It's just my opinion, I could be wrong

Chances are, you have one of two reactions to the sentiment expressed in the title of this post. On the one hand, you might agree, realizing that people are only free to express their honest opinions when they do not fear reprisal, and the only way to ensure that condition is true anonymity. On the other hand, you may feel that a veil of secrecy damages civilized discussion, or makes it impossible to ensure everyone has an equal voice, or allows evil people to spread hateful and/or destructive speech without repercussion, or perpetrates some other societal evil. All points may be valid and accurate, yet free expression is vital to freedom, with all the downsides which come with it. To the point, I'll cite a recent example which was interesting to me. The government (or more specifically, the executive branch of the US government) has a site where citizens can "sign" petitions to be addressed by the government. In the spirit of other petitions, to sign a petition means t...

So today, there was an "embarrassing" leaked video , purportedly from a fund-raising event, in which Romney talks candidly about the campaign, how he sees the voting blocs, and how he hopes to prevail in the upcoming election. The most damaging revelation, per the mainstream media, was his statement that just under half of the population will vote for Obama regardless of policies or message, because they pay no effective taxes, are dependent on the government, and care more about feeding their handout dependency than whatever is good for the country. Also of note were some comments about how the "black vote" would certainly go to Obama (presumably due to racial bias), and how the Republicans will need to win some of the "Hispanic" vote in order to contend for the election. The media, and liberal organizations in particular, pounced on this as an example of the candidate disparaging a large section of the population, which may well be accurate. You know w...

I was watching the Daily Show , and they had on Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog . In addition to being a very intelligent person, and having a very interesting discussion with John Stewart regarding the Supreme Court and current events, he had another choice comment which struck me (you can watch the interview here if you want). The point that struck me was when John Stewart made the observation that it's the Supreme Court's job to uphold the Constitution, and Tom slightly corrected him, reminding him that it's the job of all branches of government to uphold the Constitution, and the Supreme Court just plays one role in that process. Think about that for a moment. It's the President's job and responsibility to uphold and respect the Constitution; it's in the oath of office. It's also Congress' job and responsibility to uphold and respect the Constitution; it's in their oath of office too. Yet, it seems that often gets overlooked, of not ignored entirely...

A bit ago, I criticized the Chrysler superbowl commercial, in which they touted Detroit as a model for the re-invigoration of America. I didn't explicitly state, but strongly implied, that it would be disastrous if the country followed the same path as Detroit, with corruption, bailouts, destruction of industry, and all the other maladies Detroit has brought upon themselves. I suppose you could extend the sentiment to Michigan as a whole, with Detroit being the major city there, but it turns out that would not be entirely fair: there is something pretty interesting going on in Michigan, which I think the country could indeed learn from. I was not aware, until recently, of the Emergency Financial Manager law/system in place in Michigan, and in effect in several of the more destitute cities there. Basically, the law allows the state to appoint a financial manager if the city finances get critically bad, and empowers the manager to fix the problems (by cancelling contracts, firing go...

With the election season getting underway, and America once again approaching the time when they will choose between two statist, freedom-abolishing, debt-ignoring, big government blowhards, an interesting thought occurred to me: what would be the single most beneficial thing which could be done for the country? Obviously, in light of the equally horrible choices for the presidency, a Congress which is the #1 enemy of the people with an approval rating to match, and a government which is absolutely out-of-control, it's a fairly hypothetical mental exercise, but one with an interesting outcome. You see, while there are a lot of good things with could be done, virtually none of them would be overwhelmingly good in isolation: America has a lot of large, pressing problems, and no single fix would be sufficient to alter the course to eventual collapse enough. Rather, I was thinking about the situation in Greece, and how it pertains to America. Greece is, in many ways, a window into our ...

This is a quote, in this article , from an economist in Greece : "It's lunacy," said Yanis Varoufakis, an economist at Athens University. "Greece should default, and the European Union should finally accept and deal with the inevitable, instead of pushing it under the carpet, like children trying to avoid being spanked." A second Greek bailout, he added, would "just throw good money after bad. What's the purpose of getting an additional loan when it's unlikely Greece will be able to repay it?" Greece's people (most of whom are union and/or public service employees, or retired) are protesting the terms of the new bailout funds as unacceptable. Public opinion in Greece of the country's leadership is rapidly declining. Public opinion of the other EU countries and their leadership is also souring. Many people in Greece don't want to accept the austerity measures the other EU countries are insisting on, and most seemingly have no interes...

Chrysler ran a commercial during the superbowl which is generating a fair bit of controversy; if you didn't see it, feel free to youtube it. Opinions vary: some people think it was inspirational, others pandering. What is more interesting, to me at least, is that if the news media is to be believed, there are two ways to view the political slant of the commercial, depending on your own viewpoint; in fact, one of the articles described it as a rorschach test for political views. Meanwhile, both Clint Eastwood (who narrates the commercial) and the producers insist it's not intended to be political, which is odd, since it clearly is. What struck me, though, is how dumb the message actually is. Essentially, the commercial is holding out Detroit, and Chrysler, as examples of doing what's necessary to "right" the country, and that if the rest of the country can follow their example, we can forge a path back to prosperity. I don't think that logic holds up, though, ...