Android: We’ve discussed several ways you can stay on top of the fight against SOPA, and ways you can get around it, but Boycott SOPA is an Android app that turns your smartphone into a powerful tool to speak with your dollars, and avoid financially supporting companies that support the bill.

Once installed, use Boycott SOPA to scan the barcodes of books, CDs, magazines, DVDs, and other media to see if the producer or publisher is a member of the RIAA, MPAA, the BSA, or another organization that’s publicly supported SOPA. As Extremetech explains, It’s no surprise that most media will trigger a positive, considering how many media companies are part of the RIAA and MPAA, but the app does give consumers a way to check if their money is going to the companies that support this bill before they spend it.

Much like the No SOPA Chrome add-on, Boycott SOPA is designed to warn you if you’re about to support a company or product that in turn supports the bill. The developers behind the app promise that the list of supporting organizations—currently about 800 brands and companies—will be regularly updated as positions change, and invites users to help curate the list on their web site. The Android app is completely free, and available now in the Android Market.

Source: Lifehacker.

*Written by Rob Rimes.

This debate was awesome! No, it wasn’t necessarily the best as far as content and hammering home runs but it was by far the most entertaining. There were fights, poking, prodding and almost a few punches thrown in. In fact, I have never seen Mitt Romney turn so red. It was great and the best part was that the three candidates I like the least looked like the biggest bitches of the night. How so? Well, let me break down the debate and expose the little hoes for their little hoe actions while the adults and misfits in the room just stared on in gleeful excitement of what should have been a few campaign implosions. Of course there aren’t any implosions because the media has to continue to prop up their golden boys.

To start, we are given Anderson Cooper as the moderator of the debate. I like having one moderator and I like Cooper much better than throat-gurgler John King and the man with the coolest name ever Wolf Blitzer. Coop did a good job at keeping the debate moving, probably better than any moderator on any other channel. He also stirred the pot in a good way to get the trio of prima-donnas worked up just enough to make for great television. My hat, if I were currently wearing one, would be tipped for Mr. Cooper.

The debate started off with the generic introductions. Santorum came out and waved to the crowd like a dork dick. He used his kids for an early cheap pop from the crowd and came off as a lame ass. Bachmann was smiling so wide that you couldn’t see her eyes. She was dressed like a cast member of ‘The Love Boat’. Ron Paul referred to himself as the “champion of liberty”, which he is compared to this bunch. Cain said he’s a problem solver and Mitt said he was as well. Mitt’s already jacking for beats. Perry calls himself an “authentic conservative not a conservative of convenience.” Ex-Democrats are funny. Newt then steps up and just lets us know that he’s up in the house in rabid honey badger form!

Hey, there’s no Jon Huntsman! Oh, that’s because he is boycotting Vegas because of some early primary drama or something. It’s pretty goddamned stupid to boycott a pivotal debate when your numbers are so dismal but whatever. In any event, this was Jon Huntsman’s best debate yet! Santorum was also supposed to boycott but apparently he doesn’t stand by what he says. He should have because he failed in this debate and looked like a total fucking bitch. In fact, let me break down Racquetball Rick’s performance at the Las Vegas debate.

Rick Santorum, the poster boy for Penn balls, starts off his portion of the debate jumping in on the 999 bashing. He claims that Cain’s 999 Plan is not good for families. Rick Santorum isn’t good for anyone, plain and fucking simple. Santorum also squeezes in some time to suck the peepees of Romney and Perry when the discussion of job creation comes up. Santorum is a panderer who knows he will lose and is trying to butter up the golden boys in an effort to get a job when his teaching gig at the tennis club is over.

However, just to set himself apart in a wasted no-win effort, Santorum drags the Romneycare skeleton back out of the closet. When Mitt dismisses it and promises to kill Obamacare no matter what, Santorum has a meltdown and acts like the biggest bitch ever; I think his water must’ve broke! In fact, Santorum talks over Mitt and runs down Mitt’s time to respond and when the time runs out, Santorum gladly taunts Mitt by saying, “You’re out of time Mitt!” Wow, what a fanciful tactic employed by such a worthless maroon. This would not be the only time Mitt faced some heat. All this did though was make Santorum look like a bratty child and it hurt his run for the White House.

Santorum, the time thief, then gets into a spat with Rick Perry which is also a waste of time since it is between these two. He goes on some pro-relgio-family rant that no one is paying attention to. Santorum is asked if what religion a candidate is is important. He responds with values, values, morals, morals, family, family, faith, faith, Jesus, amen. When the issue of military spending comes up, Santorum promises not to cut a penny and says that it is the president’s job to protect the people. If that’s true, Obama better step in homie and protect you from yourself because every time you open your mouth it is like witnessing career suicide. And that’s basically it for Santorum.

Where’s Gary Johnson?

The next candidate I should examine is Michele Bachmann. Like Santorum and Huntsman, I can’t believe she is still in this race. I guess performing in Vegas for the GOP crowd with Wayne Newton in your corner is a potential campaign booster but I doubt it will matter here. In fact, it really doesn’t. Bachmann just does her Bachmann schtick and unless she is giving out free concert tickets like she did in Iowa for straw poll votes, she’s pretty much a non-contender at this point.

Somehow, Bachmann was lucky enough to get the first question from Anderson Cooper. She used this opportunity to jump right into bashing Herman Cain’s 999 Plan. She went as far as to say it could become 90-90-90. Yeah, that’s pretty extreme lady, even for the federal government. Scare tactics, even ones that carry some truth, eventually backfire. Bachmann goes on to explain, from her POV, that the 999 Plan is just going to open the door for a VAT tax. She’s not necessarily wrong here. It amazes me though that Bachmann has 5 years more experience in politics than Herman Cain does. He’s so smooth and calculating while she just feeds into my worst media-manufactured fears about her.

At some point during the debate when others are talking, Bachmann keeps calling out “..Anderson, Anderson, Anderson..” like Mr. Cooper is one of her 9,743 foster kids. She goes on some generic “repeal, repeal, repeal” spiel and tells us to visit MicheleBachmann.com. I guess she’s running a special Tea party Beanie Baby sale or something. With her weird cruise director-style frosted white shirt and crazed look, I can’t help but think she looks like a piece of fascist angel food cake.

When it comes time to talk about illegal immigration, Bachmann admits that not only does she want to build a fence, she wants to build a double fence! Whoa! Lady that’s crazy! I thought you were a “fiscal conservative”? Isn’t a double fence essentially two fences? And aren’t two fences twice as expensive as one fence? Maybe the fence store is running a two-for-on special on fences this week. If that’s the case, I guess she can somewhat claim the title of “fiscal conservative” but realistically, even one fence is expensive as hell.

Other Bachmann highlights are that she says she will enforce English as the language of America. Not sure how she’ll enforce it but it sounds like something a neocon would say right before putting a gun to your head. Bachmann says she is concerned about magnets. Apparently, those pesky illegals get stuck to them and we can’t get them off. Bachmann also says that she spends most of her time talking to moms. One has to wonder if they are real moms or her alter-egos. She’s stealing a page from the Palin playbook with her mom comment but at least she didn’t call them grizzly bears or bullfrogs or whatever. Bachmann goes on to sell us on the Iran charade about them wanting to eat our kids and blast us with bombs they don’t have. Bachmann has no real answers to any real questions except the one about Israel. She basically says she’ll throw money at them which gets a cheap pop from the crowd. Closing out the night Bachmann says she is the “most different” candidate from Obama on the stage. Nope, Ron Paul is lady. You’re just shit smeared on burnt toast.

Next up is Captain Boring a.k.a. Rick Perry. This guy is dry, humorless and a horrible wordsmith. Between the long pauses and the staring off into space, Perry’s verbalized thoughts were incredibly hard to follow. He has no substance, just very boring talking points and a haircut.

Rick Perry also jumps on the anti-999 train, as it is the popular thing to do. He goes off on Cain about his plan even though he has no plan of his own. As he says at every debate, his plan is “on the way”. After the 999 exchange, Perry goes on some sort of energy speech/rant that gets some applause. I think they were just clapping because he finished a thought albeit somewhat sluggishly. It was hard to follow what he was saying as it was about as coherent as my drunk Uncle Seymour singing Klingon opera over Soulja Boy beats.

Perry claims that Texas has one of the best medical systems in the world which brings up the discussion about creating magnets for illegal aliens. This discussion almost turns into an all out war between Perry and Romney. Perry claims that Romney knowingly hired illegal aliens to work in his mansion, which sets Romney off. Romney tries to argue back but Perry, like Santorum, talks over Romney trying to sabotage his defense and use up his time. Romney gets angrier and angrier and visibly turns red. The Mormon fire is burning inside! However, the Texas fire is burning too! Both guys take some low blows and some cheap shots and no one really cares about the substance, we just want to see a fight. Man, I wish they would’ve started swinging so it would kill both of their campaigns. Then again, people would probably applaud it and both would skyrocket in the polls. Where I stand, these guys failed miserably, as did Santorum. My three least favorite candidates looked like a trio of whiney emotional tools.

Other Perry highlights include him calling for a virtual defense program over a fence. He also mentions that drones are being trained. I guess he thinks drones are people. Aw.. that’s kinda cute. Perry is a special fella. Perry goes on to punk out Bachmann on her double fence talk however it backfires as all his two-year-old bitching is getting him, at this point, is boos. One good thing Perry does say though, is that we need to seriously look at the issue of foreign aid and that we need to defund the UN. Perry then claims he made Facebook, eBay and Caterpillar or something like that. He did work for Al Gore so I can see where those sort of delusions may have come from.

Looking at Mitt Romney’s performance is tedious. Yes he looks presidential and he even acts presidential considering that the last handful of them were pandering thieving lying douches. In fact, he is also a copycat as he goes right after Cain’s 999 Plan to kick off his side of the debate. Mitt and Herman exchange blows and their argument does nothing to convince me that either is right in their stance.

Apart from the War of the Haircuts between Mittens and Perry, there weren’t many Mitt highlights. He spent most of his time defending himself while being talked over. He also turned a weird shade of red a few times. However a few notable things were that he pimped out states’ rights and he showed that he has more catchphrases than the Rock. He also tried to educate Ron Paul on foreign policy but this was like watching a preschooler telling a surgeon how to do open heart surgery. Mitt did have a great diss though when he equated Perry’s experience as governor to a college football coach that has lost 40 games.

Newt Gingrich was somewhat of a savior for the debate as Anderson Cooper usually went to him after the children in the room were having a spat. Newt in his cool, calm and collective way worked the room like a goddamned mastermind and once again shined and earned the respect of those watching. As I’ve said several times, I do not fully agree with Newt’s policies but goddamn he’s a leader and a fucking statesman. I used to loathe this guy and he has won me over which is damn near impossible to do once you’ve made it on my shit list. Newt has done just that though and I love watching this guy debate. He’d eat up Obama like a Kid Cuisine. If Ron Paul wasn’t in this race, I’d probably vote for Newt. Unfortunately, Gary Johnson, my second choice, gets no respect and he can’t gain momentum without being invited to the debates.

Newt also gets involved in the 999 debate and says that there are a lot more complexities to the plan than Herman Cain is letting on. I agree. Newt gives Cain props for bringing us something real to discuss and look at but he can’t fully support the idea. Newt goes on to call out Romney as a big government stooge with his Romneycare plan. Mitt then rebuttals Newt with a lie about Newt and Newt quickly checks his ass like Wolverine backhanding a stray cat. Newt don’t care! Newt don’t give a shit! “Watch out”, says that bird!

Herman Cain, who surged after the last debate, had a pretty weak performance in my opinion and I believe it is because his lack of political experience is finally showing. As the debate started with everyone attacking his 999 Plan, he really did nothing to defend it. He continually told everyone that they were wrong, regardless of their information. He told everyone to read the plan and to do their own math. Sorry brother but this isn’t going to fly. You can’t keep telling people to read it, you have to educate the people first and get them passionate about it. If you don’t have the ability to defend your plan without just brushing off criticism as being wrong, then no one will care. My biggest fear is that Cain really has no rebuttal because all the critics are right. By how this has been handled by Cain himself, I’m siding with the critics. Besides, everything they’ve said, I’ve thought about myself before this debate. After reading the bill, I can’t find anything in it to correct or even soothe these concerns. All Cain really gives us is talk of “apples and oranges”. He seems to get really flustered by all the haters and his tone changes a bit with each candidate who doubts him. As pimpalicious as Cain can be, he showed signs of having thin skin.

Getting away from the 999 issue, Cain tells us that we need to repeal Obamacare and look at revisiting bill HR 3400 as a way to help solve the issues with health care in this country. I’ll have to read up on that. Cain also mentions that we need to promote our path to citizenship in an effort to help alleviate the illegal alien issue. Cain owns up to flip-flopping on TARP. He’s had many other economic follies however. Cain says the anger of the Occupy Wall Street Movement is misdirected yet he takes a bullet for the Federal Reserve again. Cain is a minion of the Fed, that much is clear at this point. This spawns into an argument with Ron Paul about the tyranny of the Federal Reserve, which I’ll touch on in a bit.

Cain tells us he will not negotiate with terrorists under any circumstances which contradicts something he said in an interview earlier in the day before the debate. Cain closes out the night by pimping his skills at running small companies. I never knew that Coca-Cola, Burger King, Godfather’s Pizza, Pillsbury, Nabisco, Whirlpool and Reader’s Digest were small companies. Surprising, because I see them everywhere.

Ron Paul probably had his best debate yet. He starts by calling the 999 Plan dangerous and that we need to replace the income tax with nothing! Hell yes! He says that he promises to cut $1 trillion dollars in his first year! Oh hell yeah! I bet “fiscal conservative” Bachmann dropped a turd in her ‘Love Boat’ digs when she heard that. When asked about an alternative to Obamacare, Paul says there needs to be no alternative and that individuals should be allowed to opt out of government medicine if they want to. I can dig that. Ron Paul points out that as soon as the government becomes involved in anything, lobbyists line up.

Ron Paul calls for us to examine the real reasons why illegal aliens flock to America and that we have to end these incentives and promote citizenship. He points out that in a free society the group mentality would dissolve, there would be no more “us versus them”. Herman Cain cuts in to tell us that 999 will give Latinos the American dream. Ron Paul talks about securing the border but shows us our own folly when he informs the clueless pack of non-liberty candidates that they are more concerned with the Afghanistan-Pakistan border than the United States-Mexico border.

On the Yucca Mountain issue, Ron Paul calls for states’ rights and says that no state should be forced to be the other 49 states garbage dump. In this case, Nevada would be made the United States’ nuclear waste dump. This is an issue that gets brushed under the rug, as the only people it really effects is the people of Nevada.

The next big Ron Paul moment came at the expense of Herman Cain when he was compelled to educate Fed insider Cain on the reality of the Federal Reserve, which he willingly took another bullet for. In reference to Occupy Wall Street, Paul tells Cain that we need to take the anger to the Federal Reserve and that we need to understand bubbles and their origin. Paul tells Cain to not trust the government and to put his trust in the marketplace. True words from a real man.

Ron Paul then feels the need to once again educate the candidates and the people watching on the difference between military spending and defense spending. He warns that we are spread too thin all over the world and that we are overextending our resources. He says that we’d be safer if we weren’t in so many places. On foreign aid, Ron Paul refers to it as a system that steals from the poor in a rich country (the United States) and gives to the rich in a poor country. He talks about how our foreign aid makes Israel dependent on us and it prevents them from fully standing on their own two feet. Ron Paul’s shocking honesty is met with gasps because the truth hurts like a motherfucker.

In the end, this was a pretty good debate. The lovers quarrels were entertaining and Anderson Cooper ran a smooth show. Cooper also gave a fair amount of time to everyone for the most part. I felt that Ron Paul was on more of an even playing field with the golden boy candidates and everyone really got their say in about most of the topics. CNN certainly stepped their game up and it was kind of refreshing.

Anyway, this was like the 37th debate and I know we have several dozen more so it is going to be a long road for all of these candidates. I will say this though, it is time for Santorum, Huntsman and Bachmann to drop out. You’re wasting our time and without you there the top tier guys could get more time to hash some shit out. I know, I know.. you’re still in the hunt. You can’t back out yet, you’re all just on the cusp of going from 3% to 4%. Besides, who am I, or anyone else for that matter, to ask for any favors. Ah well, guess I’m stuck watching the preliminary card before the real fight.

Grading Scale:
Grade A+: Ron Paul
Grade A-: Newt Gingrich
Grade C-: Herman Cain
Grade D: Mitt Romeny
Grade D-: Rick Perry
Grade F: Rick Santorum
Grade F: Michele Bachmann
Grade I: Jon Huntsman
Grade I: Gary Johnson

*Taken from the Economic Collapse.

Millions of Americans are about to get stabbed in the back by their banks.  Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citibank and several other large banks are either already implementing outrageous new bank fees or are currently testing them.  So are these ridiculous new bank fees going to be enough to get millions of Americans to finally boycott the big banks?  When millions of Americans start paying a $5 fee every month to use their debit cards and when millions of Americans start paying a $20 fee every single month just to have a checking account hopefully that will be enough to wake them up.  These fees are certainly not going to cause an “economic collapse”, but they are incredibly annoying.  The truth is that the big banks are trying to take advantage of us.  It shouldn’t cost $60 a year just to use a debit card.  It shouldn’t cost $240 a year just to have a checking account.  What we need to do is to send an unequivocal message to the big banks: we don’t want your stinking bank fees and we are switching banks.

When I was growing up, I remember how banks would bend over backwards to get your business.  The customer service was generally very good and banks were not gouging us with ridiculous fees.

But now thousands of smaller banks have been gobbled up by the banking giants and things have dramatically changed.  The big banks don’t value us anymore.  They seem to believe that they have a “captive audience” and that they can treat us however they want to.

CONTINUED..

My Two Cents: This is written in 2007 but it applies today as people are about to boycott gas again. See for yourself here. Also, join the Anti-No Gas Day Buycott here. End Two Cents.

*Taken from Poorer Than You.

Just because something won’t die doesn’t mean it’s good idea. For those lucky 2 of you in America that never heard of the “No Gas Day” idea, is goes like this: just about every year since 1999, someone has decided that we should try to lower gas prices by boycotting the gas pumps for one entire day. Gas company profits will fall! Prices will drop by 30 cents or more due the sudden decrease in demand! Our consumer outrage will be heard and our demands will be met!

Only, it doesn’t work. It didn’t work in 1999, or 2000, and it’s not going to work in 2007, either.

First of all, I’m not getting down on “hippies” or environmentalists at all. I’ve mentioned before, I’m a staunch environmentalist who has gone as far as not buying anything new in the name of saving the planet (and a significant amount of money). I see the good intentions of a “No Gas Day.” But I also see the insanely flawed logic, and even worse, how detrimental such an idea can be to our long term gas prices.

Sexy, Not Effective
People want to participate in a “No Gas Day” because it’s easy, and it sounds ever so sexy and powerful. “Yeah! I won’t buy gas today, how do you like that, oil man?” But it doesn’t make any real sense. First of all, the average consumer probably doesn’t fill their tank more than once a week, let alone every day. So we can only assume that gas companies don’t measure sales on a daily basis, but more likely, a weekly one. A “No Gas Day” wouldn’t even register a blip on their radar, since everyone will likely fill up their tank some other day that week.

Also, you have to consider the actual way a boycott works. Remember learning about Rosa Parks and the Montgomery Bus Boycott in school (or, if you happen to be old enough to remember it yourself)? A one day bus boycott wouldn’t have really made a big difference to the bus companies, because everyone would just be riding again the next day. Sure, they would have lost that much of one day’s profits, but if everything returned to normal the next day, do you really think they would have changed their racial seating policy?

No. Instead, it took a year-long boycott and the intervention of the Supreme Court to change the Alabama law that dictated the bus companies’ policies. Could you give up gas for a year? If you, and many others, could, it might actually make a difference.

There Is Another Way
It doesn’t have to be as extreme as a year-long complete boycott of gas. Sure, that would help. But if you live in the middle of nowhere (like me) and need a car to get anywhere, and haven’t yet figured out how to get your car to run on coffee, you can still find ways to cut back on your gas consumption. Yes, this is the real way to show the gas companies you’re mad as hell and not going to take it any more: slow and steady reduction. Most of this isn’t going to be news to you – you’ve probably heard it all before. But how much of it are you actually doing?

• Carpool, bike, rollerblade, or walk, when you can. Or just stay home!
• When choosing between two fun activities, include the distance you’ll have to drive in your decision-making.
• Make right turns instead of left turns.
• Don’t speed.
• Empty your trunk – extra weight uses more gas.
• When you buy a new car, make fuel efficiency a major priority.
• Combine errands – if you have a bunch of things to do in the same area this week, do them all in one day instead of driving out there multiple times.
• The average American family has more than two cars. Try to drive the most fuel efficient one. (Get used to saying “Let’s take my car – it gets better gas mileage!”)

Tips like these will save your pocketbook in the “now,” as well as help cut down on overall demand for gas in this country, which should lower gas prices and save you money in the “then.” Anybody else have some fuel efficiency tips to add?

The Danger
I really do believe “No Gas Day” is a dangerous idea. People feel like they’re making a difference, but they’re really having no impact. And because they feel like they did good, they can also feel like they’re excused for things like having a gas guzzling SUV that they don’t need, or anything else they might do (but know better). The excuse “Yeah, but I participated in No Gas Day!” is useless, and gives the false idea that a simple stunt can make a real impact. So fill up your tank on May 15th, 2007… but only if you really need gas.

On CPAC and liberal reactions to it:

On Union Thuggery:

*Written by Tho Bishop.

I was golfing the other day with my brother-in-law Ed, a University Professor and proud FDR-liberal, discussing a variety of subjects from Alexander Hamilton to Oklahoma Sooner football when the subject of the role of government as the disciplinarian of Big Business came about. Ed was of the opinion that without the mighty force of the Federal Government laying down large fines to reckless corporations like BP, there is no disincentive to prevent corporate tragedies like the 2010 oil spill – a line of reasoning I have frequently encountered.

Of course, as I attempted to explain to Ed, the market itself has its own ways of punishing business malpractice. I asked Ed if he ever saw a BP commercial before the oil spill, of course he had, and then asked him why BP paid for the commercial. “PR”, he replied. I responded by asking him what comes to mind now when he thinks of BP, those commercials or the oil spill? The oil spill, over night, eliminated the value of billions of dollars of investment in public relations, and that’s not considering the time. During the summer it seemed never a day went by without an invitation to a Facebook group encouraging a boycott of BP – a market driven punishment to the spill (if not a misplaced one).

Then there was the cost of cleaning up the oil itself. Growing up in Panama City Beach for most of my life, I was quick to volunteer my services in cleaning up its beaches. BP paid the cost of my and my fellow technician’s HAZWOPER Certificate (valued over $300), allowing us to work with tarballs with OSHA’s blessing. We received a starting salary of $12 an hour, a guarantee of 80 hours a week (meaning $18 an hour with overtime) and our contractor received a nice profit for every head they hired. I was taking home over $1000 dollars a week. At one point we had 1,000 workers at my base camp in Port St. Joe, and we didn’t even have oil. BP paid for our meals. BP supplied our hard hats, our gloves, our neon safety vests, our medical personnel, our work trucks, our work ATV’s. BP rented out entire marinas and fisheries and dirt lots to set up camps. We enjoyed air conditioned work tents (necessitated by working in 110 degree heat) and all the water and Gator-Aid we could drink. BP rented the services of private fishing boats. BP deployed almost 4 million feet of boom in the water. All of this at a cost.

And then there were the settlements. Though I did not apply for a “BP Check” as it is referred to locally, most everyone else I know did. It is normal to hear stories of people receiving $12,000 check for being fired due to laziness and then blaming it on the oil spill. A former co-worker of mine has received a total of $7,000 dollars, in spite of the fact her tax receipts showed she made more money in 2010 than 2009. Recently BP has offered $5,000 to anyone who filed a claim and agrees not to sue. Local businesses are getting even more. And this in Panama City Beach, where we never saw our beaches covered in oil.

When I bring up these naturally occurring costs, I typically hear a few standard replies. My favorite is “but BP is so large that they will still end up making billions in profits this year.” That may be true, but wouldn’t they have made billions more by not filling the gulf with oil? (I typically choose not to bring up the opportunity costs associated with BP not being able to sell the spilled oil.) Ed asked me whether I believed BP would have paid the cost of recovery if not for the Federal Government, I asked whether he would ever buy BP gas again if they didn’t. And then there is the legal system, which obviously wouldn’t even be eliminated in Murray Rothbard’s state of anarchism, that would supply an avenue for victims to be compensated for their losses. Even with the government imposed escrow fund, a coffee shop owner I know, who opened his business nearly three months after the spill, is using the court system (or threat of it) to receive his own BP check after being denied through the typical claims process.

Of course BP is not the only example of the morality of free markets. When a fast food chain allows tainted food to be sold, even if isolated to one specific store, nation-wide demand for their food goes down, along with their profit margin. When a pharmaceutical company puts out a bad drug, they have to deal with similar legal and liability costs that BP endures. When Toyota makes a car whose breaks don’t work, they have to pay for the nation-wide recall while at the same time suffering from the resulting decrease in demand. When a coffee shop sells a lukewarm cup of coffee, they suffer the opportunity cost of never enjoying the business of the dissatisfied consumer.

It’s easy to develop a near spiritual celebration of the market when you come to understand how the natural morality of the markets is applicable to the individual as well. If you realize that the income an individual enjoys is the direct reward for their labor (be it from selling it to another or applying it to their own enterprise) then one can understand the significance of their budget. The person who spends $50 dollars every two days on a bottle of Jack Daniels experiences the fiscal price of their vice. The person who spends $60 dollars on bag of marijuana, they experience not only a fiscal price for the vice of the drug, but the price of breaking the law (the illegality being directly reflected in the price.)

It is, of course, the government that does its best to destroy this natural morality. When we are told that all food carries with it the endorsement of the FDA, it is only natural for consumers to worry less about the reputation of its producer and to instead focus on cost. When the Southern Pacific Railroad was granted by government a monopoly in California, the resulting corruption was blamed on the railroad industry as a whole, not the politicians who granted the special favor. When criminalizing a relatively harmless drug like marijuana forces its consumers to interact with drug dealers on a black market, it is the plant that is blamed as a gateway drug. I remembered watching in amazement when the aftermath of the oil spill brought about discussion of raising the liability cap for BP, why should any corporation receive protection from the results of their recklessness?

The more I understand the true nature of the markets, the most enthusiastic I become about the economic freedom of capitalism and the more passionate I become about seeing its return to this country. As Mises sagaciously stated “The alcoholic and the drug addict harm only themselves by their behavior; the person who violates the rules of morality governing mans life in society harms not only himself, but everyone.”

My Two Cents: Fuck Jim DeMint, the John Birch Society and the Heritage Foundation. Grow some balls, man up and stop being little bitches. End Two Cents.

*Taken from Reason.

The single-largest annual meeting of conservatives and small-government fellow travelers, the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), kicked off in Washington, D.C. today on Thursday, February 10, 2011.

The big story leading up to the conference was a high-profile boycott by outfits such as The Heritage Foundation and figures such as Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) due to the participation of GOProud, a gay conservative group that lobbies for lower taxes and equality under the law. As a spokesman for Heritage put it, “We want to promote economic freedom, a strong national defense and social conservativism. We think these policies are indivisible…It’s not a boutique. You can’t pick one and not the other.”

Reason’s Michael C. Moynihan was on hand to gauge the mood of CPAC. While some anti-gay conservatives stayed away, libertarians and small government types proliferated, agitating for less spending, an end to the drug war, and greater social freedom.

And, in the case of the John Birch Society, a smiting from on high.

Approximately 5 minutes long. Shot and edited by Jim Epstein.

*Taken from Prison Planet. Written by Jason Douglass.

Talaya Soria, a pastor’s wife living in California and an ex-employee of Wal-Mart shared some interesting information regarding a phone call placed to Wal-Mart’s corporate offices about the mega-giant’s ‘if you see something, say something’ partnership between Wal-Mart and The Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

In response to the new policy, this concerned citizen called corporate to ask some pointed questions and got more than she bargained.

When asked how many stores would be adopting the new policy, the Wal-Mart associate grimly responded, “All of them”. Disgusted by the fascist new policy, Mrs. Soria began to list the problems with a program with this type of focus stating “This policy isn’t aimed at the terrorists but at the populace — to control what we say!”.

Patiently listening to the concerns, the Wal-Mart Associate responded in hushed voice, “yes, I agree with you” the paranoia felt by the employee was completely palpable. Talaya continued, “If I say something someone doesn’t agree with – they can just turn me in!”. The operator once again timidly responded, “Yeah, I know where you are coming from. You’re right!”.

Ending the call, Talaya summed up her argument, “This is a very un-American policy and I will be telling all my friends, family, church members and everyone to boycott Wal-Mart”. The silence on the other end of the line spoke volumes. Obviously, Talaya was preaching to the choir. The associate was in complete, even if silent, agreement.

After Talaya got off the phone, she immediately called her local Wal-Mart to let them know about the new program and express her intention to boycott the store if the policy was officially adopted. When she got off the phone and attempted to make another call a strange clicking sound was clearly audible on the line.

Talaya phoned her husband to let him know about the conversation and she continued to hear the clicking. Her husband did not hear anything on his end of the line and when she hung up, the phone immediately started ringing again. Caller ID showed an unfamiliar number with a (925) area code. When she picked up the phone no one answered.

Again hanging up, the phone began to ring with the same unrecognized caller ID; still no answer at the other end.

Talaya decided to call the number shown on caller ID but the call would not initiate. After several failed attempts the line began to make a high pitched tone with no ringing beforehand.

In an earlier time, one could dismiss such experiences and the fear they impart as paranoia and laugh off those ideas with a chuckle. But thanks to legislation like The Patriot Act and software like Echelon, it is completely within the realm of possibility that the phone call was monitored, threatening language identified and a wiretap immediately placed on the line. No hard to justify warrant needed, Talaya is now being monitored.

A sign of the times, we have traded freedom for the illusion of security.

The perfect storm has arrived. A failing economy and a climate of fear have locked us all into survival mode. The majority of people remain asleep because reality is so grim and our options so limited; surrender is the only viable tactic for most. And so with our silent consent we get comfortable in the control grid erected to ‘protect’ us. Engineered to consolidate power and our complacency plays right into the hands of our wardens.

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

- Pastor Martin Niemöller

A Review of ‘Zeitgeist: Addendum’.

*Taken from the Mises Institute Forums. Written by FleetCenturion.

I am quite late in reviewing Zeitgeist, since I have lacked for a very long time both a proper outlet to receive such a review, and the will to stomach the more radical left-wing elements of the film.  Nonetheless, I finally forced myself to sit through over 4 grueling hours of the ‘Addendum’ and the ‘Final Edition’, as they were downloaded and given to me.  I am sure there are many more versions of this movie, possibly many more 2-hour parts, and I will NOT be watching them.

A Review of Zeitgeist: Addendum
The first part of this has been frequently posted on YouTube, and has been the most fascinating to me.  It describes the creation of debt-based money using the Federal Reserve’s own publication.  The narator does this very well, touching on the core elements of the fractional reserve system, endless debt, and built-in inflation.  What was most interesting to me was the 1969 case of Jerome Daly, who successfully fought a forclosure on his home by proving that the home lone the bank had given him did not legally exist in the first place.  This part has been  been scrubbed from every YouTube video that I can find.  On a totally unrelated subject, Google, who owns YouTube, is now a supporter of “Net Neutrality”.  They are almost right when describing Lincoln’s “green back” currency, except for the part about it being an independent currency “as the Founding Fathers intended.” Lincoln’s expansion of the money supply to pay for the war was an emergency measure only, and was highly illegal.  I guess you can’t expect these people to actually read the Constitution.

The film continues with an interview with John Perkins, author of ‘Confessions of an Economic Hitman’.  This left-leaning but fascinating interview gives a little of his account of keeping governments perpetually in debt to banks and corporations.  There are many more interviews with Perkins to be found, and I recommend you see them all, and read his book.  Unfortunately, the main topic then becomes how the CIA topples “legitimate” governments using U.S. private companies.  All the dictators described were absolute tyrants who decided to “help” their countries not by giving their people a free market, but by confiscating legitimately purchased lands and shaking down companies after contracts had already been signed.  It should be noted that while I respect Perkins’ opinions, he knows nothing about the CIA, and from what I’ve seen, very little about U.S. foreign policy outside his own spheres.

The interview continues with Perkins’ take on the Gulf Wars, as usual blamed on Dick Cheney and Halliburton.  This blends nicely into how the War on Terror is an invention of evil U.S. corporations– yada yada yada.  If any of this drivel were true, then trust me, I would be getting rich right now with all the stock I have in “U.S. BigEvil, Inc.”  Turns out the recession hit the evil companies hardest of all.

In the midst of a bunch of misleading and/or utterly false world poverty statistics, emerge the “good” people of the Venus Project.  This takes up over half the movie!  I sat through more than an hour of this thinly disguised, collectivist propaganda.  Apparently, once they are done, there will be freedom and plenty for all, endless energy, and no war.  Also no needless labor for anyone, and no need for money as superior technology appears out of nowhere and requires no maintenance.  And apparently, all we have to do for all this freedom and plenty (and, of course, “individuality”) is subscribe to their brand of collectivism.  Any of this sound familiar?

My favorite part comes at the very end: What can you do?  1) Well, boycott the big, evil banks and corporations for starters, and if you work for them, then quit.  2) Boycott all news networks. Don’t do something crazy like trust your own judgement to filter what’s good and bad news; instead trust only the “good” people and information you find on the internet.  3) Boycott the military– the chant of people everywhere dependent on a government grant for their living, they themselves being far bigger parasites than any individual deciding to put on a uniform.  4) Boycott those big, evil energy companies by converting your home to wind and solar power.  With what?  You just quit your job so you could stick it to the Man.  5) Reject the political system.  Why bother trying to get representation (or to represent others) anymore when BigEvil, Inc. controls everything.  Make a strong statement by sitting on your ass.  6) Create critical mass – ?? – by going to their website and learn how together (under their collectivism) we can all be “free”.  Basically, they tell you to go and become a goddamned dirty hippy.

While having a few decent points, the whole thing is nothing but yet another radical political agenda.  There are no real solutions offered.  God forbid they actually mention something like sound money or a free market to replace the crony capitalism of today.  Instead of being a collectivist, corporate sheep, they tell you to join their collectivist flock instead.

Anyway, that’s this segment.  Comments are welcome– that’s why it’s here.

A good comment on the above review:

It’s pretty useless to argue with Zeitgeisters who have already been “converted.” They are not prepared to submit their beliefs to rational scrutiny.

In any case things like this are useful for convincing people who haven’t been converted yet. However it’s much safer to just teach them the principles of logic: That’ll protect them from every cult.

*Taken from InfoWars. Written by Steve Watson.

The largest union of airline pilots in the world is urging its members to boycott body imaging machines currently being rolled out in airports all over the globe, citing dangers of excessive exposure to harmful levels of radiation during the screening process.

The president of the Allied Pilots Association, which represents 11,500 pilots, many of whom work for American Airlines, has urged members of the union to revolt against the devices.

Captain Dave Bates voiced the union’s concerns in a letter published by The Atlantic late last week.

Bates asks that members be aware “that there are ‘backscatter’ AIT devices now being deployed that produce ionizing radiation, which could be harmful to your health.”

The move follows the detention and suspension of an American pilot who refused to be scanned.

Captain Bates suggests that pilots refrain from being put through the scanners and if necessary opt for a pat down by TSA officials instead.

“We already experience significantly higher radiation exposure than most other occupations, and there is mounting evidence of higher-than-average cancer rates as a consequence.” Bates’ letter states.

Earlier in the year, scientists warned that the machines constitute a potential health risk, noting that the radiation given off by the devices has been dangerously underestimated and could lead to an increased risk of skin cancer.

Despite these fears, the blatant violation of privacy laws, and the consistent lies that the authorities have engaged in over capabilities of the machines, Janet Napolitano, head of the DHS, recently announced plans to expand the full-body scanner program even further.

In the U.S., travelers can refuse the body scanner and opt for the pat down, however, this option is not offered by the TSA, rather the traveler must declare that they wish to “opt out”.

A recent New York Times report describes the humiliating turn of events should airline passengers exercise this right, with individuals being singled out and prodded, probed and poked by TSA agents in front of everyone else queuing in the security lines.

New pat down procedures have recently been instituted by the TSA, allowing agents to use their fingers and the palms of their hands to feel around breasts and genitalia. Previously agents were instructed to brush the backs of their hands against these areas.

The APA president, Captain Bates, acknowledges how humiliating the new pat downs are in his letter:

“There is absolutely no denying that the enhanced pat-down is a demeaning experience. In my view, it is unacceptable to submit to one in public while wearing the uniform of a professional airline pilot. I recommend that all pilots insist that such screening is performed in an out-of-view area to protect their privacy and dignity.” he writes.

The new pat down technique has even been likened to “foreplay”. An American Civil Liberties Union spokesman has called the new security procedures a choice between a “virtual strip search” and a “grope.”

“Travelers are being asked to choose between being scanned ‘naked’ and exposed to radiation, or getting what people are describing as just a highly invasive search by hands of their entire bodies.” Chris Ott, a spokesman for the ACLU of Massachusetts, said.

People traveling out of the UK and other areas of Europe don’t even get the choice – they are forced to go through the scanner if asked and cannot refuse or they are banned from traveling. This policy seems to be slowly extending into the U.S., however, given recent reports from airport workers in El Paso, Texas who say that everyone is now being forced through the machines.

Privacy group Big Brother Watch has backed the APA’s advice to pilots, with director Alex Deane, noting “Scanners are dangerous. There’s a reason that the nurse stands behind a screen when you get an x-ray at hospital. Radiation is potentially harmful, even in small doses, and the regularity with which frequent flyers are exposed to potentially cancer-causing radiation.”

“If pilots aren’t going to be scanned, why should members of the public?” Deane added.

“This stance from a professional group, the world’s leading association of pilots, must shake the government out of its absurd position on scanners.”

The TSA has a regularly updated list of which American airports are using AIT full-body scannershere.

Alex Jones’ recent analysis of this issue and an interview with an employee who was subjected to the new TSA pat down procedure has so far been viewed by almost 200,000 on You Tube after the top rated news aggregator The Drudge Report linked to the video:

APA president Captain Bates’ letter in full:

Fellow Pilots,

In response to increased threats to civil aviation around the world, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has implemented the use of Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) body scanners at some airport locations.

While I’m sure that each of us recognizes that the threats to our lives are real, the practice of airport security screening of airline pilots has spun out of control and does nothing to improve national security. It’s long past time that policymakers take the steps necessary to exempt commercial pilots from airport security screening and grant designated pilot access to SIDA utilizing either Crew Pass or biometric identification. As I recently wrote to the TSA Administrator:

“Our pilots are highly motivated partners in the effort to protect our nation’s security, with many of us serving as Federal Flight Deck Officers. We are all keenly aware that we may serve as the last line of defense against another terrorist attack on commercial aviation. Rather than being viewed as potential threats, we should be treated commensurate with the authority and responsibility that we are vested with as professional pilots.”

It is important to note that there are “backscatter” AIT devices now being deployed that produce ionizing radiation, which could be harmful to your health. Airline pilots in the United States already receive higher doses of radiation in their on-the-job environment than nearly every other category of worker in the United States, including nuclear power plant employees. As I also stated in my recent letter to the Administrator of the TSA:

“We are exposed to radiation every day on the job. For example, a typical Atlantic crossing during a solar flare can expose a pilot to radiation equivalent to 100 chest X-rays per hour. Requiring pilots to go through the AIT means additional radiation exposure. I share our pilots’ concerns about this additional radiation exposure and plan to recommend that our pilots refrain from going through the AIT. We already experience significantly higher radiation exposure than most other occupations, and there is mounting evidence of higher-than-average cancer rates as a consequence.”

It’s safe to say that most of the APA leadership shares my view that no pilot at American Airlines should subject themselves to the needless privacy invasion and potential health risks caused by the AIT body scanners. I therefore recommend that the pilots of American Airlines consider the following guidelines:

Use designated crew lines if available.

Politely decline AIT exposure and request alternative screening.

There is absolutely no denying that the enhanced pat-down is a demeaning experience. In my view, it is unacceptable to submit to one in public while wearing the uniform of a professional airline pilot. I recommend that all pilots insist that such screening is performed in an out-of-view area to protect their privacy and dignity.

If screening delays your arrival at the cockpit, do not cut corners that jeopardize the safety of the flight. Consummate professionalism and safety are always paramount.

Maintain composure and professionalism at all times and recognize that you are probably being videotaped.

If you feel that you have been treated with less than courtesy, respect and professionalism, please submit an observer report to APA. Please be sure to include the time, date, security checkpoint and name of the TSA employee who performed the screening. Avoid confrontation.

Your APA Board of Directors and National Officers are holding a conference call this week to discuss these issues and further guidance may be forthcoming.

While I cannot promise results tomorrow, I pledge to dedicate APA resources in the days and weeks to come to achieve direct access to SIDA for the pilots of American Airlines. In the meantime, I am confident that you will continue to exhibit your usual utmost professionalism as you safely operate and protect our nation’s air transport system.