Intelligence, Please…

I have owed Joe The Prophet (who is an excellent and active blogger here) a rebuttal to his last tit for my last tat on Wikileaks – I intended to write last night, but was tired. I also purpose myself here to be more civil than last time – I admittedly unloaded both barrels last time (but I didn’t shoot with all guns!). To break the tension a bit, check out the #Wookieeleaks hashtag on Twitter – no STAR WARS fan should be able to resist!

Just to be clear about the cognitive place from which I argue in this discussion, I do not fit in the camp that thinks Julian Assange should be killed – I also don’t know that I necessarily buy the notion that Wikileaks is seditious, largely because Assange is not a US citizen – though it may be espionage. If it is espionage, then it could also be construed as treasonous (defined as “high crimes against the State,” which are punishable by death by federal law in the US). Certainly whoever leaked the documents to Wikileaks – if they did so knowing it to be a direct contravention of US national security information classification guidance, promulgated by (for better or for worse) the Commander-in-Chief of the United States – are guilty of sedition and treason. Whether or not they should be executed, in both the legal and moral senses, is another can of worms for another day.

In my initial argument with The Prophet, I suggested that the leak of documents endangered American troops serving overseas, and demanded to know what criteria would satisfy The Prophet enough to gain his assent to this notion:

Aside from the fact that you fail to recognize that we classify information to protect our human and physical assets in the first place, exactly what constitutes “proof?” How many bodies do you need to see? How many coffins with American flags draped over them before you realize what a categorically bad idea Wikileaks is?

Joe answered thus:

Mr. Scoville argues that classified documents should always remain classified in the interest of troop safety. Were that the case, the torture at Abu Ghraib in violation of U.S. and international law as well as the questionable behavior of the Blackwater organization. The argument that war crimes are an unfortunate accident of war has been used time and time again. When they are committed by the victor, they can be ignored. When they are committed by our enemy, they must be condemned. We can go back and forth on this.

To what extent the vile torture at Abu Ghraib prison that was perpetrated by US soldiers on prisoners of war in Iraq, or the abuses of private contractors in that war have to do with classifying military documents to protect human and physical assets on the ground in wartime is unclear to me. In short, I’m wholly unsatisfied with this line of argument, because it has nothing to do with what I actually wrote.

He continues:

The fact of the matter is that Wikileaks has not posted any information it has received regarding the war over the past seven months. Any information released to the New York Times (and others) is old news on the front, but new news to the American public. Were Mr. Assange to release documents from the past month, even the past six months, he would draw my condemnation as well. But this is not the case.

“Old news on the front?” I think not:

Hundreds of Afghan civilians who worked as informants for the U.S. military have been put at risk by WikiLeaks’ publication of more than 90,000 classified intelligence reports which name and in many cases locate the individuals, The Times newspaper reported Wednesday.

…

The article says, in spite of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s claim that sensitive information had been removed from the leaked documents, that reporters scanning the reports for just a couple hours found hundreds of Afghan names mentioned as aiding the U.S.-led war effort.

…

One specific example cited by the paper is a report on an interview conducted by military officers of a potential Taliban defector. The militant is named, along with his father and the village in which they live.

“The leaks certainly have put in real risk and danger the lives and integrity of many Afghans,” a senior official at the Afghan foreign ministry told The Times on condition of anonymity. “The U.S. is both morally and legally responsible for any harm that the leaks might cause to the individuals, particularly those who have been named. It will further limit the U.S./international access to the uncensored views of Afghans.”

In many instances – particularly in the intelligence context, in which Defense Secretary Robert Gates spent a career before his appointment by former President George W. Bush – information is classified to protect the sources of intelligence in addition to the intelligence itself. Whatever successes coalition forces have enjoyed in the rough Afghan terrain owes in very large part to frightened Afghanis who risk execution by the Taliban for providing logistical or intelligence support to the US and her allies.

We're talking about people who grew up watching things like this, but who helped us anyway.

Julian Assange handed the names of every Afghani who has helped coalition forces hunt down and root out al-Qaeda right over to any Taliban sympathizer living in-country or across the border in Pakistan. This is a MAJOR cascading externality of Assange’s behavior that will have ramifications for not only the safety and well-being of those Afghanis, but for mission valence and morale for troops on the ground. Great job, Julian. Now the blood is on YOUR hands.

I challenged Joe on the issue of Wikileaks-as-transparency-vehicle:

“Transparency” is the new political buzzword to accompany the advent of globally-networked technologies in the 21st century, in much the same way that “independence from foreign oil” has been a buzzword since the days of the Nixon Administration, when Saudi Arabia took charge of OPEC, and oil prices skyrocketed – note that not in 40 years has America actually found that independence. [Making things more transparent, or talking about doing so] is designed to alleviate fears – not to become a manifest reality of political life.

To which he replied:

First, I did not mention “transparency” in my discussion for a reason. The idea that men would wish to be transparent is a noble sentiment, but ridiculous to expect. Would you wish to broadcast your ideas and motivations for each major decision you are forced to make in your life? Heavens no! We wish to make a decision, argue only in support of it, and then leave it alone. To expect more of our politicians is absurd.

“Transparency” is produced only when it benefits men to reveal certain information about the other. A senator will not reveal his corporate ties unless they are used against him by an opponent. Likewise, if two opponents have both received unsavory corporate contributions, they will not reveal the other’s – this is an understood ideal scenario of game theory. Julian Assange has nothing to lose by revealing the Afghan War Diaries – and, as he probably disagrees with the war, everything to gain. On the contrary, the U.S. government has everything to lose from transparency and nothing to gain.

Curiously, though he did not mention transparency in his first foray into posting about Wikileaks, he raises the spectres of Abu Ghraib, Blackwater, and war crimes perpetrated by victors of wars. Again, if transparency-as-good-policy was deliberately left out of the discussion in the first place, I wonder why we’re talking about Abu Ghraib and Blackwater…or why Joe goes on to say that “Wikileaks is a necessary counterbalance to that which would attempt to remain secret (regardless of its motivations)…”

But more importantly (and perhaps likely inadvertently) Joe enunciated my chief frustration with Julian Assange and Wikileaks altogether that, due to time and admittedly emotional constraints, I was unable to express two days ago: Julian Assange is a reckless, self-centered demagogue whose chief concern is gain for Julian Assange. His thinly-veiled vanity trumps his willingness to say “I really want to end this thing – so here’s the information, and I accept the consequences of releasing it.” So when The Prophet writes “Julian Assange has nothing to lose by revealing the Afghan War Diaries – and…everything to gain,” he is indeed prophetic. This has nothing to do with the morality of global politics or the justness of war.

None of this is good for our efforts abroad, or for warfighting in general. One can argue over the justness of our presence in Afghanistan, or about waging war in general – but Joe has not done so. And if The Prophet believes Osama bin Laden has nothing to do with our continued presence in Afghanistan, let him make that argument, too – but only after reading up on the FBI’s Top 10 Most Wanted Terrorists list.

It would be undignified to allow Mr. Scoville to “unload both barrels” without firing back, especially when I maintain a strong belief in my subject matter. Let it first be said, however, that Mr. Scoville is right on at least one point. He accuses me of succumbing to simple political gamesmanship in one of my points, and he is correct.

There are three types of argument a man may make: that of principle, that of policy, and that of politics. Principle, of course, deals with the philosophy of a thing, and whether it is right or wrong to consider pursuing a course of action. Policy deals with the methodology of a course of action. Politics, however, deals with the egos and lower thoughts of men. I succumbed to a political discussion earlier, and it was ill-founded.

As for the rest…

First, I did not mention “transparency” in my discussion for a reason. The idea that men would wish to be transparent is a noble sentiment, but ridiculous to expect. Would you wish to broadcast your ideas and motivations for each major decision you are forced to make in your life? Heavens no! We wish to make a decision, argue only in support of it, and then leave it alone. To expect more of our politicians is absurd.

“Transparency” is produced only when it benefits men to reveal certain information about the other. A senator will not reveal his corporate ties unless they are used against him by an opponent. Likewise, if two opponents have both received unsavory corporate contributions, they will not reveal the other’s – this is an understood ideal scenario of game theory. Julian Assange has nothing to lose by revealing the Afghan War Diaries – and, as he probably disagrees with the war, everything to gain. On the contrary, the U.S. government has everything to lose from transparency and nothing to gain.

Mr. Scoville argues that classified documents should always remain classified in the interest of troop safety. Were that the case, the torture at Abu Ghraib in violation of U.S. and international law as well as the questionable behavior of the Blackwater organization. The argument that war crimes are an unfortunate accident of war has been used time and time again. When they are committed by the victor, they can be ignored. When they are committed by our enemy, they must be condemned. We can go back and forth on this.

The fact of the matter is that Wikileaks has not posted any information it has received regarding the war over the past seven months. Any information released to the New York Times (and others) is old news on the front, but new news to the American public. Were Mr. Assange to release documents from the past month, even the past six months, he would draw my condemnation as well. But this is not the case.

Though I have referenced him here, it is also noted that I did not mention Mr. Assange by name anywhere in the article except in the meta-tag. I have no doubt that Mr. Assange no doubt thinks too highly of himself. I also believe that he injects his own opinions into the information, not to his credit. Yet to say that the only information he has posted were the things critical to the U.S. is entirely false. That, of course, is his most recent release. I think that you will find that it is not his only release, and that his fire has been directed against most everyone.

Mr. Scoville’s final point (except for the one about playing piano in fourth grade – which we shall address later) asks “since when did hunting down Osama bin Laden become an issue of political popularity?” This, of course, may be perhaps the heart of the issue. I do not believe Osama bin Laden is behind our involvement in Afghanistan any more. We have plenty of evidence to suggest that he is at least inactive or ineffective (if not dead), and perhaps more to suggest that our funds might be better spent cleaning up our intelligence community.

And yet, in summation, I cannot argue that the concerns about safety would be invalid had Mr. Assange simply delayed release of these documents until the day after the troops were sent home. Mr. Assange has provided no proof that anything occurred in Afghanistan outside the expected. Nor did he uncover anything comparable to Abu Ghraib that existed outside the realm of military strategy. While I believe that Wikileaks is a necessary counterbalance to that which would attempt to remain secret (regardless of its motivations), the organization made a questionable judgment call in timing. This cannot be disputed, and it was not appropriately discussed by myself or Mr. Scoville. For myself, I attempted to deflect criticism about timing. For Mr. Scoville, he attempted to criticize timing while ignoring the positive impact of a Wikileaks in the world. We are but men.

All this being said, it is most interesting to me that Mr. Scoville played piano in fourth grade while the other kids played football. I believe I was getting fitted for glasses in the fourth grade that would never be replaced by contacts – thus dooming me to a life of nerd. We also would both grow up to listen to Phish. Perhaps this says something about us, which we leave to your consideration.

It’s very rare that I take on one of my own, but I was completely taken aback by Joe The Prophet’s post on Wikileaks of earlier today.

There were several excerpts in that post that left my skin crawling.

• “I am a 100% supporter of Wikileaks.org.” 100%, huh? Not one single question about their motives, or what’s at stake? “Transparency” is the new political buzzword to accompany the advent of globally-networked technologies in the 21st century, in much the same way that “independence from foreign oil” has been a buzzword since the days of the Nixon Administration, when Saudi Arabia took charge of OPEC, and oil prices skyrocketed – note that not in 40 years has America actually found that independence. It is designed to alleviate fears – not to become a manifest reality of political life.
• “…I have yet to see any direct proof that it [has compromised American troops on active duty].” Aside from the fact that you fail to recognize that we classify information to protect our human and physical assets in the first place, exactly what constitutes “proof?” How many bodies do you need to see? How many coffins with American flags draped over them before you realize what a categorically bad idea Wikileaks is?
• “In April, Wikileaks released video of a U.S. helicopter attack on civilians.” And according to this Benjamin Friedman piece from CATO @ LIBERTY, Julian Assange is playing politics with the war in Afghanistan, calling the video “Collateral Murder” despite the pilots’ obvious attempts to comply with the rules of engagement:

My problem with WikiLeaks is its practice of stamping its politics on its leaked documents. For example, in April, when it released that gruesome video of U.S. Apache helicopter pilots in Iraq enthusiastically killing civilians that they mistook for insurgents, WikiLeaks titled the video “Collateral Murder,” despite the obvious efforts of the pilots to comply with the rules of engagement.

Now rather than simply put its documents on the web and let people draw their own conclusions, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange holds a self-congratulatory press conference where he declares “it is our experience that courage is contagious” and compares the document release not just to the leak of Pentagon Papers but to the opening of the Stasi archive in East Germany. Certainly U.S. forces in Afghanistan have committed war crimes (it would be hard to run a war of this scale and avoid them completely) and spun the war’s progress. If these documents reveal more of those doings, that’s a good thing. But even the harshest critic of the war’s conduct ought to be able distinguish it from the activities of a Stalinist secret police force. I bet that the Stasi, faced with a similar leak problem, would have found a way to plug it by now.

Grandiosity is also evident in Assange’s recent response to transparency advocate Steve Aftergood’s critique of WikiLeaks seeming lack of privacy standards. In one paragraph, Assange irrelevantly brags that he spoke before European parliamentarians, asserts that “WikiLeaks not only follows the rule of law, WikiLeaks is involved in creating the law,” announces its opposition to “plutocrats and cashed-up special interests” (not secrecy?), and then claims to have inspired Senate legislation to make Congressional Research Service reports public, even though bills to that effect predate his organization’s existence by nearly a decade.

• “This has bad news written all over it for the President choosing to continue the Afghan war, but it doesn’t mean much better for the Republican party.” You’ve already fallen for the political gamesmanship angle, without considering the consequences for the men and women on the ground!

I come from a long line of military veterans. My father, in fact, did classified work for the US Air Force (when he wasn’t caring for the fighting force as a staff cardiologist). His stint in missile launch command has since been declassified, and so I can talk about it here. Many of the military’s successes are also classified. Why? Because if you find a tactic that is successful, you don’t want information about its execution falling into the wrong hands, lest it be exploited.

"Classified" is NOT subject to interpretation!

Has nobody stopped to think that the only classified information Wikileaks has divulged has reflected poorly on the United States? Has nobody considered the political motivations? I’m guessing Joe The Prophet hasn’t, since he writes of the organization he supports 100%, “The organization has grown in popularity/notoriety, and the U.S. government doesn’t know if it’s a mere fad organization that got lucky, or the start of a trend that would be devastating to government secrecy.” The government has – in many cases, particularly relating to national security – very compelling reasons for keeping secrets! And when did hunting down Osama bin Laden become an issue of political popularity? Is Joe The Prophet advocating mob rule? If so, let him defend it!

Not since the 4th grade when I took piano lessons while the rest of middle school played football have I liked fighting. I do not like war, and I wish that we, as a nation, weren’t eyeballs deep in two of them. But to herald Julian Assange and Wikileaks as some sort of courageous and heroic raconteur of the evils of the American Empire is reckless.

Full disclosure: I am a 100% supporter of Wikileaks.org. I continue to hear countless tales that this information could be used to compromise American troops on active duty, but I have yet to see any direct proof that it has done so. In fact, I believe that the organization actively strives to prevent that scenario in order to preserve its credibility.

That being said, the recent release of the Afghan War Diaries has raised some serious questions. The White House isn’t quite sure how it wants to play the papers: sometimes saying that they aren’t a big deal while at other times saying they “have the potential to be very harmful” to the U.S. Both the Democrats and Republicans have every reason to be a bit nervous about Wikileaks. For obvious reasons, the papers affect the Democratic administration trying to continue to sell a war that just became a lot more unpopular. Yet the Republicans should not forget that the majority of the papers deal with the war under President Bush, and they can be brought up again.

To be sure, the Afghan War Diaries are not a “smoking gun” in any sense of the word. But they do represent the next stage in the organization. In April, Wikileaks released video of a U.S. helicopter attack on civilians. Now, with the War Diaries, the game has stepped up. The organization has grown in popularity/notoriety, and the U.S. government doesn’t know if it’s a mere fad organization that got lucky, or the start of a trend that would be devastating to government secrecy.

This has bad news written all over it for the President choosing to continue the Afghan war, but it doesn’t mean much better for the Republican party. Their recent past / prospective presidential candidates have been McCain (hawk), Palin (hawk), Gingrich (hawk) and Romney (hawk). Meanwhile, the Tea Party is beginning to muster. One of their choice speakers (Paul) is a notable non-hawk. I won’t say a dove, but he is outspokenly in favor of withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan.

I will be watching with intent the discussions held in the wake of the War Diaries leaks. I will be watching more the progress of Wikileaks – for now, the next level of revelations could be far beyond some mixed communications reports from the front.

Remember when Michelle Obama told us we had too many fatties running around?

From a joint effort of the folks at the DNC and MyBO:

George –

Every year, our family tries to come up with a fun way to wish Barack a happy birthday.

And this August 4th, when he turns 49, I have something new in mind.

This has been a big — and hectic — year for him. After signing the Affordable Care Act and Wall Street reform into law — and completing his first year as president — I think it’s safe to say we will remember it for a long time.

And I know full well how much he credits this movement, and the work of supporters like you, for the change that we’ve accomplished.

So I’m putting together a birthday card that I would like you to sign. Together with supporters — and me, Malia, Sasha, and Bo — we’ll wish him a happy birthday and let him know that we’re ready to take on the year ahead alongside him.

Will you wish Barack a happy birthday with me?

This year also brought a lot of surprises — some good and some bad.

Supporters like you have helped him make the best of it — by contacting Congress to help push stalled legislation forward, by re-engaging supporters in the political process, by giving back with service projects across the country, and so much more.

And while we can’t know what the coming year will bring, all of us, working together, will continue pushing forward for change.

Will you help make this a memorable birthday for Barack and wish him a happy 49th?

Thanks so much,

Michelle Obama

I don’t know about you, but I think the First Lady has an awful lot of gumption asking me to sign the president’s birthday card after telling America it has had too much cake.

I hear these are actually made of vegetable pulp and corrugated boxes.

Cross-posted at Liberty Pundits.

United States Representative and conservative firebrand Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) addressed conference attendees after lunch today – he made some pretty broad tactical appeals to online activists that have been uncommon to date on the Right, and to that extent, I was pretty impressed with his speech. He also stuck mainly to economic issues, which is what conservative sweethearts will need to do on their end to help coaxing centrist and libertarian voters out of their strongholds, back into the political and policy spheres.

I’m not a cameraman, but you can view (well, hear really) Pence’s speech in its entirety at my Qik profile.

Cross-posted at Liberty Pundits and The Next Right.

Las Vegas is insane.

Everything I’ve heard about this Disneyland-for-adults is true: neon, sparkles, bells & whistles, herds (and hordes) of people, STAR WARS slot machines (pictures later)…I will definitely have to come back here one day for purposes other than business. My friend Jon Henke (@JonHenke) and I flew from DC yesterday by way of Newark, NJ and didn’t even land in Vegas until 1am PT…it was a long day, and I slept in a bit. It was easy to do in my posh suite at the Venetian, with my sunken living room and remote-controlled drapes! Life is hard.

The first panel I attended today featured Todd Thurman (@toddthurman) of the Heritage Foundation, Brian Faughnan (@brianfaughnan) of Liberty Central, and Alexa Moutevelis (@alexashrugged) of the RNC, all moderated by my Liberty Pundits co-blogger Melissa Clouthier (@melissatweets). The panel focused on connecting grassroots activists in the field to policy shops in DC – like Heritage, Cato, or other think tanks – as well as to communications resources and activism training like those offered by FreedomWorks or the Leadership Institute.

Probably one of the better bits of information passed along during the discussion was the notion that activists in the field shouldn’t be shy about engaging DC-based resources. Yes, DC is busy. Yes, DC occasionally has a heightened, over-inflated sense of self. But DC is also sitting on piles of your cash, looking for a way to return value back to you. So don’t be shy about sending emails or picking up the phones to ask for help.

But more than just connecting grassroots activists to DC to get talking points and policy papers to support candidates back home, the panel focused on connecting activist to activist using technology – that means Twitter, Facebook, the blogosphere, and other online resources.

The RNC announced some nascent, new API and they are transitioning all of their online tools to an open-source platform…the API is apparently already available for developers…more on this later. Despite this move to make RNC resources more available to more people, there was some grumbling in the audience that the RNC fails (on occasion) to return voter vaults back to activists on the ground once they pull out of town following a race. This makes people currently involved with components of the Tea Party movement a bit reticent to cooperate with the RNC in Washington.

After a few questions, and after some dancing around the issue, I asked the panel: is there a sense, going into this November’s elections (and subsequently in 2012) that the Right should be worried about the Left exploiting a growing rift between conservatives and libertarians? If so, how can we, or more appropriately, should we be doing anything differently than the suggestions you’ve all made here today to, strengthen the coalition between these two groups?

The consensus from the panel seemed to be that there’s not really any danger this year – libertarians and conservatives agree in principle that the prevailing issue of this election is the economy, stupid. Throwing the bums out is priority #1 in 2010. But the funnel of candidates is currently full, and the new Congressional primary begins, effectively, on November 3 – it is possible that infighting on the Right might get nastier in 2011 and 2012.

Todd Thurman told me after the panel “We just need to make sure we’re talking, and that we’re sticking together in areas where we agree.” I agree in principle with this strategy, but only inasmuch as it’s a first step. Because there is potential for infighting to become nastier on the Right as we approach 2012, it’s important to talk about areas where we disagree too – libertarians remain (rightly) mistrustful of the Big Government GOP – the same GOP that is trying to ride the Tea Party Tiger into new majorities this fall. Ignoring our differences now can be our foil later.

Cross-posted at Liberty Pundits and The Next Right.

I’m traveling today to Las Vegas, Nevada for three days and two nights for the very first time – known to many as “Sin City,” but home to some of my very favorite people on the planet. There are six hyperlinked words there, folks, meaning six clickable links – check them out!

I doubt very much that I’ll actually play much poker over the next few days – not in this economy anyway (never play with what you can’t afford to lose – seriously, if you think you have a problem, contact the Gamblers Anonymous toll-free hotline, 1-888-GA-HELPS, or 1-888-424-3577). Though I make an effort to take one big casino trip per year, I’m headed to Glitter Gulch today for RightOnline 2010, an Internet activism conference for the center-right and right, designed by Americans for Prosperity to mirror the DailyKos’ Netroots Nation, which will also take place in Vegas this weekend.

But I did used to play quite a bit of poker back in my early twenties, back around the time when fellow Tennessean Chris Moneymaker became an overnight celebrity by winning the main event at the 2003 World Series of Poker, after starting his run for poker’s most prestigious championship event at a $40 sit-and-go tournament on Poker Stars.

All the memories of monster bluffs and bad beats, of laughs and friendships created (and alliances forged…) that have flooded back as I prepared for this trip have given me an opportunity to wax nostalgiac quite a bit about my early twenties (the parts I remember, anyway). But today’s post isn’t about my war stories and fisherman’s tales about gambling – it’s about Vegas, baby – Vegas and politics. But not Harry Reid vs. Sharron Angle – I mean poker. And gambling. And what the Hell the government is doing to screw with people’s private lives.

The Poker Players Alliance is a non-profit, membership-based advocacy organization that sprung up in the wake of the passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA), and aims to help turn back the tide of state and federal government crackdowns on social and commercial games of chance. They believe (as I do) that poker doesn’t even categorically fit the description; poker is a skill game. And just in case the clip above of no-name (at the time) Chris Moneymaker leveling a tournament-altering blow against poker pro Sammy Farha didn’t convince you, here’s Mike McDermott (Matt Damon, Rounders) on sitting down to play against poker pro legend Johnny Chan:

Okay, okay – Rounders isn’t real. But poker skills are, and there’s a line in the movie that goes something to the effect of “Why do you think the same people wind up at the final table at the World Series of Poker every year? What, are they the luckiest people on the planet?” If any of you out there are poker players, and you’re on Twitter, give the Poker Players Alliance a follow (@ppapoker). From their Mission Statement:

The Poker Players Alliance (PPA) is a non-profit membership organization comprised of online and offline poker players. Our membership consists of enthusiasts from around the United States who have joined together to speak with one voice to promote the game and protect the right to play poker in all its forms.

The PPA’s mission is to establish favorable laws that provide poker players with a secure, safe and regulated place to play. Through education and awareness the PPA will keep this game of skill, one of America’s oldest recreational activities, free from egregious government intervention and misguided laws.

The PPA is committed to defending the rights of poker players. On behalf of our broad membership, we will promote and protect poker through advocacy work in Washington, D.C., and throughout the nation. The Poker Players Alliance will work with key lawmakers to ensure a thoughtful and productive dialogue that represents everyone who enjoys and wants to protect the game.

When I used PPA’s online resources to email my Congressman, Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN 5th), a couple years ago to ask him to use time in the 110th Congress to support a repeal of UIGEA, his staff wrote back and said “Get bent.”

Okay, maybe not, but they may as well have.

Ace-King: the Texas Hold 'Em starting hand known around the felt as "Big Slick." I prefer to call it the "Anna Kournikova;" no matter how good it looks, it rarely performs.

There’s nothing more fundamental or essential to the American system of government than the protection of people’s rights to their private property, which they have acquired through labor (usually now in the form of an income, as opposed to a share of land), and their rights to dispose of that property as they see fit. This has been explored exhaustively by great philosophers and game theorists alike. There are certainly social conservative arguments against gambling (of all forms, not just online gambling) – largely out-dated, out-moded traditionalist and absolutist moral arguments about the lasciviousness of a lawless, old West gambler’s lifestyle (booze, loose women, etc.).

Former Democratic President Bill Clinton, too – who I’d hardly call a member of the Religious Right or moral majority – supported a 4 percent federal income tax on all gambling wins. His thinking suggested basically that, if deadbeat dads were going to gamble their paychecks in a casino instead of paying child support, the federal government would assert its prerogative to levy a Pigouvian tax to force deadbeats to internalize the social costs of their behavior, which ostensibly resulted in externalities impacting child welfare:

[Then-candidate Hillary] Clinton’s history with gaming goes back at least to 1994, when President Bill Clinton suggested a 4 percent federal tax on all gaming receipts to help fund the administration’s health care and welfare reforms. The idea did not get very far before 30 governors convinced the administration that the states depended on gaming revenue for their own budgets, and the administration dropped the idea. But it prompted commercial casinos to organize a political action committee to permanently represent their interests in Washington, DC.

Back to my Congressman, Jim Cooper, who has helped the Obama Administration pass landmark vote-buys like health care reform. Other Lefties (mostly self-proclaimed socialists and other progressives) look at gambling as a tax on the poor – “…a highly regressive form of taxation that thrives by inducing false hopes among the financially destitute.” But Coop is a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, representing the Protestant Vatican, and he would no doubt would reject Clinton’s idealism and levying of a tax on gambling, despite the indignation of some of the Music City’s more progressive voices, because of the effect this would have on Nashvillians who have to travel 4 hours by car to the nearest casino resort town to have a little grown-up fun.

No, Jim Cooper the Spineless Statist that everyone seems to hate (but continues to send back to Congress – good luck to Jeff Hartline) thinks that telling me what I can and can’t do with my money – regardless of the fact that I have no estranged children or alimony to pay, and am not financially destitute (although by no accounts wealthy) – is the best course of action. Once again, the prohibition on gambling is another manifestation of the government presuming providence over all income in America, and what people can and can’t do with their earnings…much less hold people accountable for their decisions to wager income on games in which the odds are methodically and deliberately stacked against them, because they choose to view it as a get-rich-quick scheme. Before anyone calls me a hypocrite, I don’t gamble to make money – I pay for entertainment, and I don’t go over the figures I budget ahead of time. I have, of course, “lost it all” before, but by and large I break even or come close to it – that’s a win in my book. And besides – my freedom to do what I want with my money is more important to me than the money itself.

Former Cato scholar and now Senior Editor for Reason Magazine Radley Balko (who, by the way, recently moved to Nashville) is currently participating in an interesting debate over the legalization of gambling at The Economist website – and if anything I’ve said so far in this blog has been of interest, you’ll be riveted by what Radley is doing over there. After all – Tennessee finally made the lottery legal after prohibiting games of chance in the state constitution over 200 years beforehand.

I’ll try to blog as often as I can from RightOnline this weekend – and I’ll try to cross-post here and at my blog at Liberty Pundits. There may also be some good tactical/strategic discussions and panels, and I’ll try to reserve those for my blog at The Next Right. I encourage any and all of you to follow me on Twitter (@stackiii) for more instantaneous (and likely less-filtered, more hilarious) updates.

I’m about to hop on a plane, so until tomorrow…

Cross-posted at Liberty Pundits.

More potato-y goodness!

Let’s just talk turkey here for a second, or rather, potato. The economic potato, if you will. I mentioned first that the first portion of the potato involved a refocusing of the government away from haphazard bailouts and an endless injection of liquidity into the system.

Let me also say that I believe governments can appropriately stimulate the economy, in a statement that will be a departure from conservative orthodoxy. There are certain industries whose grip over the economy is so strong that a small amount of funding has a large economic multiplier. These industries generally have use in every sector of the economy, but it is a rare meeting of the right industry with the right stimulus.

Next week, the House of Representatives is about to start discussing a portion of the Pickens Plan for energy independence. Specifically, they will be debating the merits of a $64,000 tax credit for trucking firms to buy rigs that run on natural gas. I support this plan.

The $64,000 tax credit can be used toward the acquisition of trucks. However, companies would still be held responsible for installing the refueling infrastructure necessary to fuel these rigs at their own expense. The trucks are useless without refueling stations, and it is questionable that any trucking company wants to buy natural gas trucks without also investing in the infrastructure to power them.

As such, it seems logical to me that trucking companies would first wish to upgrade the infrastructure in areas where their trucks can easily return to a base. For instance, the East Coast may see a new wave of fueling station upgrades as firms strategically install the minimum number of stations needed to make the trek from one key area to another. In a purely hypothetical situation, trains may cart goods from Baltimore to Boston, then natural gas trucks would transport certain goods to the Massachusetts area while standard gasoline trucks were used for the trips into Maine.

As businesses continued to realize cost savings from the natural gas machines, it would then behoove them to expand their infrastructure while foregoing purchases of diesel engines in exchange for the natural gas engines. Diesel engines would eventually be retired and trucking companies would maintain natural gas pumps at the necessary places.

Look what I did: I just stimulated the economy with a temporary $64,000 tax break on natural gas engines. But more than that – I gave us a long term direction.

Two things drove the U.S. economy from 2001 to 2008: war and egregious consumer spending driven by cheap credit. We are now tired of war, and credit is difficult to find. As such, we have no economy; we have no purpose. If we are going to rip out of this recession, the economy needs a leader.

I believe investment in alternative energy is the natural (no pun intended) leader for an improved economy. But infrastructure plays are not cheap, and the technology is not quite ready for a full roll-out. But is it possible that we have mis-judged alternative energy because we are thinking too big?

When I was in D.C., I noticed many public trash cans had solar panels on top. These panels powered a trash compactor within the can. Such was their purpose. High tech trash cans. I also regularly utilize a program at work called “PlanetSaver” which should really be called “Save the Company Money by Installing this Software That Turns Off Your Unused Monitor.” Little Windows scripting and suddenly BAM!, the firm is saving electricity costs. These are alternative energy plays. They are simple, and they work.

Quite frankly, wind farms are ugly. They also generally fail to produce the sheer amount of energy needed. But what if we stopped trying to make them do everything? What if we could sell a farmer a windmill at a reasonable price that would power his irrigation, and that was it?

I believe that for decades, innovation and economic growth valued the new and shiny rather than the efficient. By this, I mean that we have valued the computer for its capabilities to do more, rather than its ability to save time doing stuff we already did. As such, conservation (not only of funds, but of time or labor) as an economic engine has fallen out of favor. Yet there are signs that tell me it may be back.

Groupon, an application that promotes saving via coupon clipping, has recently received a $1 billion valuation. That is HUGE for a company that just sells coupons. Alternative energy may find its way as well when it can speak to companies about its cost-saving benefits. Also, you’ll have to make sure that you don’t have any liberals on the sales team that talk about saving the planet. That can backfire.

I believe cost-cutting will begin to be an economy-driver in and of itself, especially if epic inflation kicks in via the Federal Reserve. Time will tell.

And when we have found a way to distill alternative fuels from potatoes, then you shall have all the more reason to call me Prophet.

The economic potato. See below

All of you need to get your act together, stat. Many of you are still operating in a sort of “pissed at Obama” mode that clouds judgment. You sit there, eating the finest of crabcakes and lobster from the East Coast, unaware that the powers that be have every intention of ripping even the lobster from your mouth. Either you take things too seriously or not seriously enough, or both.

The grand exit from this recession, desired by many, is not going to come in the way that the politicos, economists and financial planners believe it will. They (and many of you) are watching things like housing numbers, consumer spending, etc. for clues to the end of this situation. At the same time, they are decrying Obama “job-killing policies” and saying that mess like “austerity” will somehow fix us.

Idiots. If anyone thinks that austerity is some sort of magic pill that’s going to pull us out of the recession at a rapid-fire pace, they are, in a word, wrong. Austerity has all the possibility of throwing us into Great Recession Round 2, if not approached with the appropriate style. I only endorse austerity as the current Administration (and its enemy Republicans) have no notion of how to use stimulus of any sort.

Clearly, everyone has forgotten what makes successful economies happen. Successful economies occur when gentlemen with large brains see some way of capitalizing on gaps in the market and exploit them. We enter epic economic booms when the world is revolutionized, as was witnessed in the technology bubble of the ’90s. Investors, economists, politicians, etc. are so concerned about bubbles that they have forgotten the benefits of the Internet investment cycle. You are reading this post as a result of those investors and innovators alike. You will see it tweeted later today. The Internet has become so commonplace today that investors have forgotten the risks needed to put it in place.

The 2000s was not an investment cycle like the Internet cycle. We, as a country, did not do anything new. We built and upgraded many houses using styles familiar to architects of the 1990s. We purchased many consumer goods from China. And we patted ourselves on the back as we transitioned to a “service” economy.

I have no issue with a service economy in principle. However, if the economy can be compared to a baked potato, we have forgotten to cook the actual potato out in favor of making amazing butter for it.

When I state that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans understand stimulus, I am talking about potatoes. Democrats have decided to pursue a course of adding salt to the uncooked potato with poorly directed stimulus funding – in essence, by randomly injecting liquidity into the system. Republicans, on the other hand, scream “tax cuts” or “bacon bits” for the potato. Tax cuts for whom? Bush-era tax cuts seem to indicate that unconditional tax cuts do not spur real economic growth in a risk-averse populace.

Before I draw the fire of the conservative types that accidentally read this blog because of George, bear in mind that I am not unilaterally opposed to stimulus or tax cuts. I’m merely saying that neither party seems to be able to do it right. Neither one is cooking the potato.

Thus, I condone the use of austerity, so long as spending reductions outpace any sort of tax cuts. I am not in favor of false austerity, where spending is cut only marginally. If we’re going to do it, we must go big – and here’s why.

1. There are reasonable long-term concerns about the deficit if we are expected to take charge of world growth again. Europe’s debt situation sucks, in a word. China’s looking like its growth may be a little long in the tooth. Latin America doesn’t seem to have the special sauce. So, if it is to be us to take up the economic torch, deficit-reduction plans should be in place.
2. It would be far easier to negotiate currency terms with China if we didn’t need them to buy so much of our debt. Asking China to keep buying our debt and loosen the peg on the yuan is a mutually exclusive request.
3. It would send the message to our corporate overlords that there are no more bailouts coming. Why should any company invest any more? If you wait long enough, Congressional Democrats will inevitably throw a bone out there. So far, they’ve covered the financial sector, the health care sector, the automobile sector, and probably the state governments next. The risk of spending your own money is a fool’s gamble when there’s money flying out of Washington.

While the first is a concern, the second and third bullet points deal with the heart of why austerity must be done with a purpose instead of half-assed. Austerity only works if we intend to send a message. Otherwise, long live record low interest rates and epic amounts of government debt.

There are two parts to this potato. This merely discusses the first – that austerity must become a part of the economy in tandem with the second half of the potato. I shall discuss the second half of the potato in my next post.