The 'Do-it-yourself, one-man Twitter Bomb'

Yes.

This is yet another blog about my exploits on social media.

As a change of pace, I have decided to focus on Twitter this time (although, I still love Facebook... perhaps a little too much).

Among the efforts of supporters for Governor Gary Johnson is regular "Twitter bombs" intended to get his name trending.

I posted the battery of eleven tweets below and will likely do so again on a regular basis to drive my point home. All I will need to do is copy-and-paste them in sequence when the urge strikes me.

I would encourage you, Dear Reader, to do the same to get Twitter awash with entries carrying the name "Gary Johnson" and containing other hash tags (prefaced with a #) intended to reach the widest audience possible. Not every tweet has all the same items (either with # or @) as that was due to the need to edit some to fit in the 160-character limit.

Also, I like the show "Red Eye." Feel free to replace that with whatever suits you.

**********

9 reasons #Romney is just like #Obama (a.k.a., vote 4 #GaryJohnson) @GovGaryJohnson #Libertarian #TeaParty #RedEye #Liberty #election2012

1) I’m supposed to believe #Romney's had change of heart on #abortion @GovGaryJohnson #Libertarian #TeaParty #RedEye #Liberty #election2012

2) & supposed to believe #Romney had change of heart on #GunControl @GovGaryJohnson #Libertarian #TeaParty #RedEye #Liberty #election2012

3) & I’m supposed to believe #Romney's had a change of heart on #IndividualMandate for insurance #GaryJohnson #Libertarian #TeaParty #RedEye

4) & I’m supposed 2 believe #Romney had a change of heart on #taxation @GovGaryJohnson #Libertarian #TeaParty #RedEye #Liberty #election2012

5) & I’m supposed 2 believe #Romney had a change of heart on #spending @GovGaryJohnson #Libertarian #TeaParty #RedEye #Liberty #election2012

6) & I’m supposed to believe #Romney had a change of heart on raising #DebtCeiling @GovGaryJohnson #Libertarian #TeaParty #RedEye #Liberty

7) & I’m supposed to believe #Romney's had a change of heart on #CorporateBailouts @GovGaryJohnson #Libertarian #TeaParty #RedEye #Liberty

8) & I’m supposed to believe #Romney's had a change of heart on business #regulation #GaryJohnson #Libertarian #TeaParty #RedEye #Liberty

9) & I’m supposed to believe #Romney has had a change of heart on #GovtGrowth @GovGaryJohnson #Libertarian #TeaParty #RedEye #election2012

All that defies common sense and #Conservative’s know it! @GovGaryJohnson #Libertarian #TeaParty #RedEye #Liberty #election2012 #BigGovt

An open letter to anyone trying to dissuade me

How can I tell we're in the home stretch before the election?

That's easy: the pace of Republicans posting, commenting, and messaging in social media is picking-up regarding voting Libertarian.

A few are genuine in their patriot-to-patriot approach to the subject (such as the individual to whom I replied with the comments below) and handle the banter with respect while others are behaving amusingly like Democrats.

To all of you, no matter your level of civility, I will not waiver.

The problem is nothing will change under a Romney Administration. He may refrain from abusing Executive Order power to the extreme that President Barack Obama has...

But, in the end, nothing in terms of government size, approach to government intervention in the economy and all other aspects of "domestic policy," deficits, and encouraging unconstitutional dependence upon government by the people will change.

It will only have a right-wing slant intead of Obama's extreme slant to the left.

What Romney is going to do, if elected, is leave all the government power structures in place for the next Obama-ite who is nominated to unseat or succeed him.

And then it will be the same intellectually dishonest arguments all over again: "We can't let that guy get elected so you mustn't vote third party..."

And the cycle will continue until our children and grandchildren have witnessed how we allowed Friedrich Hayek's "The Road To Serfdom" to go from a book on politics and economics into a prophecy.

I'm taking a stand now... Now and for the remainder of my time on this Earth.

The only "wasted vote" is one cast for someone you don't believe in.

Period.

Give me a ‘Y’! Give me an ‘A’! Give me a ‘W’...

So, another season of big-money football is underway.

Pardon me while I let-out an exaggerated yawwwwn...

Between the collegiate openers this past weekend the NFL’s kick-off this week, I’d say, “Someone wake me when it’s over.” But, there’s too much work to be done for me to play Rip van Winkle just yet.

As big-leaguers suit-up for over four months of gridiron action, we will be treated to professional debuts of a couple hundred football players who blew-off – oops, um, who deferred – their remaining coursework of their final academic year to focus on becoming the most drool-worthy cut of meat at the butcher store – oops, um, to get the best look possible for the draft back in the spring.

They dedicated four years – or perhaps three years (or even in a few cases two years) – to prepare themselves for that rite of passage.

For many of them, first it was draft day and now their opening games will become the most important days of their lives... as opposed to graduating from college... or a wedding day... or when one lands the job of a lifetime... or the birth of a child... and so on.

”Stating the obvious” alert!
I won’t lie to you, I harbor an emergent bias against big money sports. Ironically, I used to be one of the biggest sports junkies you could ever experience the disdain for meeting. But, that has been giving-way to a new perspective.

On the one hand, there are directly related points which steered me to this line of thought: the hyper-saturation of sports on television (not to mention online); the farce which has become of every league’s collective bargaining agreement processes – which boil-down to millionaires quibbling with billionaires; that so many of us feel driven to excuse every kind of insidious behavior by athletes from domestic abuse to drunk driving to running dog fighting operations; and my growing abhorrence for celebrity worship – which glorification of sports inevitably entails.

On the other hand is the myriad of real issues and stories such as 9% unemployment, the continued decline of our currency, the failure of the War on Drugs, war of some nature taking place on six out of seven continents, and the loss of freedom and liberty at the hands of a growing, out-of-control government.

But wait! There’s more...
Additionally, it is undeniable that society’s entrenched, unshakable obsession with sports is intertwined with several sources of misery in everyday life – which stem from the fact far too many of us seek (as discussed above) to turn a blind eye to the behaviors of athletes.

It begins in high school. Our youth very quickly grasp that as a result of their participation in sports they enjoy being treated differently by being allowed to conduct themselves under a more relaxed set of standards. The top-performing players even take-on a degree of celebrity status that simply is not healthy for someone at such a young age.

As a result, the inclination for bullying increases. Every one of us has witnessed this in our own life experiences – a herd or mob mentality creeping-in as young people realize the value of safety in numbers – under the guise of unity – when engaging in bullying.

Such privileged treatment all too often fuels a sense of entitlement and superiority that a number of these individuals will carry with them for a lifetime: these are people who will grate our nerves on a day-to-day basis. We all have had someone like that as a co-worker, relative, neighbor, or somewhere in our lives.

And, it only gets worse in college. I’ve seen it. As an erstwhile sports editor for my school’s student newspaper, I have seen it.

Through the decades, the immunity and entitlement mentalities clearly have trickled-up into the ranks of coaches and administrators – as demonstrated by the horrific Jerry Sandusky scandal at Penn State.

Finally...
I’m sure a number of you don’t agree with the reasons for my waning enthusiasm toward sports. I know to my west there are football fans by the thousands excited about former Stanford quarterback Andrew Luck coming to their team. Of course, to my east, there is the burning question of whether the Steelers can find a serviceable backup for Ben Rapistburger... er, I mean Ben Roofieburger... er, I mean... Oh hell – you know who I mean.

Still, in anticipation of another autumn of increased intellectual drudgery, part of me has drafted a big yawn while another part is recruiting my hand to cover the resultant void.

Obomneycare: prepare to watch the next shoe drop here in Ohio

There has been no shortage of doomsday memes targeting the so-called Affordable Care Act since President Barack Obama and his koolaid-drinking worshipers (er, rather, his fellow Democrats in Congress while they held the majority in both houses of it) began promoting it in 2009.

If you’re a regular at Politifact, then you can be reassured they’re all patently false. Certainly, Politifact is entirely free of any bias or agenda; you can trust them, of course.

Well, getting ready to join the dot-com bubble, housing bubble, and banking bubble in bursting is the left-wing fairytale bubble.

We were all reassured via teleprompter talking points, “If you like your present insurance plan, and you’re happy with it, you’ll be able keep it.”

That sounded so wonderful so long as you utterly ignored economic and market histories and the reality they tend to predict with annoying accuracy.

My fellow Buckeyes, reality is trying shake us all out of a slumber-like haze.

Days ago, I was informed during this particular shift that at a recent roundtable session between production associates and management, one of our co-workers asked a straight-up question regarding benefits down the road. When Obomneycare [my reinterpretation of the actual term used] goes into full-swing, what will happen to their insurance coverage?

What this individual received was an equally straight-up, eye-contact answer.

When the provisions of Obomneycare are fully implemented, Honda of America Manufacturing will drop its employer-based health insurance plan and simply pay the IRS penalties – as that will be less expensive than providing a coverage plan under the forthcoming health care regime.

This news got others at the area of discussion wondering out loud what their choices will be. That will be simple: they either can sift through the sea of federal laws and regulations in order to pursue their own health insurance or be moved into the government implemented insurance exchange.

As the prospect of the second option quickly sank-in, I heard people who have been employed with Honda for the better part of 20 years ask a very pointed question. What even is the point of working like we do if everything we need can be had through public assistance?

Here we have two seminal exigencies that beg examination.

First, what will the overall economic impact be here in Ohio (not to mention nationwide) when one of the three largest job providers in this state has every intention of canceling insurance benefits?

If an employer the size of Honda of America Manufacturing, which keeps thousands of residents working, will no longer carry job-based insurance there can be no way to predict how long will a prominent portion of one-sixth of our economy even remain in existence.

That is, unless your prediction is that sooner – rather than later – it won’t.

Second, I watched regular, salt-of-the-Earth people unknowingly discuss what latter-day philosophers such as Alexis du Tocqueville and Frederic Bastiat have predicted as the inevitable consequence which results from making more and more components of life a matter of public distribution.

When one hears hard-working, blue-collar folks question the very purpose of staying employed and being productive contributors to society – people who are at a point in life when they have been working for the majority of it – what impact will that have on future generations who will seek everyday examples to guide their own choices?

The alarm clock of reality is ringing, everyone. Please stop hitting the snooze button.

A well regulated Media, being necessary to the security of...

I can’t get enough of online social media.

You probably already know this: you’re 99.99% likely to be reading this at my public Facebook page. My regular stream of posted links demonstrates it – as does my still-expanding waistline.

There’s also the occasional game session via Facebook’s apps.

Read through my body of writings and you’ll see that a number of my essays are the product of comment-section debates or even a direct copy-and-paste of an entry in one of those exchanges.

When it comes to my private timeline, I’ve allowed myself to become swept-up in the latest craze of “Sharing” pictures (you know, this current trend of activity that has Facebook looking suspiciously a lot like MySpace). I have no doubt my indulgence of said trend is to the chagrin of my friends who are less libertarian than me.

However, one “Share” by someone on my friends list shortly ago has my mind’s red flags waving as if a meteor strike were impending.

I am largely in agreement with the graphic in question, which explores the various forms of doublespeak which have been circulating through the mainstream media (particularly over the last 10 years) – that is, except for the statement, “Well, that’s what happens when governments transfer the public airwaves to private corporations in a practice known as deregulation.”

While much of the other commentary contained in it is a legitimate criticism of what our federal government has been doing for far too long, I am curious how one is able to argue that the best remedy for inadequate scrutiny of governmental activity is to put operation of broadcast media (news media in particular) in the hands of the same government.

The author of the graphic points to the embedding of reporters among our military while they are in theater – thus compromising their objectivity when it comes to covering all that transpires.

That last point is a valid one. However, to use it as the basis for arguing – or even suggesting – we need greater regulation of media (if not outright handing-over of the airwaves entirely to a government monopoly) is to miss the point completely of the following axiom in the Bill of Rights: “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...”

To belabor my point, how does it make sense to put any form of media under the control or constraints of government if its first-and-foremost function is to keep watch over the actions of government?

I contend that, even in their present state of so-called deregulation, America’s major media operations have been doing a good-enough job of serving as lapdogs for the elected and appointed statists – without making them outright agents of the state.

Additionally, given the size and scope of the Federal Communication Commission’s authority (especially in recent years), the whole notion of the airwaves lacking for regulation is downright laughable.

Further problems I have with any pro-regulation argument is the fact our understanding of concepts such as “speech” and “press” has necessarily had to evolve with the advent first of radio broadcasting, followed by television, then cable and satellite transmissions, the Internet, and now wireless handheld electronics.

“Speech” and “press” arguably can (if not must) be thought-of under the blanket delineation of “media” – with “media” being afforded the exact same constitutional protection today as “speech and press” were understood to enjoy 225 years ago.

If this notion does not reign supreme in the consciousness of our society we run the risk of it embracing such rationales as the airwaves are public domain and even the Internet is a public utility – thus both must be governed in the same manner as a utility.

What would be the next domino in the row to fall: independent blogging along with video posting (a la YouTube) inevitably suffering the same fate as all other independent enterprises in any hyper-regulated industry?

For example, independent farm operations are being steadily squeezed out of existence by an ever-growing body of laws and regulations that are popularly perceived to exist in order to keep large corporate agricultural and food production operations in line – all in the name of public safety for the masses at large.

Just look at the growing crackdown by the U.S. Department of Agriculture on independent operators offering farm-fresh versions of products such as milk, cheese, and eggs in rural locales. This development in the regulatory nanny state is the inevitable next stage in the progression of a government that believes it exists to save us all from ourselves.

Consider the consequences of, for example, taking the equivalent approach by the USDA toward Amish farmers and applying them in the realm of traditional and new media.

Imagine if the provisions of the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002 (thankfully which had key components struck-down by the U.S. Supreme Court in its January 2010 decision in the Citizens United case) were still in play and even expanded via interpretation by the courts to hold dominion over online activity. What would become of print and broadcast media – and potentially any electronic access to information – if such laws and regulations were applied by the FCC with the same tenacity local produce co-ops have had to endure at the hands of the USDA.

Pardon my boldness, but I’ll gladly take my chances with media in our nation being able to take to the presses, airwaves, and Net – free of regulatory circumscription.

As '4/20' comes and goes, only honesty will win discussions

Some people would have us believe that if the United States were to "stop enforcing the War on Drugs" our country would "turn into Mexico."

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it ignores one simple truth: as the violence in Mexico escalates, it is slowly spilling over our borders because of the "War on Drugs."

The reason why Mexican drug cartels are so brutally and cold-bloodedly violent is that since what they're doing already is illegal, there's absolutely no incentive to spurn other criminal actions such as turf wars, kidnapping, and so on. Instead of vying for customers through marketing and offering a superior product – which is the case with legal goods, the most assured way to get and keep customers is through violently eliminating the competition.

By legalizing at the very least all-natural intoxicants such as cannabis, the raw coca leaf, and poppy plants, there becomes incentive for those who still would engage in distributing and/or selling them to not just step out of the shadows but even to comply with regulatory statutes such as those governing the production, handling, marketing, and sales of alcohol. There would be no point in violent activity directed at competitors.

Also, by ending the "War on Drugs" that would mean no longer aggressively pursuing, prosecuting, and incarcerating those who use drugs: there becomes incentive for those individuals to step out of the shadows with their choices (much the same as what happened with alcohol consumption once Prohibition ended as a result of the repeal of the 18th Amendment), which would in turn make it much easier for those who wish to engage in drug abuse outreach to identify the people they desire to help.

That, right there, is billions (if not tens-of-billions) of dollars saved every year. Much of the remaining tens-of-billions of dollars saved comes from not having to house the vast majority of those who are in prison for "drug-related crimes" – particularly those prosecuted as felons for simple possession of small amounts.

Also, the reason why Mexican drug cartels are multi-billion-dollar operations is that there is (for a lack of a better phraseology) a market for their products. If those who would produce, ship, and sell legal intoxicants were given the incentive to stay out of the cross-hairs of the criminal justice system (licensing, taxation compliance, local zoning ordinances, etc.), there would be an even further quelling of violent and corrupt practices as operating completely above board offers the promise of staying out of prison.

When the 21st Amendment was passed, America did not descend into a sea of drunkenness where anyone and everyone old enough to unscrew a bottle cap would die by drowning in booze and their own vomit. The same will hold true with drugs.

It is beyond time to do-away with the irresponsible rhetoric permeating this issue.

GOP antics took ugly turn

Just when I thought it was safe to deduce partisan politics couldn’t get any more bizarre in Ohio, another story emerges which boggles the mind.

Bill Yarbrough was an erstwhile candidate for the Libertarian Party in 2010: he sought the 3rd District State Senate seat then. For this year’s election cycle, he made the decision to re-identify himself as a Republican and challenge incumbent congressman Pat Tiberi for that party’s nomination for Ohio’s District 12 seat. At his Website he even discusses frankly the fact he “ran as a third party candidate to learn the ropes” about pursuing public office.

Since getting to know him during our respective campaign trails two years ago, I came to admire Yarbrough. Naturally, I was disappointed to learn he had chosen to make the switch in party identities. But, I will do my best to respect his choice – the freedom for him or anyone else to do so is one of the many little things which make America great.

That choice, however, led to circumstances I doubt Yarbrough (or anyone else, for that matter) could have anticipated.

When I spoke with him during the recent Libertarian Party of Ohio state convention, he told me when he began his run for Congress he contacted each of the Republican Party chairs in each county the 12th District touches. His main goal in doing so was to seek potential endorsements from the county parties.

What he got, instead, from Delaware County’s Executive Committee chair Bob Mann was a complaint filed with the Ohio Elections Commission alleging Yarbrough had committed federal election fraud.



And the heinous crime about which Mann felt so strongly that he sought federal felony charges to be brought against him?

Yarbrough identified himself as “Republican” on his candidate petitions.

That’s right: for engaging in the sinister act of realigning himself with the Grand Ol’ Party, it was not enough in Chairman Mann’s eyes to petition the OEC to have Yarbrough removed from the Republican Primary ballot – Mann was fully ready to have him prosecuted and incarcerated.

So, instead of being able to run an effective primary campaign, Yarbrough had to begin pouring money into his legal defense, spend time publicly clearing his name in the weeks leading-up to the March 6 primary, and watch the inevitable stress on his wife and children mount.

Needless to say, Tiberi coasted to his party’s nomination by a wide margin.

This is where my blood begins to boil over this situation. I don’t give a damn what your party affiliation may be, no one can deny that Mann was perfectly willing to risk destroying the life of an innocent man, a good man, a family man with young children. And, he was willing to do so for the narrow, repugnant purpose of preserving the status quo.

To all of you who identify as Republicans, there is no middle ground on this item. Anything less than an unequivocal repudiation of Mann’s actions constitutes complicity and approval. Sympathy for Yarbrough is cheap. You need to show a backbone and fully denounce what Mann did.

Furthermore, it is easy to see Chairman Mann clearly wanted to set a precedent that was intended to have a chilling effect on anyone further down the road who might dare challenge any Republican incumbent within the party – especially if they’re running as a liberty candidate or constitutional conservative.

So, Tea Partiers, take heed of Bill Yarbrough’s ordeal. To those of you who insist the path to restoring America must be accomplished by reforming The Republican party from within, does your beloved political party really want that reform?

In his run for State Senate two years ago, Yarbrough successfully earned the endorsement of local Tea Party groups and identifies heavily with the Tea Party movement.

Now, we know what the Republican Party was willing to do to him.

What will they be willing to do to you?