There was an article this weekend in the Wall Street Journal called It’s Too Easy Being Green, by David Owen. Here’s the letter I wrote to the editor in response–maybe they’ll publish it, maybe they won’t, but in any case, I can share it here.
Dear Sir:
David Owen, in his article, It’s Too Easy Being Green, points out the paradox of trying to be green in a consumption-driven world and cites the ease and push to consume as the real problem. I agree with Mr. Owen that over-consumption is a problem (though my concern is more for the wasteful and rapid use of finite resources than fear of global warming.) In any case, Mr. Owen failed to cite the real reason driving and flying are so cheap, and why fuel itself is so affordable: government policy.
Governments build roads and airports socializing the cost of infrastructure and removing that part of the equation from end-user consumption decisions. By building ever-widening networks of highways, the government encourages developers to build further out of town and allows workers to make farther commutes; by building more airports, the government subsidizes airfare allowing businesses and families to budget for more travel. (Many believe private transportation infrastructure is impossible but all airports used to be private and before the Civil War there were over 400 private road companies in the U.S.)
Another way the government promotes energy use is by employing America’s military to ensure that Middle Eastern oil is in friendly hands. These costly adventures, while greatly increasing the ultimate tax burden on Americans overall, greatly reduces the cost of fuel to the individual consumer.
Finally, government itself is responsible for the low cost of polluting, having decided more than a century ago not to allow strict interpretation of property rights to interfere with pollutants spewed onto private property from factories.
We don’t need government solutions to government-driven problems–take government down to its true function of protecting people and their property and the market will limit consumption and pollution.
Sincerely,
Monica Perez
Excerpts from Last Week's Show: Republicans Better Wake Up to the Ron Paul Movement!
Don’t miss the Monica Perez Show Saturday nights from 10pm -12m ET on 750am News/Talk WSB or listen to it streaming live at showtime from here. In the meantime, here are a couple of excerpts from last week’s show. Monica Perez: Republicans Better Wake Up to Ron Paul Monica Perez Discusses Ron Paul with Callers
Ron Paul Newsletters: "Reality Check"
The New Yorker is the latest publication to attack Ron Paul for his newsletters. Over a brief period of time in the early 1990s, a handful of Ron Paul’s thousands of newsletters contained offensive passages. It’s highly unfortunate that some short-sighted and opportunistic people sullied Ron Paul’s name this way and it was totally negligent (or similarly opportunistic) of Dr. Paul to let material go out under his name that did not reflect his own views.
Should Dr. Paul be forgiven this transgression? It has been almost twenty years since this misstep and neither before nor after that time have Dr. Paul’s own words or actions shown any sign of the attitude that was presented in these newsletters. As a matter of fact, a video from around the time the controversial newsletters were published clearly shows that Dr. Paul viewed the newsletters as financial and economic in nature with a focus on monetary policy in Washington. The voters must decide the seriousness of the matter and its relevance to Dr. Paul’s candidacy. The media, of course, would like this issue to be a deal-breaker for the Ron Paul campaign–after all, Dr. Paul is not their friend.
The January 27th New Yorker piece by Alex Koppelman, Ron Paul’s Filthy Lucre, claims that Lew Rockwell, “who remains close to Paul,” wrote the offensive articles. Koppelman bases this claim on speculation in a 2008 reason magazine article, Who Wrote Ron Paul’s Newsletters? It is hard to believe, however, that Koppelman has not seen the recently revealed photocopies of the main newsletter in question, which clearly shows Lew Rockwell not to be the author. Of the six newsletters that contain offensive statements, one in particular contains most of the incendiary language. This newsletter, though widely cited and reprinted, had always appeared without a “by line,” as if the author were unknown. As early as January 5th, however, the author was revealed: James B. Powell. Although several sites claim this is the same James B. Powell who is a senior editor at Forbes and a fellow at the Cato Institute (and this seems most likely), there is another James B. Powell who is a publisher of investment newsletters even now. I have not found any definitive evidence as to which of these two James B. Powells wrote the newsletters, or if it was a different James B. Powell altogether. In any case, the author is most definitely not Lew Rockwell, nor Ron Paul.
Should Koppelman be forgiven for being negligent or perhaps opportunistic in his article? Perhaps his career should be over. After all, he is a journalist who knowingly or negligently reported something misleading. (I’m going to put a note in my calendar to bring this up again in twenty years, especially if Koppelman keeps his nose clean and turns out to be a good guy, assuming our politics are still different.)
For a more complete version of the Ron Paul Newsletter story, check out the following video, “Ben Swann Reality Check,” which lays out a more complete picture of the Ron Paul Newsletter controversy before the byline was revealed. The second video is a follow up discussing the byline.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGH77lZsglU]
And here’s Ben Swann’s follow up after the James Powell byline was revealed.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DOS9WwKAqA]
Ron Paul Enjoys Luxury at Taxpayers' Expense?
I woke up this morning to find a laughable article on Yahoo, Ron Paul’s First-Class Airplane Trips: Do as I Say Not as I Do, criticizing Ron Paul for splurging on first class flights from Houston to DC. I laughed because of the relatively minor amount of money in question: “he spent $25,000 more than he should have.” After all, Ron Paul returned over $140,000 of his Congressional budget last year alone, and John Murtha, God have mercy on his soul, spent $150,000,000 of taxpayers’ money on an airport he had built and named for himself. But the real kicker here, is that the story isn’t even true! Ron Paul upgrades using frequent flyer miles! Ends up this story was based on a total fabrication by Associated Press and had already been debunked by MSNBC by the time Yahoo published its story. Here’s the whole story:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5IJQYY9dx4]
What Is Really Going On in Iran?
There is an article in today’s Wall Street Journal titled The Mortal Threat from Iran, by Mark Helprin, which begins with this line: “To assume that Iran will not close the Strait of Hormuz is to assume that primitive religious fanatics will perform cost-benefit analyses the way they are done at Wharton.” If that didn’t get my propagan-dar pinging, nothing would. Dehumanizing the target and terrifying us with death threats are classic earmarks of war propaganda. Given that not a single dissenting voice on this issue can be heard from the mainstream media–the left-dominated TV arm and the right-dominated radio arm–one wonders why the Wall Street Journal is coming out so strongly on this. I mean, of course this country of 70 million people is working to develop a bomb they will gleefully pop off at Israel so they can cheer wildly as they watch 300 missiles rain down on themselves in retaliation–they are irrational, primitive, religious fanatics, after all, every one of whom would love to commit suicide as soon as possible. Why even bother pounding the drums, let’s just wipe them off the face of the earth and be done with it already. Oh, but what is that kooky Ron Paul always on about? “Maybe there are people over there” or some such nonsense–hmm. I know it’s a silly waste of time, but before I paint my face and grab a flag, I just want to see if there’s any possible explanation for Ron Paul’s weird position. (I mean, what kind of freak applies the Golden Rule to foreigners anyway?)
So, just for giggles, I went to Foreign Policy Journal online for an alternative viewpoint on the subject and I found one from none other than the always outspoken and never politically correct Paul Craig Roberts. This is it:
The Next War on Washington’s Agenda
by Paul Craig Roberts
Only the blind do not see that the US government is preparing to attack Iran. According to Professor Michel Chossudovsky, “Active war preparations directed against Iran (with the involvement of Israel and NATO) were initiated in May 2003.”
Washington has deployed missiles directed at Iran in its oil emirate puppet states, Oman and the UAE, and little doubt in the other US puppet states in the Middle East. Washington has beefed up Saudi Arabia’s jet fighter force. Most recently, Washington has deployed 9,000 US troops to Israel to participate in “war games” designed to test the US/Israeli air defense system. As Iran represents no threat unless attacked, Washington’s war preparations signal Washington’s intention to attack Iran.
Continue reading this article at Foreign Policy Journal.
For another view, watch Col. Shaffer on Freedomwatch:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUrX9t9v3rY]
Ron Paul Highlights from South Carolina Debate–and Fox Busted for Being Insanely Biased Against Ron Paul!
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN0cMcCK1gk&feature=player_embedded]
Ă…nd here Fox News busted as insanely biased against Ron Paul: “Ron Paul. Ron Paul way above the line. Ron Paul always tends to do well in these twitter surveys. They are not scientific, they are people voting for their favorite candidate sometimes, at other times they are a good measure of what’s being said.” How do these guys decide when it is a good measure and when it’s not? It is crystal clear the “reporter” is saying that when Ron Paul comes out ahead, it’s not a good measure but when someone else does well it is a good measure. At least this guy is busted by a fellow reporter who must have been inundated with twitter-rage!
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KfDJfvYH6CY]
What's Worse: Lying & Killing or Not Recycling & Being Lazy? Government is Upside Down as Usual….
Have you ever noticed how horrible government ads are? Meth billboards with bloody sputum, miserable overweight kids designed to sicken moms? These ads might not be tolerated on the grounds of decency, verity or good taste from the private sector, but the government is held to lower standards. I have long been horrified by the upside down priorities of government, not to mention that government efforts to control behavior often backfire. Prohibition led to a 400% INCREASE in alcohol consumption in the United States. Currently, the Drug War takes far more lives than illegal drugs themselves. 45,000 people have died in the US-exported Mexican Drug War over the past six years, while only 4,500 people die of illegal drug use in the US annually. (This contrasts with 15,000 deaths per year in the US from prescription painkillers–see my article on this.)
This latest ad from government not only offends the sensibilities, it attempts to redefine morality: It’s cute to lie to your kids for a good cause, and what cause could be better than Michelle Obama’s War Against Obesity. Check it out…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48bqoLoPkQ4
Karen Singer Avrech on Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government blog articulates well her disgust with this sort of thing. If you want to read her brief article, click here.
This recent example reminded me of a disgusting commercial I saw in LA when I lived there a few years ago. I have a good sense of humor and this is supposed to be funny but I couldn’t crack a smile as this aired on my toddler’s show, Animal Atlas.
The First and Last Freedom by Jiddu Krishnamurti
My review of the book The First and Last Freedom, by Jiddu Krishnamurti Continue reading…
Is Operation Fast & Furious Obama’s Iran-Contra?
I think there’s much more to Operation Fast & Furious than we’ve heard about so far. Will it bring down Eric Holder? How about Obama? Listen to my take on the developing story: Monica Perez Fast and Furious