Ordinarily, I would not bore my readers my readers with an economics lesson. But unfortunately, some very popular, highly foolish ideas about the economy have proven the need for more Drewish wisdom!
The Morality of "Price-Gouging"
Recently, a hurricane tore through Texas and significantly cut off oil flow to parts of Tennessee. Naturally, a cutback in supply should signal that prices increase. Nonetheless, our brilliant, hardworking government lawyers apparently had already eliminated violent crime, so they had enough time on their hands to threaten gas station owners during this crisis. If the owners raised gas prices due to the limited supply, the government would charge them with the crime of "price-gouging."
Our esteemed Governor Bredesen made the following comments:
"We will be very tough and very aggressive on people who take advantage of this situation. I hope people do not try to capitalize on the effects of these storms at the expense of Tennesseans, who are already struggling with high gas prices."
Well thank you for that piece of wisdom, Karl Marx. Suddenly I remember why I campaigned against this idiot in 2002.
"Gouging" does not exist. Raising prices is natural and moral. Whenever a quantity becomes scarce, it becomes valuable! Raising the price means acknowledging reality. Acknowledging reality is right, not wrong!
If gas prices rose, people would use less gas. They would stop taking pleasure trips. They would carpool. They would stop wasting a precious resource. Furthermore, increased gas profits would encourage more suppliers to move into the area, ultimately fixing the situation faster.
Instead, the government legally froze prices during the crisis. As a result, hordes swarmed every gas station in Nashville, filling up as many gas containers as they could. Drivers had to wait in line for hours, and some people simply could not find gas at all.
Whereas a price hike would motivate more suppliers to enter the market in search of profits, local gas stations actually sufferedduring this price freeze. Think about it:If you owned a gas station and suddenly saw your supply drop by 75%, how would you earn any money?! Simple, you would raise prices…Oh, wait a minute.
Housing Bubble and the Financial Crisis
Consider the current financial woes, which Barack Obama compares to the Great Depression. Many fools have stated that capitalism caused these problems, but the exact opposite is true. In 1995, the Clinton Administration began threatening lenders, forcing them to make bad loans to poor people. Once any idiot could get a house (even if he couldn't afford it), housing prices rose. Everyone assumed house values would continue increasing, so they kept on buying houses they could not afford. (Even if the house seemed unaffordable now, it would be valuable later!)
Unfortunately, the bad loans to poor people could not go on forever. Once the poor people stopped paying -- and lost the ability to buy unaffordable homes -- everyone realized their houses were not worth as much as they thought. Humongous housing lenders like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have run into problems and essentially gone bankrupt.
"But Drew, I think everyone should be able to have a house!" Yeah, so did Bill Clinton and his attorney-general, Janet Reno.
At this point, you may ask yourself, "On principle, if the government caused this economic problem, shouldn't the government therefore fix it?" Just listen to the following message from the Great One, Mark Levin, and become enlightened on this issue:
Newer, Better, Bigger
Current mood: bummed
Category: Web, HTML, Tech
Facebook-related post. Be thankful that, unlike Facebook, Myspace actually gets better over time, not worse.
I wallow in misery. To my horror, Facebook has implemented sweeping changes to its layout. Facebook forced these "innovations" upon me yesterday. Apparently the changes occur in waves, afflicting different people at separate times to prevent a worldwide uproar. Chiefly among the annoying alterations, Facebook developers split my profile into four disconnected sections. The New Facebook bars me from reconstituting my profile as one, singular whole. Sadly, even the links to the DREW BLOG no longer appear on the front page. My dismembered profile rests in ashes.
How could such a monstrosity as the New Facebook emerge? Every monstrosity develops over time, but some emerge more quickly than others. Overall, parallels abound between Facebook and the United States government. And like government, Facebook never stops growing.
In 2004, the website began in elegant simplicity. Ultimately, however, Facebook embraced self-complication in an attempt to match the complexity of its global rival, Myspace.
A little complexity can be nice, of course. One early Facebook innovation was the Newsfeed. This homepage feature provided up-to-date information about what friends were doing. Whereas some users whined about the Newsfeed, I always praised the Newsfeed as a positive innovation. Regardless, criticism of the Newsfeed never raged against the feature's complexity. Instead, critics merely called the Newsfeed too "stalkerish." Considering that Facebook "stalking" causes no harm to others, I found this criticism girly and stupid.
The Newsfeed encouraged users to log on more frequently, thereby increasing the success of Facebook advertisements. I personally began utilizing certain ads, even buying a Rambo shirt from one such sponsor. Ultimately, Facebook responded even to criticisms about this positive feature. Developers implemented better privacy options, which could essentially negate the Newsfeed's existence for more timid users.
Overall, this early innovation gave users additional freedom and options, not more restrictions.
Even after developing the Newsfeed, however, founder Mark Zuckerberg held out hope for additional change. Discontent with his power and population, he expanded his domain to include new realms. First, high schoolers joined the service, and then ultimately anyone with an email address could sign up. Facebook nativists protested this unregulated influx of foreigners. Eventually, however, most users grew to accept the newcomers.
Of course, the newcomers did present some problems. Spamming began to disrupt the service from within. Facebook "applications" eventually began to take over, harassing and tormenting innocent bystanders. The people cried out for reform. The Facebook rulers responded by mildly restricting the communication of applications, allowing users to "block" annoying programs and messages. Overall, Facebook successfully clamped down on much of the nonsense caused by its own global expansion.
Much like real government, the rulers of Facebook solved certain problems aptly, even while simultaneously creating others. Most unfortunately, however, these leaders began to see problems where none really existed. They strived for utopia, only to fall into hell.
Faced with the clutter on certain profiles brought about by the implementation of Facebook applications, the brilliant Facebook reformers sprang to action. Because some application whores loaded too much junk on their profiles – making their pages difficult to load – Facebook mandated a new, centralized organization for every profile. Such is the New Facebook. No one had any choice in the matter. Even the mild-mannered, responsible individuals whose simple profiles contained their only religious views, a few quotes, and maybe a wall now had to divide these features across different "tabs."
The new modifications serve two main purposes. First, they force users to click their mice more often, increasing the number of ads viewed. Second, the mandated organization allows application whores to accept as many inane, pointless applications as they desire without cluttering their profiles.
Of course, additional mouse-clicks and ads viewed simply mean that users will spend less time reading each ad. Moreover, the awkward new layout lacks elegance and beauty. Whereas the new alterations will coerce individuals into "ordering" their profiles, users consequently lose the liberty to arrange their profiles freely. Even assuming that cluttered profiles were indeed a problem, better solutions existed. For example, one less restrictive measure could simply limit the number of applications allowed per profile.
Application whores would cry foul over such a restriction, but the current changes do the same thing – while simultaneously harming everyone else. Like government, Facebook promotes irresponsibility and stupidity among its citizens, and then picks the dumbest way possible to remedy the problem.
Founder Mark Zuckerberg poses in front of his latest innovation.
Like government, Facebook gives people salaries for accomplishing nothing. Facebook pays certain geniuses to sit around all day brainstorming wonderful solutions for problems. These employees pursue frequent and constant alterations, always embracing the maniacal dream of a newer, better, bigger Facebook. Ever discontent with the status quo, these overpaid theorists have now dismembered every profile, mangling a familiar and beloved product. Besides funding these brilliant college graduates, Facebook also pays big bucks to company founder Mark Zuckerberg. Surprisingly, these fat cats grow rich even while Facebook itself has never earned a profit. Like government, Facebook maintains large deficits and grows deeper in debt by the day. In 2008, for example, Facebook will have losses of somewhere around $50 million.
Unfortunately, even though millions of users actively protested the latest changes, resistance seems to be futile. The New Facebook is a monstrosity. I would much prefer four more years of the same.
Restoring the Tenth Command
Current mood: anxious
Category: News and Politics
I used to wonder why God made Ten Commandments instead of nine.
After all, the Tenth Command seems fairly repetitive: "You shall not covet...anything that belongs to your neighbor." Rule Number Eight already mentions stealing, so why specifically prohibit envy, too? There are several possible reasons. First of all, ten was probably just a nice, even number. The Nine Commandments would simply sound wrong. Nine would certainly appear less important than a complete set of ten. Moreover, if you wanted to write the rules down on two stone tablets, including five on each tablet would make common sense. After all, including five rules on one tablet and four on the other would necessitate different font sizes between the tablets. Otherwise, an awkward blank space would remain on one.
Recently, however, our troubled times have revealed to me a far deeper reason why God included the Tenth Commandment. Simply stated, God thinks the prohibition against improper greed bears repeating!
There are two types of greed. The first type of greed involves inaction – the "hoarding" of property. An individual demonstrates this first type of greed when he fails to share his wealth despite some obligation to be generous. Whether hoarding is even technically wrong seems A bit questionable. That is, refusing to give charitably seems more "not-right" than explicitly "wrong." Regardless, the issue remains fairly vague. On the other hand, the second type of greed involves clear-cut action: The unlawful taking of property. This latter type of greed (stealing) is fairly clear-cut, whereas the former (hoarding) is somewhat greyer. Consequently, two of the Ten Commandments address this latter type of greed, whereas none of them deals with the first type.
Leftists often criticize successful companies for their "greed." Sadly, Adam Smith originally played right into this unfair criticism when conceded that free markets utilize human "greed" to create wealth. Certainly, self-interest does drive capitalism, but calling it "greed" is highly misleading. The desire to create honest wealth hardly qualifies as greed. Rather, greed involves either (1) hoarding or (2) stealing. The drive to produce wealth is something else altogether. Most people call it "ambition."
If ambitious, successful businesspeople do not exemplify greed, then who does? Basically, the greedy are losers in life who would steal wealth from others instead of generating their own. Whenever they lack the capability to steal overtly, they covet wealth discretely and dream of the day when they can physically take money from others. They are leeches. We imprison some of these scoundrels in our county jails. Others we nominate to run for president.
Overall, politics today have embraced envy. I was watching Barack Obama's nomination acceptance speech last night, and the word demagogue kept coming to mind. In my estimation, about three fourths** of Obama's speech enticed Americans to covet. Here are just a few examples:
1."I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars."
2."I will make certain those [health insurance] companies stop discriminating against those who are sick..."
3."[I]f you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education."
To fund this great Democratic give-away, Obama promised to raise taxes on corporations and on the wealthiest Americans, who already pay the most:"Now, many of these plans will cost money," he explained, "which is why I've laid out how I'll pay for every dime - by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don't help America grow..." In blunt terms, Obama would seize wealth from the more successful segments of society. His Marxist supporters already understood this fact, of course. Most of them already knew the target of their envy. They are hardly innocent. In fact, the angry reaction from the audience after every reference to property rights felt somewhat disturbing. Obama mentioned this brief explanation for his plan, not to inform his supporters, but to prevent any arguments by critics that he misunderstands math.
At this point, the lightweight thinkers will doubtless argue, "Who cares, Drew? I like coveting. God is dead anyway. The Bible is irrelevant." Fortunately, the folly of covetousness stands naturally apparent to all intelligent humans, even without the Bible. That is, the right to private property is self-evident. Merely consider the fruits of envy – chaos and poverty. The Soviet Union bore these fruits in abundance. Inevitable consequences demonstrate the foolishness of promoting theft.
Specifically, robbery works fine as long as there are people to steal from, but what happens when large numbers succumb to thievery? After a certain tipping point, individuals realize that their wealth is unsafe, and they stop wasting their time producing wealth. Consequently, after strangling every golden goose he can find, the Marxist once again begins rotting away in poverty. He lacks marketable skills. Even if he had skills, he would be afraid of success because success would invite theft. Such a bleak world can come about whenever we confuse our morals. By condemning ambition as "greed" and punishing it with theft, we kill ambition and destroy productivity. At that point, the question of "hoarding" becomes a non-issue – because no one has any wealth to hoard or to give away.
Instead of attacking ambition, let us condemn covetousness. Instead of advancing the wishy-washy concept of "hoarding" as a justification for theft, let us assault greed in its most explicit form – coveting the wealth of others. Let us eliminate such wicked enticements toward envy from the public discourse. That is change I could believe in.
** Whereas three-fourths of the speech dealt with distributing goodies, the remaining 25% consisted of attacks against John McCain and promises to enact miracles, such as eliminating the demand for Middle Eastern oil in ten years without drilling.
Whereas real men look out for themselves, pathetic people depend on the government for everything. This generality certainly proves true especially in the realm of self-defense. Whereas manly men will arm themselves, work out, and possibly even learn martial arts, the weak individuals in our society will accept the myth of "police protection." Quite simply, the myth states that police officers exist to protect you from criminals. One hint for the clueless:The police exist to arrest you, not protect you.
Arresting bad guys excites the police. It is their job. In fact, policemen enjoy arresting people so much that often they will go ahead and arrest innocent people, too. And regardless of the quality your quality police, no individual criminal becomes "bad" until after he has already inflicted some harm. The government can mete out punishment afterwards, but criminal courts (generally) cannot reverse the effects of crime. How many defendants come to criminal court charged with attempt crimes – as opposed to actual crimes? Not many.
In Torts class last semester, we read a case where a lady tried to sue the police. She did so because the police failed to stop her boyfriend from throwing sodium hydroxide solution in her face, an attack which scarred her for life. See Riss v. New York, 240 N.E.2d 860 (1968). Recognizing the absurdity of the lady's lawsuit, the court threw it out. That is, the government does not exist to protect individuals. The police are not your personal bodyguards.
On the contrary, the Bible says that the government exists "to bring punishment on the wrongdoer" (Romans 13:4). Unfortunately, the same wimpy Americans who consider it the government's job to set wages and provide for individual retirement also demand that the government guarantee their own personal security. If you want to stop crime, you must do it yourself.
Granted, the act of punishing evil-doers does deter many would-be criminals. Unfortunately, many of the same leftists who dislike guns also oppose executions and even stiff prison sentences which might deter violent crime. (Among liberals, sense is a rare commodity.) Regardless of deterrence, even a healthy government cannot guarantee your personal safety.
Overall, the police are no excuse to grow weak and defenseless. Americans used to understand the need for personal defense. Just ask yourself:Would Davy Crockett walk around unarmed and then start crying when someone mugged him? In enacting the Second Amendment, the Founding Fathers legally promised to maintain individuals' God-given right to self-defense. Tragically, today's Americans have lost both their faith in God and their common sense. And so they let themselves be slaughtered by murderers.
I was alarmed this past weekend when some jackass decided to shoot up the Unitarian church in Knoxville. Apparently this unemployed loser had grown angry at being receiving cutbacks to his supply of food stamps. Paradoxically, he decided to murder the food stamp-supporting members of the most liberal, hippie "church" imaginable to solve his personal problems.
I guess all the businesses that rejected this idiot's job applications are glad now.
Mass-shootings against synagogues, colleges, and churches of every type have become all too common. Unarmed populations constitute flocks of sitting ducks. As I point out periodically, Jesus specifically told his disciples to buy swords (Luke 22:36). But now that he is in heaven, I give you all a new command:Buy guns. Of course, Unitarians do not follow the Bible literally so I doubt any members of that congregation were armed. In one article, someone praised the police for their sensitivity and professionalism at the crime scene. What is missing from that praise? Oh yeah, the police were absent when multiple people got murdered.
At the time this tragedy occurred in Knoxville, I was carrying my .45 caliber sidearm under a sports coat. I dare someone to assault First Baptist Franklin. Last week was the first time I brought it to church because I had just bought a holster. But recent events only confirm my Drewish wisdom on this issue. Let justice be done.
So apparently the leaders of San Fransisco have decided to rename a sewage plant after the president. Once local voters ratify the measure in the November election, the sewage facility will be renamed the "George W. Bush Sewage Plant." The liberals consider this an insult against the president. Personally, I wish someone would name a sewage plant after me: The Drew Justice Sewage Plant -- Cleaning up the world's mess one day at a time.
Thank you for joining us this week on the DREW BLOG, where I provide analysis you won't find anywhere else. Since I know all my readers are dying to know what I have been up to, I will go ahead and tell. My last post came from Alabama, where I spent the Independence Day weekend. We did some interesting activities down there and saw some good fireworks. The weekend prior, I visited some friends in Knoxville. So far, I have seen a number of good movies. I still await the amazing X-Files movie, however, which should come out soon.
Fortunately, I have managed to obtain two new law school roommates for next year, so that is one less thing to worry about. Also, I have obtained my handgun permit, purchased a .45 caliber weapon, and practiced firing it a fair amount already. Watch out, Fort Sanders. There is a new law in town, and your time has come.
My summer league Frisbee team (olive green) is somewhat less amazing than the team I was on last year, but what can you do. If only my superb amazingness could rub off on everyone else, we would probably be undefeated right now, but what can you do. We are doing alright, at least. Go Olive Garden! Free breadsticks for everyone!
Anyway, life at the Public Defender's Office continues fairly well. About a week ago, I went to Dunkin Donuts to see Steve Gill broadcast his show live. I met him, and he is a pretty cool guy. While I was there, one conservative lady asked me how the people at the Public Defender's office could stand to defend criminals. I told her that a significant portion of our clients are genuinely innocent, and that an even larger portion of them may be guilty of something, but have nonetheless been severely overcharged by an overzealous government. Of course, even if someone is guilty, a public trial often benefits society by demonstrating justice in action.
Realistically, though who is truly innocent in the eyes of the law? The paternalistic, nanny-state authoritarians have criminalized nearly everything. If you look through the Tenneseee Code Annotated (Title 39) for yourself, you will see what I mean. Have you ever driven seventy-one miles per hour on the interstate? If so, you have committed a "Class-C Misdemeanor." Technically, such crimes are punishable by up to thirty days in jail.
Did you know it is illegal to carry a sword? JESUS HIMSELF told his followers to carry swords, but now the Tennessee legislature prohibits the practice! (See Tenn. Code Ann. 39-17-1307.) The idiots in our government would actually criminalize Duncan MacLeod! How far we have fallen!
Ultimately, the authoritarians have established the all-encompassing legal system because it gives them the final authority over who walks free and who perishes. After all, the police can break a good number of laws with impunity. The people who anger the police are the ones who wind up in trouble.
The Public Defender and all other defense lawyers are basically an Anti-Government Prosecutors. Whereas the District Attorney punishes you for breaking the government's rules, the Public Defender punishes the government for breaking laws.
If the District Attorney's Office incompetantly charges you with a crime that you have not broken, the defense lawyers will make the prosecutors look like fools. If the police stop your car for no reason (perhaps after installing a tracking device on your car without a search warrant, which they routinely do), and then violate the Constitution to search your car for drugs, a defense lawyer will free you even if you are guilty. He does so not because he likes criminals. Rather, he frees you in order to punish the government for breaking the law -- and because you have paid him money.
Ultimately, if you are the type of mean-spirited jerk who likes to break the spirits of individual citizens, you become a government prosecutor. If you hate the government -- like me -- then you become a defense lawyer. So I think criminal defense is my goal.
Independence Forever
Current mood: enlightened
Category: News and Politics
Welcome back, readers. Today, all loyal Americans will celebrate the country's independence from foreign power. In 1776, Americans risked their lives for freedom from the most powerful empire on the globe. With the assistance of God, they successfully gained independence.
Sadly, people now seek to reverse this monumental American achievement. A significant element in our government sincerely believes that America should sacrifice its own independence. These weak-minded individuals look for the approval of foreign governments in virtually every area of political power. Militarily, they would require global ratification before America ever sent troops to defend national interests or support freedom. Domestically, the internationalists would require the approval of Mexico and other foreign governments before taking any action to secure the southern border. Economically, these subversives would impose global taxes on Americans through such schemes as the Kyoto Accord. Judicially, the internationalists would surrender American citizens to the jurisdiction of the World Criminal Court, a foreign entity. In various legal matters, some of the traitors actually cite foreign laws in their judicial opinions, in an effort to undermine American law. In the minds of these disloyal politicians, America must assimilate into the "international community."
Imagine a life where you did not live for yourself. Instead, you sought the approval of society before pursuing any course of action. You never spoke your mind because you feared that your words might offend others. For the same reasons, you refrained from pursuing the actions of your heart. Many so-called "men" actually do live their lives this way -- politicians in particular. Today, many of these same cowards want the nation as a whole to live in similar slavery relative to global opinion. They argue that America should live as a dutiful global citizen under some sort of world union. The sad fact of the matter is that many Americans no longer believe in independence.
If we truly do want world government, I have an excellent idea: Let every nondemocratic state dismantle its tyrannical system, and let every nation on the planet surrender authority to the United States. At that point, the United States can preside over the world government. Granted, America would probably require additional soldiers in order to police the entire globe, but we could strengthen ourselves for the task by imposing taxes on the subordinate nations.
If no one else likes this plan, that is fine. Ever since the tower of Babel four thousand years ago, nations have remained independent from each other. Let international relations remain anarchic.
Especially on July 4th, Americans must remember one thing:The rest of the world does not rule over us. Let any lawyer who cites foreign law in an American judicial opinion be disbarred. And let us say, "To hell with monarchy, Europe, and tyranny of every sort. America stands on its own!"
So I was driving in Nashville, and I saw a restaurant that identified itself as a "rum bar and satay grill." I can only imagine that a "rum bar" means a bar that only serves rum. While I have come across quite a few bars, the idea of one that only serves rum intrigued me. The whole experience gave me a great idea: I should start a gin bar. It will only serve gin. It will be called The Pine Needle Express. Meanwhile, I have absolutely no idea what "satay" is, so I would not serve satay. I would probably serve bratwursts instead. The sign would read, The Pine Needle Express: Gin Bar and Brat Grill. Obviously, it would only serve gin and bratwursts -- nothing else, except maybe pizza. Now that would be a great place to visit and bring the family.
My brother and I saw The Happening last night, the latest greatest blockbuster by M. Night Shyamalan. From what I hear, M. Night is supposed to make a cameo in each of his movies, but I never noticed him in this one. Overall the movie was good. I had heard from a couple people that it sucked, so I was delightfully surprised. (Of course, maybe movies just always seem better after you are already braced for the absolute stupidity of, say, The Village.)
Overall, it seems like a great number of excellent movies are coming out this summer. I already saw Prince Caspian, Iron Man, and Indiana Jones, all of which were fairly superb. Now Get Smart, Batman II, Journey to the Center of the Earth, and a bunch of other neat-looking films are coming out.
Of course, I have mentioned several movies already, but one upcoming film that I most want to see has EVERYTHING you could want in a movie. Check it out:
These days, a lot of people whine about the supposedly low quality of modern movies. Some ancient wisdom comes to mind: "Do not say, 'Why were the old days better than these?' For it is not wise to ask such questions" (Ecclesiastes 7:10). In this case, I think the summer of 2008 may prove the whiners wrong.
Overall, I have seen a good number of movies this past year, and I the vast majority of them were enjoyable. Certainly none come to mind that I actually regretted seeing.
Of course, I do think the trend toward high prices and sensationalism could stand to be fixed. Some modern movies, for example, go overboard with special effects and unrealistic action to the point of absurdity. What is even worse is when directors substitute action for plot (Think Star Wars Episode II). Overall, The Happening actually did a good job keeping the audience freaked out without many special effects at all. Supposedly, M. Night Shyamalan really likes to go easy on the special effects in all his movies, choosing to intrigue and/or scare the audience in a more subtle manner.
Regarding prices, I suspect that if movie-makers cut down on the expensive special effects and accepted more new actors (lower-paid actors) in place of the megastars, Hollywood could lower its costs. Then maybe ticket prices would drop, and we could afford to see all of the amazing movies coming out!
"You distract her, and I'll hit her with a shovel."
Whenever you hear someone whining, you should analyze their words carefully to see if their whining makes sense. A lot of people like to whine in order to vent their frustrations, but they completely ignore whether the resolution of their complaint would actually make them happy. If you take such inconsistent whining too seriously, your well-intended resolutions can actually make the complainers less happy.
Generally, people buy cheap items and then complain that they break. They demand perfect justice but get mad when they have to sit in court all day. They complain about the high cost of movie tickets, but they also adore the exotic special affects, computer animation, and ridiculously paid stars which drive up the cost of movies.
In economics, trade-offs are inevitable. There is no such things as a free lunch. (Free samples hour at Costco is the only known exception to this rule.) People who whine about costs they have already willingly paid are schizophrenic. Of course, there is nothing wrong with whining simply to vent frustrations. The problem comes when "problem-solvers" actually start trying to find solutions to the thoughtless complaints of others.
Many Americans complain about the price of gas, which is currently approaching $4.00 per gallon. Overall, such a problem is worthy of complaint. It irks me, however, that the same whiners who complaint about expensive gas are simultaneously causing the high prices. Pricey gasoline comes from deficits in the supply for oil. Easing restrictions on oil drilling in the United States would eliminate these deficits and allow more oil to be turned into gasoline, as would the production of additional nuclear power plants, which would reduce the need for oil power plants. Building more oil refineries would also help the situation. But does anyone imagine that the schizophrenic voters of America would jump for joy if we implemented such wise policies? I would jump for joy, but Americans as a whole have voted socialist environmentalists into office. Now they whine about the economic consequences of their own stupid policies.
I think the world would be a much better place if everyone were more like me. When someone asks me, "Drew, don't you care about the snowy deer up in Alaska who might instantly die of fright when we drill in Alaska?" I just say, not particularly. I try to be consistent. But I am too smart to imagine that others will follow suit, or that anyone will seriously change his mind about socialism merely because gas costs a lot. No, Americans will merely continue to whine, even though they actually appreciate the high gas prices more than appreciate like the alternative – free trade.
Again, inconsistent whining is not particularly immoral, although it is annoying. Whining about nothing is just part of the human identity. You have to know to look out for it. The status quo will never please everybody. The successful businessman addresses the sincere complaints of others. He ignores the whiners who, out of human weakness, merely complain about everything.
Well, I finally finished my crazy exams, and I have returned to Franklin. For the summer, I will be working with the Williamson County Public Defender -- protecting innocent people who have been unjustly accused of crimes by our fascist government.
About a week ago, there was some kind of big hurricane over in Myanmar. My astute readers may instantly recognize that country (also called "Burma") as being the setting for the last Rambo movie. Apparently the cyclone messed up a lot of villages, and many people continue to die from the devastation.
The collective world thought it would be wise to help out. While I was parusing the internet, I saw a link on Google that said "Donate money to help Myanmar." Fortunately, my Drewish wisdom gave me discernment. I realized that any aid to that country would only prop up a wicked and brutal regime. Apparently, the people at Google and the United Nations never watched Rambo IV.
Within days, situational developments proved me right. The Buremese government began confiscating international relief shipments.
In retrospect, true charity must involve thinking through a situation fully and logically. Helping others requires a plan that will actually improve their situation. (People who give handouts to bums on the street fail to understand this principle.) Subsequently, I pondered the best way to eliminate corrupt regimes from the earth. I decided that international law needs amending.
When I mention international law, of course, I do not mean real laws. I am referring to Jus cogens, or international "norms." These norms constitute a supposed global morality. If you ever hear folks whine that a border fence would "violate international law," or that Bush "violated international law" by attacking Saddam Hussein, or that burning gasoline "violates international law" by polluting the earth, they are talking about these Jus cogens norms. Norms are not actual laws, but merely opinions of people. Examples include the norms that 1) peace is good and that 2) spreadingnuclear weapons is bad. Norms are not laws, but merely statements that sound good.
Here is a norm I think sounds good: "War against bad countries is great." We should encourage countries to war against nations governed by oppressive regimes. For example, I doubt anyone would really be harmed if a nation invaded Burma.
The new warmongering norm should be named the DREW LAW, after me. Essentially, the norm will proclaim that "Peace is good, but war against bad countries is even better." The DREW LAW will embody the old just war theory of St. Thomas Acquinas, but also travel one step beyond:. Just war theory promoted defensive war,butDrewish norms would promote offensive wars of aggression.
My proposal will combat the rampant rise of groteque pacifism within the Western world. Pacifism is the great destroyer of human life. Pacifism discourages resistance to oppression. It admonishes people to accept the status quo, despite continued danger or detriment. Pacifism keeps the Burmese rulers alive and in power (as opposed to Saddam Hussein, who is dead and out of power). The more people who fail to realize that war is often preferable to unjust peace, the more comfortable tyrants will remain.
Within a decade of adopting my policy, the international community will see a rapid decline of rabid dictators.
Of course, one final question remains -- whether empires would be allowed to keep their conquered territories. I think the obvious answer is yes. What would be the point in allowing nations to attack wicked governments if they could not keep the spoils of war? Thinking this way, many Democrats have whined about the enormous cost of the Iraq War. Instead of merely helping Iraq, they argued that we should plunder the oil wealth from the country to pay American bills. These Democrats would obviously support my policy. Overall, the DREW LAW would allow a conquering empire to plunder the population, to some extent. This provision would give compensation to conquerers and create a proper incentive to initiate other just wars.
Now some my critics will argue, "But Drew, you're crazy! How could any country be better off if you just replaced one dictator with another?"
Clearly, the conquering country would have an obligation to be better than the ousted government. Simply stated, however, the conquerer would not have to be perfect. The conquerer could keep the conquered subjects separate from the ordinary citizens. The conquerer could delay full democratic reforms, and refuse to integrate the new subjects with his democratic citizenry. Conquered land need not be returned, or independence granted.
If the conquering country were worse than the original government (or equally bad), that situation would obviously provide an incentive for a new just war. So naturally the conquerers will have reasons to implement reform.
If worse came to worse, at least the world would become more exciting under my proposal.
So far we have taken two exams at my law school. We have two more to go.
Now, these are some pretty interesting tests. Law school exams generally involve some ridiculous scenario where some jerk wrongs various victims in about twelve different ways, and then the test-takers get to sort through the information and find all the potential lawsuits.
These exams train us to expect liability. They train us to look for problems and find them. I guess that is a sensible way of testing. But I really wish I could take an exam where, after analyzing all the possible lawsuits, you could not find a single thing to sue over. The professor could design the test to make a point, that lawyers are not the answer to every problem.
It would be nice to imagine a world of freedom, where people solve their own problems instead of rushing to court at the drop of a hat. After all, lawsuits really do promote wimpiness. Instead of dealing with his adversaries personally, a plaintiff asks the government to do it for him. Lawsuits are sometimes necessary, admittedly. In today's world, for example, the lawyers have so monopolized interpersonal interactions that lawsuits are often necessary.
The lawyers design the law to make lawsuits necessary because it gives them more power. For example, instead of punching back someone who hits you, the law requires you to sue them for battery. If you hit them back, they can sue you, or you might even get arrested. Instead of evicting a tenant who will not pay rent, many jurisdictions require you to file a summary ("quick") lawsuit to evict the dead-beat. Instead of letting people find new jobs that appreciate and respect them, the law encourages employees to file discrimination lawsuits. In the criminal system, the law forbids private individuals to obtain vengeance against rapists, murderers, and pedophiles. But then the law lets those same perpetrators out of jail within twenty years.
Sometimes I think it would be cool to have anarchy, and just to let people do whatever the heck they felt like. Less government seems better. Nonetheless, my dreams are not entirely realistic. The lawyers are the third branch of government, and they have risen to prominence compared to the other branches.
Of course, it would also be nice to live in a world where law students got graded the same as every other type of student – with multiple, periodic tests. Instead, we get to study for exams worth 100% of our grade. I have a dream of a world without unrealistic fact-scenarios, without vague instructions to "discuss all liabilities." In my dream, we would not sort through a jumble of information to spot dozens of potential lawsuits in a limited period of time. Tests would not involve an Easter egg hunt for legal issues, and no student would ever become so numb from the unrealistic jumble that he would miss even the obvious eggs lying in the grass.
Continued from last week's segment. Based on actual events.
In our joint prison cell on the basement level, John McCain greeted me with a weak smile while I continued to stare. He appeared drastically less healthy than I had seen him on television. He seemed barely to be hanging on to life. "They told me you might be coming soon," he said. "I can see you are surprised to see me." I simply stared. "You have probably followed 'my' presidential campaign in the States. Obviously, that candidate is not really me." I was speechless. "In truth," he said, "I never actually returned home from the Vietnam War. The Philosophers of Peace realized I would be useful for their goals. They held on to me, and eventually they brought me here to their headquarters."
I finally managed to ask, "Then who is that man in America pretending to be you?"
"Well, he's more machine than man, actually," said McCain, "kind of an advanced robot. He is superior to me in so many ways. You can readily observe my own poor health, but the android version of me continues thriving in his advanced age. And unlike all living beings, he does not exhale the greenhouse pollutant, carbon dioxide. His batteries power themselves with oxidation-reduction reactions instead of combustion." My mind was boggled. It suddenly made sense why the Republican nominee would support destructive environmental policies. He was not human at all.
"Overall, I do not really mind being held here," continued McCain. "I can serve the Philosophers far better in this capacity. Sometimes they let me walk around in the courtyard, or even help them make decisions." He sighed, and continued, "Only minor decisions, of course. The Philosophers are far smarter than the wild masses. They don't need much help." The old fool's ramblings were beginning to annoy me.
"I have learned new things while imprisoned here," he continued. "For example, I understand now that humans are a wild, brutish race. They destroy the natural order. The Earth would be better off without any humans at all…or at least with a reduced human population."
Because I always assumed that humans were a significant part of the natural order, his last comments raised my eyebrows. McCain smiled weakly. "Reduced voluntarily," he said. "The Philosophers guide the laws of the various nations. Their laws promote divorce and infidelity, manipulating the birthrate. The main task right now, however, is to implement a global warming tax to impede human growth." The old fool's mindless prattling was slowly infuriating me.
"By your silence," McCain said, "I can see that you approve of the plans. I suspect you will enjoy staying here, as I do. It really is a nice place." He laughed half-heartedly. "We even have a television and internet access…" My anger continued boiling as the old man just would not shut up. When I simply could not take any more of his nonsense, I finally lost control and slugged him in the stomach. He instantly crumpled over. Apparently he did not do crunches each day like me.
The room went quiet for two minutes as McCain lay on the floor, weakly moaning. Finally, he began to get up. "You see, Drew," he mumbled, "your anger is a human weakness. These wild feelings should always be contained for the happiness of the group. Humans have to rise above their natural instincts…" His timid words enraged me again, and I shoved him back down onto the floor. At that point, he started to become angry himself. "Alright, you little son of a bitch," he yelled, "now you're really asking for it."
He got up and charged at me. At that moment, I finally felt bad about pummeling an old man, and I resisted only weakly. We wrestled for about ten minutes. After he struck a good number of blows against me, he finally backed off and began to relax. Then a genuine smile came to his face as he realized that the pain, danger, and overall imperfection of the situation actually excited him.
We sat down on the fluffy couch in silence for a long time. Eventually, I asked him why the Philosophers kept us alive. He responded, "They don't like overt violence. It scares them." Then he paused, finally asking, "But how alive are we, really?" The sensibility of his question actually surprised me.
Minutes later, Chuck Norris, Steven, and a Chinese executive approached the cell. They were visible through a bulletproof window, standing next to two guards. The guards were armed with Uzis. I glared at Norris when he spoke.
"Yes, I can see why we need to keep Drew here," Chuck said to his new friends. "Both of these prisoners might pose a danger to our organization if we let them run loose. Safety should always come first."
At this point, I noticed that McCain was glancing down at his own frail body. He looked at the reality of his old, shriveled, and imperfect hands. He smiled. I could not tell exactly what was running through the man's mind, but suddenly he looked up and began glaring fiercely at Steven through the window. McCain's eyes burned with fury at our captor.
Apparently, this offensive expression startled Steven and the Chinese man. They nodded to one of the guards, who opened the cell door to walk inside and deal with us. I grew worried.
Suddenly, Chuck Norris roundhouse kicked one guard in the face, snapping his neck. He grabbed the man's Uzi before it fell to the ground, and with smooth, quick motion, Chuck gunned down the second guard before he could react. At the first sign of violence, Steven darted down the hall. He slipped into a nearby stairway before Chuck could stop him. Norris then turned around to face the remaining Chinese executive. The pathetic man was quivering on the floor.
I was watching the whole scene in shock, covering both ears. McCain, however, ran toward the open door during the commotion, screaming wildly. He grabbed the weapon from the closest dead guard. As Norris just stared at the remaining executive, trying to figure out what to do, John McCain took the initiative – he fired fifteen shots into the quivering man.
"Nice job, Drew," said Chuck. "You found the real John McCain. Now let's get out of here."
We raced up the stairs and onto the ground floor. Enemy gunfire from down the corridor soon forced us back into the stairway. "There's no way out that direction," Chuck shouted, "We have to get to the roof. Let's just hope my pilot isn't running late!" Chuck raced up the staircase at lightning speed while I lagged behind to assist the old man. When we finally got to the roof of the enormous headquarters, there was a black helicopter sitting on a landing pad about five hundred feet from the stairwell, its rotors already spinning. An American pilot waved us over. Chuck said, "Run to the chopper. The guards will be here any minute!"
Chuck made it to the helicopter first and hopped on board, manning the vehicle's machine gun. McCain and I were still a hundred feet from the helicopter when Chinese guards burst onto the roof and immediately opened fire. McCain collapsed. I stopped to help him get back to his feet, but then I saw the extent of his injuries: Four gunshot wounds had torn him open. I grabbed his weapon and fired back at the attackers, dropping one of the guards. I tried to drag the old man with me, but after a few seconds he cried out, "It's too late for me now, Drew! You've already saved me! Just go!"
As Chuck Norris sprayed down cover fire, I left McCain on the roof and sprinted to the helicopter. I leapt on board right as it lifted off. As we started to gain altitude, my heartbeat began to subside. We sped away from the compound. At that moment, I glanced over at Chuck Norris. I saw him gazing back forlornly at the friend we were leaving behind. We had failed.
The Philosophers of Death (Part 1)
Current mood: worried
Category: Blogging
"Humans are a virus, Drew. They are constantly destroying this planet. We have come here to help the situation. Many of your people have already sided with us; they call themselves the 'Philosophers of Peace.'" ***
I recently watched Back to the Future. At the end of that movie, I noticed a disclaimer which read, "All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons – living or dead – is purely coincidental." I was actually kind of surprised by this message, because I had heard the movie was a true story.
It turns out the lawyers are responsible for these messages. In my Torts class, we learned about defamation. Defamation is a false, reckless, communicated statement that identifies a target person and harms his reputation. All fiction movies have these disclaimers so that no one thinks the movie is actually about them. After all, you would not want to offend anyone. Fortunately, I never need any silly disclaimers for my writing. The DREW BLOG always contains 100% pure truth.
As I have said before, I live in a fairly dangerous neighborhood, but I had a pretty frightful experience recently. After amassing large quantities of work for my Legal Research class, I decided to stay in the law library for part of the weekend. I got caught up on my work, but everything was quite dark by the time I began walking home. I made it about two thirds up James Agee Street when I noticed a suspicious-looking figure approaching from the right side of the street. He got within ten feet and then raised his arm and pointed it at me. I could see that he was holding a gun.
I stayed calm. Strangely, the man did not even say anything. I was not carrying much money so I slowly began reaching for my wallet to give it to the man. Then a gunshot rang through the night air and echoed off the buildings. I did not feel anything. Instead, I saw the man's arm jerk to the left and then into his chest. His gun clattered on the ground, and I could see that his arm was seriously wounded. Then another gunshot mauled the man's face, knocking him to the ground, where he stopped moving altogether. His head fell out of the shadows and into the light. I could see that he appeared to be Chinese. I immediately noticed my rescuer emerging from behind a car about thirty feet uphill. He walked down the street toward me. When he got close, I could see that it was Chuck Norris.
"Thank goodness I found you," he said, "I'm afraid your life is still in danger. Follow me. I may need your help."
"Sure thing, Chuck," I said. "But what should we do with this guy?"
"Bah, just leave it. The vultures will take care of him."
We returned to my apartment briefly and gathered some supplies. Then we took my car to the Knoxville airport. On our way there, Chuck talked about the recent months he had spent with the Huckabee presidential campaign, and how sad he was that John McCain had won the Republican nomination.
Then Chuck began telling me more startling truths. Toward the end of the campaign, he had uncovered certain information – dark secrets that might impact all mankind. His information concerned a group of world leaders called the Philosophers of Peace. These Philosophers sought to impose their artificial, utopian worldview on society. Partly out of idealism and partly out of disdain for the natural order, these people aimed to curb economic and population growth, mostly through absurd environmental schemes. Their latest ploy involved a global warming tax on carbon dioxide emissions.
"But all life uses combustion reactions to produce energy," I said. "Everyone exhales carbon dioxide. Who could seriously believe in this global warming nonsense?"
"Only some of the more feeble-minded ones actually believe it," Chuck replied. "The rest of them just use the issue for their advantage." As we approached the airport, I asked him where we were going. "To the focal point of their movement," he answered. "We're headed for the People's Republic of China."
Within twenty-four hours we were on the ground in Beijing. As we approached a gigantic building surrounded by a large courtyard with razor-wire fencing, I noticed that Chuck Norris had discarded his weapon. I suddenly grew uneasy. I asked him about it, but he simply replied, "Quit being ridiculous, Drew. Guns don't kill people. I do." T
argumentative
bummed
anxious
confident
pirate
enlightened
blissful
fabulous
bouncy
optimistic
awake
worried
