Proof positive that Amazon.com does everything, now you can make donations to your favorite presidential candidate at their site. Gary Nolan is among them (and has gotten a handful of donations himself).

As you probably know by now, the highly anticipated list of stories from Schulte’s stay at my apartment never came, because there really wasn’t much interesting happening.

One thing did take place that was mildly interesting was that we had a visitor on Wednesday night. One of the Libertarian candidates for president, the one I’m likely to vote for, was staying in Concord, MA before heading to College Convention 2004 up in Manchester. I’m on his e-mail list, and received word that rather than donating money to the party, if someone could house the campaign manager for a night that would effectively be equivalent to donating what a hotel room would otherwise cost.

I volunteered, noting in my e-mail that Schulte was staying with me and things might be a little tight. I didn’t hear back, so I figured I wasn’t selected as the best option. Then, the day before they were scheduled to be here I receive an e-mail from the campaign manager telling me that thier other option fell through, and he’d like to take me up on my offer. I gave him directions to my apartment and set up an inflatable air mattress.

On Wednesday night, out the window I see a red SUV pull up, and someone get out and head to my door. I also recognize Gary Nolan (the candidate himself) is actually driving the car. The campaign manager comes in, I’m surprised how young he is (a year younger than me). A minute later I get a call on my phone, and sure enough it’s Gary Nolan on the other end, asking to speak to the guy (and, I presumed, making sure he didn’t just drop him off at the home of a homicidal maniac).

We talked for a bit and then called it a night. Schulte wasn’t there (he came home late) otherwise I’m sure he would have made some “hilarious” remarks. The next morning I drove the guy to the hotel where Gary Nolan had stayed.

On the way, I asked him about the common problem where a lot of people vote for one of the two major parties because they feel they’d be throwing away their vote otherwise. Knowing that most Libertarians often end up voting Republican he explained to me what the strategy was for this in the upcoming election. Basically it goes like this: when Clinton was in office, government spending increased significantly LESS than under the current administration (even if you account for spending on the war). The reason this took place is because there was some deadlock between the president and congress. One party did not control everything. Now, the Republicans control the congress as well as the presidency, so many bills/plans/policies/programs get passed without as much difficulty.

The solution? Vote Libertarian. Even if doing so ends up costing the Republicans the election, it will at worst create a split government like we used to have, and fewer hair-brained spending programs will get passed.

So, mostly because I was interested in hearing Gary Nolan speak and partially because I had nothing better to do, I went to the Freedom Rally in Boston this weekend. They gave Nolan 5 minutes to speak, which he mostly used as an advertisement for the Libertarian party as the only one who would actually decriminalize drugs, and that was it. Probably not a bad idea given a good chunk of his audience were Democrats and Greens, neither party being particularly serious about this issue.

Now, I’m not sure if “ironic” is the right word for this situation or not, but I’m definitely tempted to use it. Basically there were a fair number of activists who took turns getting on stage and encouraging the audience to get more active, support the cause, etc. The audience was predominantly stoners, a good number of whom were actively smoking up while they were speaking. The ironic part is this – the audience really doesn’t care. The billions of dollars we spend on “The War on Drugs” is supposed to be used to prevent them from doing what they were doing at that moment. They don’t care. Why? Because they do it anyway! The War on Drugs isn’t potent enough for them to even bother fighting back.

The cops in attendance turned a blind eye to the audience’s smoking, partly out of practicality, and partly because they weren’t hurting anyone (hey, go figure). While the figures on how many non-violent criminals we imprison were fairly compelling, as well as the argument (from an ACLU rep) on how these laws lead to more rights violations (mostly searches and seizures), I would have liked to hear more about how criminalizing drugs creates a full underground economy, which is run by guns and violence rather than contracts and courtrooms. Maybe even some discussion on how much money we give to terrorism because drugs are illegal.

Ah well. Seeing everyone smoking and hearing about how much money we spend preventing it was pretty convincing on it’s own. Every two weeks when I get my paycheck, I’m extra-confident that the taxes are being well spent.

Another awful story about a company abusing the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

Skylink Technologies manufactures a universal garage door opener that can be used to open and shut any type of garage door. Its competitor, the Chamberlain Group, claims that Skylink violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA, by selling such a product.

On the upside, it looks like some people are fighting the DMCA based on some of the terrible things the Recording Industry Association of America has done with it (like suing a 12 year old girl).

I recently re-read (or rather, re-listened to the book on CD) Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. One of the great speeches in that book, which I actually hadn’t remembered, is the speech from Francisco d’Anconia debating the argument that money is the root of all evil. It’s reproduced here and here. Worth a read.

“So you think that money is the root of all evil?” said Francisco d’Anconia. “Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?

A fairly interesting article here, talking about setting up a new government for Iraq. More interesting (and the reason I found it) is the discussion of why the US was intentionally created as a Constitutional Republic and not as a Democracy.

The American Constitution is a limitation on the power of government, not on private individuals. Our Founders feared the anarchy of mob rule as much as the tyranny of an oppressive king. They established a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy.

Without limits, democracy amounts to what Benjamin Franklin described as, “two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.”

Not exactly like Callahan’s system, but not unlike it either is a movement to introduce Instant Runoff Voting into American politics.

Instead of just casting one vote for one candidate, voters rank the candidates: 1,2,3, etc. If no candidate receives a majority of the #1 votes, the candidate with the least total of #1 votes is eliminated. The second choice votes from these ballots are then transferred to the other candidates. The ballots are recounted, and candidates are eliminated in this fashion until 1 winner emerges with a majority of the vote.

Worth considering/supporting, I think. The fact that third parties are realistically nothing more than “spoilers” in this country is disappointing.

Fil sent me this link today. It’s pretty neat, a short survey that basically tells you which candidate most accurately reflects your views. The survey isn’t too thorough, but it’s interesting nonetheless. These were my results:

1. Libertarian Candidate (100%)
2. Bush, George W. – US President (66%)
3. Sharpton, Reverend Al – Democrat (47%)
4. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT – Democrat (47%)
5. Kucinich, Cong. Dennis, OH – Democrat (43%)
6. Edwards, Senator John, NC – Democrat (40%)
7. Kerry, Senator John, MA – Democrat (39%)
8. Phillips, Howard – Constitution (39%)
9. Gephardt, Cong. Dick, MO – Democrat (39%)
10. Lieberman Senator Joe CT – Democrat (37%)
11. Graham, Senator Bob, FL – Democrat (32%)
12. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol IL – Democrat (23%)
13. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. – Democrat (-8%)

Thanks to the comment from Allison on Schulte’s log, I was able to read this article.

NIH says McSweegan is director of the US-Indo Vaccine Action Program, and has traveled to countries such as Russia representing the agency. He has also ”produced reports and other work products.”

But McSweegan said he has never been told he was director of the program and knew of no such title. Three other people ran the project, and his work for it — such as arranging coffee for lunches and forwarding messages — was ”the kind of work you would get an intern to do.”

Another $100K well spent by the government. As amazing as it is, it still doesn’t surprise me. And just think, how many people in this guys’ shoes do you think would really fess up to it and give an interview like this? Probably not many. Who knows how many more people are out there flying under the radar collecting our money? The government is huge and cannot account for itself.

And who wants to bet that the NIH is still getting plenty of federal dollars despite these inefficiencies that would leave it bankrupt if it were a private organization?

It’s articles like this that really do get on my nerves. I hope this article didn’t intend to be a serious piece of non-biased journalism (at least it points out the fact that the source is a “liberal think tank”). The article basically says that a new government policy is going to cost 8 million people their overtime pay.

A few notable quotes:

…it would cost 2.5 million salaried employees and 5.5 million hourly employees their right to overtime pay.

The proposal could also cause workers to work longer hours, since the Labor Department doesn’t put any limit on the number of hours per week an employee must work

Now, if someone could point out where in the constitution it says people have a “right” to overtime pay I’d love to read more about that. Also, if someone can point out where under these new regulations it says employers CAN’T continue to pay overtime, that would be interesting to see too. Oh yes, and personally, and I hope for each person, I don’t want or need the government telling me how many or few hours I can work per week.

What is really happening here -I hope- is that we’re seeing less intrusion into our lives from the government. Not to drag the minimum wage argument in, but it’s virtually always the case that when the government keeps it’s nose out of what an employee and employer agree on for wages, the number of jobs available increases. When the government (who is supposed to work for us) stops telling the private sector they have to pay $X, the market can agree on what the correct price is (typically lower) and can afford to offer more jobs based on supply (of employees) and demand (for the products/services). The wages settle to equilibrium and employees will continue to gravitate towards jobs where the demand is higher.

The article itself is picking up on a possible outcome of a given policy and calling it a negative thing simply because some people may get paid less. Well let me phrase it another way: government is undoing the wrongs that it has done. It is stepping back and letting the private sector determine what is right and fair.