberty and the Austrian school morphed into
a hobby of sorts, where I spent many hours of my spare time reading
books on economics and libertarianism, writing a few articles for
LewRockwell.com, and having a myriad of conversations with friends
and family about our future economic landscape.

Still, I want
to learn more. I know that as a busy teddy bear wholesaler and an
aspiring cartoon series creator, I have no will to return to school
to get an advanced degree in economics. Nor do I want to spend the
rest of my days simply scanning for new books and articles that
match my interest. Thankfully, the Ludwig
von Mises Institute has put together a self-directed program
that is the best course of action for a person such as myself.

Therefore,
when I receive my $600 government check in the mail, my first purchase
will be the Mises
Institute Home Study Course in Austrian Economics. If the government
wants us to use our checks to jumpstart the economy, then I shall
multiply its impact by jumpstarting my own economic education.

That same day,
I will use another $50 to renew
my membership early in the Ludwig von Mises Institute and the
remaining $200 I will use towards a road trip I will take this fall
to attend the Supporters Summit
in Auburn.

Maybe you will
be like me and make this kind of investment towards your education.
But if you are not as ambitious, I ask you to at least donate what
you can to the Mises Institute. The institute works on voluntary
contributions alone and does not, as you might expect, accept government
grants. Even if you cannot donate today, maybe one day you will,
and in the meantime give yourself a goal and read as many of the
free books and essays you can at Mises.org. For it was Ludwig von
Mises himself who said:

"Whether
we like it or not, it is a fact that economics cannot remain an
esoteric branch of knowledge accessible only to small groups of
scholars and specialists. Economics deals with society’s fundamental
problems; it concerns everyone and belongs to all. It is the main
and proper study of every citizen."

June
18, 2008

Todd Steinberg
[send him mail] works with
his family at a wholesale
teddy bear company in Dallas. In his spare time he is furiously
working on his cartoon, "Don't Tell My Wife I'm a Cult Leader,"
which he plans to unleash on the Internet and beyond in 2008.

DIGG THIS

The workers
are correct: capitalists are greedy, self-serving humans who only
think about themselves. There is no difference between a capitalist,
a despot, and a warlord. All three types care only about lining
their pockets with treasure.

However, capitalists
choose to acquire their treasure through voluntary trade, a method
inherently more moral than taxing or plundering the masses. And
through trade, millions of others can benefit in the process, not
just the capitalist. Because participating in trade is both voluntary
and beneficial to all parties involved, I would choose to live in
a world filled with capitalists rather than tyrannical despots and
bloodthirsty warlords.

When I talk
about the capitalist, I am talking about the individual who truly
finds a need unfulfilled and attempts to fulfill it; I am not talking
about the individual who uses political connections to gain market
share. For the ultimate treatment on how politics can be leveraged
for economic gain, read Overthrow
by Stephen Kinzer.

Because capitalists
choose to fulfill their own needs by fulfilling the needs of others,
they are compelled to care about their customers. As seen on the
signs of many businesses throughout America, "If we don’t take
care of our customers, someone else will." Caring about the
customer is how capitalists have increased the standard of living
worldwide.

Competition
makes the capitalist care about the customer even more. Without
competition, the customer’s needs might be served, but not optimally.
It’s true that some capitalists might continually improve their
level of quality and price without competition, but competition
sends a more correct signal to the capitalist on how to improve
the end product or service.

One of the
more integral aspects of the final product or service is labor.
Goods and services cannot be made without it. So shouldn't laborers
be paid as much as possible? No. For the capitalist, he shouldn't
pay anymore for labor than he has to. Remember, capitalists are
greedy; they want to make as much money as possible for themselves.
Only the capitalist may determine what he should do with the money
he earns. Maybe he'll use some of those savings to buy larger quantities
of raw materials in order to reduce the overall price for the consumer.
Maybe he'll rent out a storefront to compete in a new market. In
a world of scarce resources, every dollar a capitalist spends on
one thing means a dollar that can't be spent somewhere else. If
his employees will work for eight dollars and hour, why should he
pay them nine?

This last sentence
was not a rhetorical question. In a world of scarce resources, labor
too is in demand so the reason an employer would pay his employees
nine dollars an hour as opposed to eight is because his competition
is doing so. If a capitalist taps into a new market where the supply
of labor is very high, he doesn't have to appropriate as much capital
to labor as he does to other aspects of running the business. However,
if a capitalist chooses to compete in a market where labor is short
supply, he must offer high wages, good benefits and adequate working
conditions to attract and keep skilled employees.

So not only
is competition a customer's best friend, it's also the laborer's
best friend. Not only will competition improve a product or service
and lower its price, but it will also raise the wages of skilled
laborers and improve their working conditions. Capitalists do this
without any aid from the government; it's a natural byproduct of
doing business.

Even though
capitalists are quite adept at raising wages and the standard of
living, it hasn't stopped governments from trying to outdo the greedy
capitalist. Instead of putting the customer first, governments tend
to put a few chosen capitalists first (corporatism) or the worker
first (socialism).

Governments
are greedy and self-serving just like the capitalist. The government
official, after piecing together a spending program from your taxes
might very honestly say, "Look what I'm doing for you! Please
vote for me and I'll continue to do the same. That is, I'll take
a significant portion of your money and spend it in a way that will
get me a majority of votes. I'll also pass laws that keep the market
from optimizing, but that's okay because you believe these laws
benefit you and that the alternative spells disaster."

As you can
tell, yes, the government official cares about us, but only to the
extent that he gets our vote. In a society where free markets are
cherished, the way government officials would convince you he's
the best person for the job might be to say something like, "Vote
for me and I'll get out of the way so competition can move in. I
won't enact expensive spending programs because I won't take your
money from you. I'm basically leaving it up to you guys to create
a better society — self-determination and what not. Good luck with
that and remember, vote for me and I won't do a thing."

As it is today,
the masses still believe only a select group of individuals can
solve society's problems. This is reflected in each election cycle,
where if only Politician X is elected, good things will follow.
If only more people from Party A were voted in, they believe, the
country would be set on a path towards progress.

I agree with
the sentiment that society's problems can only be solved by a select
group of individuals. However, I don't believe this select group
of people is composed of well-meaning politicians, but rather greedy
capitalists. Both are self-serving, but while the politician cares
only about your vote, the capitalist cares about your actual needs
and wants. Furthermore, a politician only has to care towards the
end of the election cycle, whereas a capitalist has to care at every
moment a business transaction takes place. Ask yourself this question:
in a world of greedy self-serving individuals, is society better
off with more politicians or are we better off with more competing
capitalists?

A free market's
fruits in a particular sector of the economy produce the optimal
situation where product innovation increases dramatically, wages
increase proportionally, and prices lower substantially. After time,
the price, product and wages in a particular sector will plateau
and entrepreneurs will look elsewhere for unexploited vistas where
the cycle of better products, lower prices, and higher wages begin
anew.

So yes, a capitalist
only cares about himself, but by extension he must care for the
customer — lots of them, or someone else will. Part of that customer
care is hiring the right people, and to attract them, he must care
about their needs too or some other employer will.

If you want
the capitalist to care about the people, if you want the capitalist
to pay his employees higher wages, I have one piece of advice —
compete with him.

May
9, 2008

Todd Steinberg
[send him mail] works with
his family at a wholesale
teddy bear company in Dallas. In his spare time he is furiously
working on his cartoon, "Don't Tell My Wife I'm a Cult Leader,"
which he plans to unleash on the Internet and beyond in 2008.

DIGG THIS

In a country
where you can get shut down for serving the homeless leftovers,
get sued for attempting CPR with an expired license, fined for feeding
a parking meter that’s not being used by you, or (ask any kindergarten
teacher) fired for hugging a child or committing other acts of “inappropriate”
touching in the classroom, I sometimes wonder why the laws of the
land sometimes make it so difficult to show love for one another. 
But for all the laws, rules and regulations that the secular world
has to tolerate, I take solace in the fact that for better or worse,
the church in America is the most unregulated institution in America,
and consequently, it has a lot of potential to be a wellspring
of love.  Many churches have been and are currently undertaking
many altruistic and effective programs that are voluntarily funded. 
In America, we can worship who we want to worship, how we want to
worship, and we don’t have to pay taxes for the privilege. 
We don’t have to get our religious doctrines approved by a state
board or get permission to host a holy day in our respective communities. 
This is not the case in many countries, where the belief in a religion
other than the state-approved ones can cost you your life or liberty.

One example that lovers of liberty are most likely not aware of
is the persecution that members of the Baha’i Faith face in Middle
Eastern countries, but particularly in Iran and Egypt.  Egypt,
however, gives the worldwide Baha’i community hope because a particular
court case has been pending that if ruled in the Baha’is’ favor
would give de facto recognition of the religion in Egypt. 
Being the cultural and academic center of Islam, a ruling like that
would positively reverberate throughout the Islamic world, giving
new hope for Baha’is throughout the Middle East, but especially
in Iran — the birthplace of the Baha’i Faith — where they not only
make up the republic’s largest religious minority, but also have
been subjected to the most severe forms of religious persecution,
namely imprisonment and death, though the latter has tapered off
in the recent years due to persistent international outrage.

People are paying attention to the current Egyptian court case since
so far the lower courts have upheld the Baha’i plea for official
recognition.  A similar case was struck down in 2006 by the
country’s highest court, so this year’s case is tantamount to Round
2.  The details of the case are as follows: like many other
Middle Eastern countries, Egypt recognizes only three religions:
Islam, Christianity, and Judaism.  Your religion must be marked
on all official documents.  You cannot leave the field
blank, nor can you mark it as "other."  Though Baha’is
are committed to following the laws of the land in which they live,
the one religious law that Baha’is will not break due to government
decree or compulsion is to deny their faith.  So Baha’is voluntarily
choose to be personae non gratae rather than to indelibly
mark their official documents with a religious orientation other
than their own.

Consequently, the life of an Egyptian Baha’i means a life without
access to schooling, healthcare, and gainful employment.  Egyptian
Baha’i children cannot even officially be born since birth certificates
too must be marked with a religious preference!  This is the
price Baha’is pay for the simple desire to acknowledge their religion.

For now, Baha’is outside of Egypt and other sympathetic voices can
only indirectly influence the officials in Egypt through human rights
organizations and diplomatic pressure.  In Iran, this method
has been marginally successful in reducing the severity of persecution,
but every time a victory is won, a new crisis begins.  Shortly
after Iran’s revolution in the 1980s, Baha’is were put to death
in droves.  In the 1990s, they were "only" imprisoned
for life.  In this decade, Baha’is can still count on being
rounded up and arrested from time to time or have their religious
sites razed and their cemeteries bulldozed.  If average Iranians
could investigate the writings of the Baha’i Faith without fear
of imprisonment, they’d wring their hands at the rulers’ attempt
to rid the country of people who adhere to a religion whose primary
tenets are rooted in love:

Love is the
secret of God’s holy Dispensation … the fountain of spiritual
outpourings. Love is heaven’s kindly light, the Holy Spirit’s
eternal breath that vivifieth the human soul. Love is the one
means that ensureth true felicity both in this world and the next.
Love is the light that guideth in darkness … that assureth the
progress of every illumined soul. Love is the most great law that
ruleth this mighty and heavenly cycle … Love revealeth with
unfailing and limitless power the mysteries latent in the universe.
Love is the spirit of life unto the adorned body of mankind, the
establisher of true civilization in this mortal world, and the
shedder of imperishable glory upon every high-aiming race and
nation.

My belief is
that even if the Baha’is win the battle to be recognized as a religion
in Egypt, the rulers and clerics there will find other ways to institutionally
discriminate against the Baha’is.  Due to the whims and vagaries
of politics, one’s rights can be rock solid one day and taken away
the next.

However, no one has asked the obvious question: why does the Egyptian
state have so much control over the basic necessities of life? 
Why are the schools, the healthcare system, the right to work, and
most importantly, one’s own religious identity, controlled by government
fiat in the first place?  Instead, I say let the free market
decide whether or not it should discriminate against Baha’is. 
Would an employer turn down a qualified candidate just because he’s
not an adherent of one of the three major religions?  Would
a teacher close the doors on a couple’s children because their parents
marked “Baha’i” on their birth certificates?  Would a doctor,
upon encountering a Baha’i dying of a curable disease, kick him
out on the street because he’s a member of the wrong religion?

Sadly, even in a free society, people are allowed to discriminate
in this manner, but I wager that the majority would see through
the nonsense of religious discrimination and take the initiative
to employ, heal, and educate their fellow Egyptians, regardless
of their religious orientation.  But ending institutionalized
bigotry would have a much greater effect, whether it's done in Egypt
or any country.  As it is, laws that allow the state to discriminate
one group from another sends the tacit message to the populace that
some groups are more equal than others.  By absconding the
laws that either discriminate or venerate a particular group, we
may actually live in a world where love has a chance. 

Without artificial
barriers in place that dictate how we should officially treat each
other, we may actually sit face to face with one of our fellow brethren
and make that decision ourselves.  I am confident that if left
to our own devices, we would choose to love to our fellow man rather
than hate him.  We would find ways to interact with him in
profitable ways and in the process get to know him on a deeper level. 
Through some of these interactions, we’d discover new truths about
ourselves and invent new ways to upraise all of humanity’s standard
of living.  We’d realize the essential unity that defines the
human race: that we were created noble and equipped with the ability
to overcome any challenges mankind faces through decentralized trial
and error, an inherent feature of the free market system.

Though on paper, most forward-thinking individuals know that one’s
superficial physical traits do not make any one of us more special
than the other, we still fall victim to the pernicious influence
from hundreds of years of state-sanctioned discriminatory institutions:
namely slavery, Jim Crow laws, and the counterproductive Civil Rights
Act.  Though state sanctions such as these are strong, the
vital bond of love is stronger as love is more powerful than the
state or any man-made institution.  Love is above any law. 
Love is here; it just needs to be unbound so mankind may be set
free.

May
1, 2008

Todd Steinberg
[send him mail] works with
his family at a wholesale
teddy bear company in Dallas. In his spare time he is furiously
working on his cartoon, "Don't Tell My Wife I'm a Cult Leader,"
which he plans to unleash on the Internet and beyond in 2008.

DIGG THIS

In eighteenth
century Ireland, Jonathan Swift’s satire A
Modest Proposal
advised the poor to sell their children as food for the rich. In
twenty-first century America, our problems and obsessions still
revolve around food, so I write this satire for those who believe
in a one-size-fits-all solution to our health problems.

Since the government’s
main job is to protect the people, then we as loyal servants of
the government should think of ways to aid our beloved government
in this duty. One of the leading problems of our country is obesity;
it is best to defer the job of combating this epidemic to our government.
As it is today, the free market has led our country down to a very
low level of health security. With so many food and beverage choices,
coupled with the perversity of marketing and advertising, it is
in the people’s best interest to allow the government to manage
the obesity epidemic for us rather than leaving it to the voracious
and decadent nature that is inherent in the free market.

I propose that
our next President creates a Department of Nutrition and Wellness
to address these health problems. Within 20 years of its foundation,
heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, and many forms of cancer
could be eliminated. Life expectancy could surge by decades, and
the increased general health of the population would allow American
workers to produce well until their eighties. Healthcare costs would
lower and therefore so would insurance premiums. The savings could
be so significant that a national health care system could then
be easily affordable.

Naturally,
a plan of this magnitude should be researched and voted upon by
congressional committee, but in the interest of possibilities, I
envision the protocol to go something like this: every citizen would
be given five meal cards a day — breakfast, lunch, dinner and two
snacks. Each meal would be carefully measured for both caloric content
and maximum nutrition.  The meal cards would be distributed
by the local department subsidiary and turned in by the citizens
at a conveniently located Nutrition Resource Center. The meals will
be of the ready-to-eat variety to aid working families.

Doctors have
long said that the road to proper health is incomplete without regular
exercise. Gentle aerobics has been determined to be one of the very
best exercises for promoting proper circulation, digestion, and
overall well-being. Therefore the Nutrition and Wellness Department
would include a department-mandated exercise program consisting
of a daily morning regimen of calisthenics overseen by the Neighborhood
Kinesiology Corps.  Citizens would be free and even encouraged
to exercise in addition to the morning program, but the exercise
must be limited to routines that do not involve the degeneration
of the joints, such as jogging. Sports would be permitted if played
in professional stadiums, on school grounds, or in other public
venues by teams and organizations that have received departmental
approval.

Proper water
consumption would be compulsory; each citizen would be given a water
vessel that would combine the best in available monitoring technologies.
Sensors on the vessel would determine how many times a day the vessel
was filled and emptied. Another sensor would know whether or not
the citizens filled their eight daily glasses of water at a regular
pace throughout the day or if they cheated by quickly filling up
the vessels and pouring them out. Since vessel sensor technology
at this time cannot determine if the citizens are actually consuming
the water, department doctors will monitor their hydration levels
regularly.

In a perfect
world, everyone would follow the government’s mandate to the best
of his or her ability, but since this utopia cannot be quickly or
universally realized, measures must be taken to fully win the War
on Obesity. Unfortunately, there will be dissenters who will infringe
on the general citizenry’s well being by consuming more than their
allocated share of food. Some of these dissenters may go so far
as growing their own food in order to satisfy their unpatriotic
gluttony. When caught, the criminals will be taken to rendition
camps where they will be re-nutritioned to the American standard.
After their national target rate is reached and maintained for an
adequate amount of time, they will be released under supervision
into the general public and monitored for a period of time.

Though the
government would be sympathetic to those who commit the crime of
overconsumption on the first offense, it goes without saying that
subsequent offenses of overeating, including the deplorable act
of buying, selling, and trading of meal cards will be strictly prohibited
and punishable by fines, and repeat offenders will be imprisoned.
Cracking down on the private sales of unused meal cards must be
made a priority by the department. The enforcement branch of the
Department of Nutrition and Wellness will ensure that our nation’s
health is not jeopardized by the small percentage of the population
who wish to impinge on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

The private
ownership of livestock and crops on any scale would be prohibited.
Landscaping would be allowed, but citizens must register each species
of grass, plant and tree used in their yards to ensure that they
are not inadvertently growing edible produce or grain.  To
protect the citizenry from being abused by criminals, the department
must accredit all landscape and horticultural companies to ensure
that they are only selling government-approved plants and shrubbery.

Pets would
also be allowed, but must similarly be on an approved list of animals
that are not commonly consumed by Americans. To ensure lawfulness,
proof of the animal's life must be provided to the government on
a semi-annual basis. Upon the pet’s demise, it must be cremated
within 12 hours and have its ashes and RFID chip sent to the department
for verification that the pet’s body was disposed of in a lawful
manner and not illegally consumed.

In conclusion,
these are just a few of the ways the Department of Nutrition and
Wellness can aid America in becoming more nutritionally efficient
through this masterfully crafted program.  As the population
becomes healthier due to the implementation of the program, Americans,
who would no longer burdened by obesity-related diseases, will find
freedoms and joys that they never knew they had.  As the program
gains traction here in America, it can be shared in other parts
of the world where the people still rely on archaic methods to meet
their nutritional needs.

March
14, 2008

Todd Steinberg
[send him mail] works with
his family at a wholesale teddy bear company in Dallas. In his spare
time he is furiously working on his cartoon, "Don't Tell My
Wife I'm a Cult Leader," which he plans to unleash on the Internet
and beyond in 2008.

DIGG THIS

After spending
time studying the basics of Austrian economics, I would often help
friends out in a fix by telling them to think of it in the way an
Austrian would, and they'd thank me for the advice. So when my talented
character designer and storyboard artist confessed to possibly sliding
into a bout of depression brought on by artist's block, I took it
upon myself to write a letter unleashing everything I knew about
Austrian economics to lift him out of his funk.

Dear Matt,

All six billion
of us on this planet have equal access to the one finite commodity
of infinite value — time.  You can do whatever you want with
your time and what we do with our time will determine our
ultimate happiness or misery.  Key to this is our ability to
manage our time.  If someone offered you permanent billionaire
status, but in exchange you had to work from sun up to sundown with
no weekends or vacations, and with only enough free time in a day
to eat a meal and get four hours sleep, you’d turn it down, because
no amount of money is worth all your time.  However,
if the same person offered you billionaire status for 10 hours of
work a day, five days a week, you’d listen, because giving some
of your time now for future gain is beneficial
to our long-term happiness.  Unless you are a slave, what you
do with your time is a voluntary transaction that is done deliberately
and with your prior consent.  That is to say, we actually do
have free will; our time is our property and what we decide to do
with it is nobody’s choice but our own.

Inherent in
our access to time as a commodity is choosing what we do with it. 
Like all great accomplishments, they are preceded by great actions,
and great actions are preceded by plans.  So by listing your
goals in life, or for the next ten years, or even one year, you’ve
just taken your first step towards using your time to create a better
life for yourself.  If you have no plans, then your actions
have no deliberate long-term value.  At that point, you are
living only for the day and you can expect no change in your life
as a result from the voluntary use of your time.  I have my
life’s goals listed on my MySpace page, with the current goal’s
steps listed in my electronic to-do list.  Some people have
it in a diary, posted on a wall near their bed, etched on their
skin as a tattoo, whatever.  It doesn’t matter how you make
your goals, but actually having goals rather than not
having them is what counts.  Planned goals lead to relevant
actions, which lead to completed goals.  Completed goals are
accomplishments and having many accomplished goals under your belt
leads to a purposeful and fulfilling life.

Happiness is
relative: We don’t have to make plans to enact world peace, feed
the poor, save the rainforest, etc. in order to be truly happy. 
Each person assigns his own subjective value as to what makes him
happy.  For Mother Teresa, she would be despondent if she could
not have devoted her life to serving the poor.  Whereas if
a Wall Street tycoon was forced to live the rest of his life comforting
lepers in Calcutta, he would find himself miserable.  So if
someone comes to you and says, “we know what would make you happy…”
they are probably wrong since you are the ultimate determiner of
what makes you happy.  Some people want a big house; others
would rather have a small house so they can save the money to travel
around the world.  Some people enjoy using their hands to make
a living; others would rather get a degree so they can work in an
office.  If devoting your life to collecting porcelain Hummel
figurines brings you fulfillment and happiness, then so be it. 
You wouldn't be "wasting your time" even if the rest of the world
feels that Hummel figurines are ugly and not worth the ceramic they’re
crafted from.  Your happiness is completely contingent on what
you value, not your neighbor, not society; nobody has
the power to determine your happiness.

If producing
art is what brings you sublime happiness, then that has more value
than a life spent acquiring fleets of private jets and yachts. 
If someone came to me and said, “Todd, forget your TV show, here’s
a few million dollars… now go on and do something worthwhile.” 
I’d reply, “Sir, thank your for your offer, but eventuating my show
is completely necessary to my long-term happiness and sense of accomplishment. 
I am not out to become a millionaire as a result of the cartoon…
my art and the ability to share that with millions of others is
the goal, not to acquire material wealth.  I would be a miserable
millionaire if I could not produce my art and share my stories and
life with others.”

Some people
act but make no plans, some people plan but take no actions, but
some people make plans and take action towards those plans. 
Those are the people we should strive to emulate.  At the end
of the day, your actions are a result of what you prefer to do. 
Here is a common lie: “I’d prefer to do X, but for now I
have to do Y.”  Your actions are what your prefer
to do.  You can’t say, “I want to go to school, so I can earn
a degree, so I can become a corporate executive, so I can stop mopping
floors,” if for years you’ve never so much as filled out a single
college application.  At this point, your actions have determined
that you prefer to mop floors than to take the steps necessary to
get your career in corporate America.  In other words, you’ve
proven yourself to be full of it.

Yesterday,
you told me how you would often fall into a rut and it depresses
you, which leads you into long stretches of nonproductivity. 
We all have a monkey on our back in one respect or another. 
Everyone conquers this differently, but I bet if you take it one
day at time, it will be easier if for one day you falter. So in
your case, try thinking of each day as a new day filled with a fresh
24 hours that you can use to apply yourself productively. 
In your mind, by deciding to make each day independent of the other,
the non-accomplishments of one day won’t bleed into the next day
or the next week and so on. 

In conclusion,
as you know, the creation of this show is very important to me. 
When I signed you up and paid you money, it was because I valued
your services more than I valued the money and likewise you chose
to accept the money because you valued that more than you what you
could have alternatively done with your time.  When I saw your
initial sketches and storyboards, I realized that I had picked the
right person, someone who had talent but was under-utilized. 
In other words, I had faith that you’re right guy for the job. 
Now faith is the essence of things hoped for and the evidence of
things unseen.  When you make a plan, you put faith into accomplishing
it since you have no visible proof that you can actually make it
happen.  However, once you take actions to fulfill that plan,
you are proving your faith, if you will.

So I have faith
that you will soon be able to masterfully balance work, family,
and your leisure time so that you can adequately devote the time
and energy to our project.  You are doing fine now, and as
we progress, we’ll no doubt be putting more time into it. 
Surely, as we work together, our fruits will inspire us to create
more, so I feel it will mentally become easier as we further realize
the project.  Ultimately, it’s up to us making sound choices
and decisions to allow us to cooperate more efficiently and effectively. 
Like I said before though, this is a day-by-day thing, and for every
hour of work we put in, we can see the results.  However, my
biggest inspiration is knowing that this idea is our best chance
to become successful artists in our own right and to springboard
into other creative avenues.

Many ignorant
people believe that comics and cartoons are trivial at best or wasteful
at worst, but you and I know the power of words and pictures and
its ability to change the hearts of men.  We are not out to
please them, but to please our future fans and ourselves. 
Our art is beyond work, it’s beyond "making a living,"
it’s about making a little bit of yourself known in the world and
perhaps changing it for the better in our own small way.

Very Sincerely,
Todd
Steinberg

March
7, 2008

Todd Steinberg
[send him mail] works with
his family at a wholesale teddy bear company in Dallas. In his spare
time he is furiously working on his cartoon, "Don't Tell My
Wife I'm a Cult Leader," which he plans to unleash on the Internet
and beyond in 2008.