In Frederic Bastiat’s 1850 masterpiece, “The Law”, he poses the following question: “Since the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to allow them liberty, how comes it to pass that the tendencies of organizers are always good?” (Bastiat 46). Over 150 years later in today’s climate of economic upheaval, public and private corruption, and widespread systemic ineptitudes, this question is all the more relevant. Considering such a question could easily leave one agreeing with Henry David Thoreau in the idea “that government is best which governs least” (Thoreau 343). At the very least, with a more hands-off approach, the damage done through meddling would be limited. Individuals who are in agreement with these statements may also find agreement with the foundations of libertarianism. Libertarianism is a philosophy which holds liberty as its highest value, and is founded upon the non-aggression axiom, individual responsibility, and absolute property rights.
In order to speak of libertarianism one must first attempt to define the terms of greatest importance to the libertarian perspective. The first of these terms is liberty. One way of defining liberty is the “freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control” (Dictionary.com). Liberty is exemplified when the individual is in a state of independence so that he may make his own decisions about how his life will be lived. Liberty is threatened when an individual, group of individuals, or governing body tries to enforce control over another individual, group of individuals, or governing body. Liberty is an uncompromising position. There are no “what ifs” or “buts” when it comes to liberty. Either something helps to support liberty that already exists and creates a greater context where liberty can grow, or it inhibits liberty and works to exert greater control and a decreased freedom of choice and action.
Another way of defining liberty is “the absence of coercion of a human being by any other human being; it is a condition where the person may do whatever he desires, according to his wisdom and conscience” (Harper 3). It must be made clear that this definition leaves room for varying degrees and views of morality. Liberty in and of itself is neither “good” nor “bad”. Rather, it allows the individual to decide what is “good” or “bad,” and to make errors in judgment and behavior that they may learn from. Attempts to legislate morality in regards to an individual’s conduct tend to subvert individual liberty. Wherever there is liberty there must also be personal responsibility. If an individual were to value their own liberty they must hold themselves to a particular standard where she not only promotes liberty for herself, but for others as well. As Mary Ruwart has expressed, “Liberty requires respect for the personal choices that others make. In trying to control others, we will eventually find ourselves controlled” (Ruwart 1). One does not have to agree with another’s decisions or how he would live his life. However, at least a basic respect for their right to do as he chooses must be observed. If one individual or governing body were to create a rule which limits another individual’s behavior it only becomes a matter of time before a rule will be made which limits the law maker’s own behavior.
A third way of looking at liberty brings us back to Bastiat’s original question posed above. If we’re looking at liberty in terms of oversight, a libertarian tends to believe “that individuals and society can work out their own problems in the absence of top-down management” (Rockwell 1). It is not any other individual’s or governing body’s responsibility to tell another how to live, think, work, or play. In fact, liberty encourages the individual to have freedom of thought, word, and deed. The idea of liberty is by definition, nonrestrictive in regards to directing an individual’s code of conduct. In fact, libertarians tend to come from a diverse array of lifestyles. In order to further define what it is to be a libertarian one must also consider the other pillars that hold it up.
While the idea of liberty on its own may seem too broad to be pragmatic in today’s troubling and complex social climate, one must understand that libertarianism is not a strict platform of behavioral standards or a code of ethics. Instead, it is a basic framework of principles that all support and build on one another in the striving for maximum liberty. While libertarians may debate specific questions of morality and matters of public policy, the non-aggression axiom is paramount to libertarian ideals and helps to further define what it is to be a libertarian. Walter Block’s assertion that “we’re all libertarians if we agree on the non-aggression axiom and property rights” is an accurate one (Block 5:58). Someone who professes to be a libertarian yet finds exceptions in the non-aggression axiom is undermining the philosophic system as a whole.
Examples of the non-aggression axiom have appeared as early as ancient Greece. The ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus is credited with expressing that “The justice of nature is a pledge of reciprocal usefulness, neither to harm one another nor be harmed” (Morgan 423). This is the most basic pledge of the non-aggression axiom. Basically, a libertarian may not initiate the use of force or coercion against another. The only justification for a libertarian to engage in the use of force against another individual or property is in cases where one is acting in defense of aggression. Only in the defensive context may one individual encroach upon another. Unfortunately, this interpretation has taken a life of its own in this age of terrorism.
Some self-described libertarians have tried to argue that we live in different times and the idea of preemptive strikes laid out by the Bush Doctrine are compatible with libertarianism and the non-aggression axiom. This assertion is nothing more than a distortion of what the non-aggression axiom states. Not only is this axiom meant to govern the acts of the individual, but it also extends all the way to the state. Generally speaking, the foundational concepts of libertarianism apply to all of life’s contexts regardless of how large or small they happen to be. Acts of aggression against other nations are just as unacceptable as acts of aggression against the individual. Allowing preemptive acts of aggression is akin to allowing one group to impose restrictions on liberty to another group. Allowing for this exception would only go to undermine the foundations of the entire philosophy. Just as there are no “what ifs or “buts” in regards to liberty, there are none for the non-aggression axiom.
To further define the conditions that liberty and the non-aggression axiom set up, one must also consider the idea of absolute property rights. As Butler Shaffer says, “individual liberty and the private ownership of property are synonymous” (Shaffer 1). Under libertarianism, the ability to own private property is stressed to guide the exchange of goods and services, and as a further clarification in regards to what is protected under the non-aggression axiom. In a manner of speaking, one’s property is an extension of the self. Furthermore, each individual not only owns the extensions of the self but she also owns her person. By viewing herself as her own property and her property as a part of her self, it allows for the non-aggression axiom to be much clearer in regards to what can and cannot be aggressed upon. Each individual has the right to utilize what he or she owns in any way of their choosing as long as it does not violate the non-aggression axiom.
If the concept of self-ownership were rejected, the implication would be that another person has a higher claim on an individual’s life than the individual himself would have. An individual who is the property of another, and not owned by the self, is by definition a slave. Libertarians reject this notion that human beings are born and exist as slaves. The product of one’s life and liberty becomes his or her property. Exerting time, energy, and talents towards a goal which produces wealth of some kind entitles an individual to hold that production as their property. Property is the fruit of one’s labor, so-to-speak. By disallowing the ownership of property is to subject individuals to a life which also in turn equates to a life of slavery. If individuals each possess property, exchange of said property is an eventuality.
The free exchange of property, or commerce, is an offspring of property rights and is governed under the principles laid out above. Therefore, the non-aggression axiom will govern how people engage in trade with one another. This allows an individual to hold his own property and do with it as he wishes, free from coercion. If an individual feels she is being unfairly treated in dealing with another, she may choose not to engage in business with that person. It is this idea of voluntary interaction and exchange which is the key to understanding the libertarian philosophy. Under libertarianism, the belief is that voluntary society is morally and practically the best form of society. In such a system of living, individuals become personally responsible for their own actions and their dealings, and with whom they themselves deal with.
This idea of individual responsibility acts as the glue which holds liberty, non-aggression, and private property together. Without a sense of individual responsibility, no benevolent system will ever come to fruition and exist for very long. If an individual refuses to be responsible and uphold the non-aggression axiom and allows for exceptions to creep into his or her day to day behavior, other individuals will eventually defend against the aggression which in turn will threaten each individual’s liberty. If care is not taken to be responsible in dealing’s of private property, the chances of the same dire result of the loss of property, liberty, and increased aggression becomes more of a reality. These dangers are not only apparent on a personal level, but also in a societal context.
In order to explore real fundamental change in our society, the libertarian philosophy becomes a convenient and effective filter of examination. A society structured under libertarian principles would function much differently than our current society does today. An adjustment of ideas and priorities must take place in order for it to be understood, to take hold, and to succeed. Libertarianism cannot be viewed in the same light as the dominating political philosophies that exist in contemporary American society. During each national election, for example, the voting public makes a decision in regards to which group of people to involuntarily plunder and who to redistribute that which has been plundered. This is done through the mechanism of taxation. Rather than having a debate about whether or not individuals would prefer to retain property and do with it however one would see fit, the debate is framed in such a way that doesn’t even raise this basic concept of the libertarian philosophy.
Individuals do not have the right to use coercion to fix social problems, so the state should not have that right either. If a man were to take the property of a woman and give it to a third individual, we would consider this theft. When the state engages in the same basic activity it is framed as taxation and redistribution or subsidization. If it is wrong to steal, then it should also be wrong to tax. If it is wrong to kidnap, then a government should not be allowed to institute a draft or other mandated compulsory service to the state. That which is illegal in private society should also be illegal in public matters. Instead, individuals are lead to believe that all of these actions are done in the common good of man.
Unfortunately, many programs and systems in place that function under this image do just the opposite. Public institutions tend to be far more inefficient than their private counter parts. People who believe in the libertarian philosophy feel that economic incentives in the free-market should act as the carrot which drives innovation and harbors solutions. Government interventions in the markets are viewed as an act of force or coercion in the dealings of private citizens, which not only distorts market prices but also slowly erodes basic liberty. One may argue that the act of voting will make these actions that of the people themselves. The libertarian would argue that it does not matter who or what the source of such actions happens to be. Increasing the number of people who agree to take property from one individual or group and give it to another does not justify the action or change whether it is right or wrong.
Rather than exercising the right to vote in the voting booth, the libertarian philosophy proposes that individuals take responsibility to stay informed and vote with his actions and dollars. In a true free-market system, each and every time someone engages in commerce, he or she is casting a vote. If the integrity of the person, the product, or service being offered is in question, it is then the responsibility of the individual to cast a vote by disengaging from further business with the entity that is in doubt. If government sponsored coercion in the form of taxation, subsidies, and other meddling in the market place were to cease, the market itself would be determined by man. In an artificially stimulated environment, not only do markets become distorted, but individual responsibility and morality become subverted as well.
In a society that has systems designed to subsidize industry, legislate morality, and exert control over the liberty of man, libertarians believe that many of the incentives and ingrained rugged individualism that is part of the American tradition have been overthrown. If there is no risk of failure, then there is no real incentive to take care of and improve said systems. Rather than taking care of one self, family, and community, individuals rely on the state to take care of basic needs. This leads to an inefficient mode of living, and allows systems and ideas that have long lost their use and value to live on; prohibiting expansion, growth, and progress. Only under the ideas presented in the libertarian philosophy can we begin to adjust our ideas and the systems that spring up around them in such a way that truly benefits the common good, and respects the individual’s right to engage voluntarily in the activities of his or her choosing.
In America’s history, a 1% tax by the British on tea was enough to spark a revolution. Today, we see state sponsored looting on a scale far greater than 1% on a single product. If some time was taken to have an honest and healthy debate about the functions of state in society, and the individual’s role in the absence of a statist entity, ideas could easily begin to shift and adjust toward greater liberty. Through liberty and the non-aggression axiom, individuals could find themselves in command of greater resources and increased peace of mind knowing that each individual were their own house’s keeper. Accepting the weight of responsibility that comes with such a free philosophy would be nil in comparison to the demands placed by the state, the increased poverty, and lack of liberty which comes along with it. Maybe it is finally time to respond to Frederic Bastiat’s question, and take the steps necessary to advance the cause of liberty. Perhaps it is time for another revolution, a revolution of ideas.
Bibliography
Bastiat, Frederic. The Law. Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2007.
Thoreau, Henry David. Walden and Civil Disobedience. New York: Barnes & Noble, 2003.
Morgan, Michael L. Classics of Moral and Political Theory. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Co., 2006.
Harper, F.A.. “Liberty Defined.” Ludwig von Mises Institute. 09 September 1957. Ludwig von Mises Institute. 17 December 2008. <http://mises.org/resources/2677>
Ruwart, Mary. “The Indivisibility of Liberty.” LewRockwell.com. 23 April 2008. LewRockwell.com. 17 December 2008. <http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/ruwart3.html>
Rockwell, Jr., Llewellyn H.. “Liberty Yet Lives” LewRockwell.com. 04 November 2004. LewRockwell.com. 17 December 2008. <http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/liberty-lives.html>
Shaffer, Butler. “Are There Limits to Liberty?” LewRockwell.com 25 June 2002. LewRockwell.com 17 December 2008. <http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer22.html>
Rockwell, Jr., Llewellyn H. “The Lew Rockwell Show” Lew Rockwell interviews Naomi Wolf. 30 October 2008. The Lew Rockwell Show. 10 December 2008. <http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/feed.xml>
Block, Walter. “Rothbard and Big Tent Libertarianism.” Walter Block – Rothbard and Big Tent Libertarianism. Ludwig von Mises Institute, 13 October 2007. 11 December 2008. <http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/25thNYC/11-Block.mp3>
Thornton, Mark. “An Introduction to Libertarianism.” Mark Thornton – An Introduction to Libertarianism. Auburn University Libertarians, 18 January 2005. 09 December 2008.
<http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/Thornton-01-19-2006.mp3>
“Liberty.” Dictionary.com. 2008.
I am posting this letter from Congressman Dr. Ron Paul because his message is more important now than ever. During the 2008 Republican primary race Dr. Paul was ridiculed and belittled for warning about exactly what is hapening in the economy today. The vast majority of people didn’t want to heed his warnings and advice, and as a result they lost a lot of money, and are now struggling to make ends meet. All the while they still do not understand why this all is happening. It is not the fault of free market capitalism, it is the result of greedy elite, broken monetary policy by the (Private) Federal Reserve Banks, and corrupt politicians on both sides of the isle. I hope you read this letter and decide to help Ron Paul in his continuing quest to restore America to greatness.
December 17, 2008
Dear Friend of Liberty:
The Founders’ inspired vision of limited government has been kept alive by the hard work and generosity of Americans who truly cherish individual Liberty… average people like you and me.
In the toughest times… times like we are facing right now in the life of our nation… freedom fighters have always stepped forward for America—armed with whatever it takes and at whatever sacrifice—to answer the call to defend our liberty. That’s how America was born and how we, as a free and sovereign nation, have survived.
A major economic crisis is unfolding in our nation. New government programs are started daily, and future plans are being made for even more costly government expansion. All are based on the belief that we’re in this mess because free-market capitalism and sound money failed. The obsession is with more spending, bailouts of bad investments, more debt, and further dollar debasement. Many are saying we need an international answer to our problems with the establishment of a world central bank and a single fiat reserve currency.
These suggestions are merely more of the same policies that created our mess and are doomed to fail.
It is unimaginable that Congress could be so derelict in its duty. It does nothing but condone the arrogance of the Fed in its refusal to tell us where the $2 trillion has gone. Every Member of Congress and every American should be outraged that conditions could deteriorate to this degree. It’s no wonder that a large and growing number of Americans are now demanding an end to the Fed.
The Federal Reserve created our problem, yet it manages to gain even more power in the socialization of the entire financial system. The whole bailout process this past year was characterized by no oversight, no limits, no concerns, no understanding, and no common sense.
I hear daily from Americans like you who are up in arms about what is going on in our nation. Messages come into my congressional office morning, noon and night. Taxpayers are outraged by the huge bailouts, the massive expansion of government and the refusal by Congress and the leaders of both parties to follow the Constitution.
Many Americans are frustrated—or even outright angry—about failed government policies that just tighten the government’s noose around our necks.
The results of the recent election and the socialist policies that we are seeing proposed are indeed reminiscent of FDR and the New Deal and are equally dangerous. Free market economists and historians have correctly pointed out that Roosevelt’s horrendous economic policies only served to prolong and extend the severity of the Great Depression by many years. When the market is not allowed to work, government-created economic downturns are only made that much worse.
Since the financial crisi s has become more and more apparent and the attempts by the Fed, and Treasury and Congress to solve the problem have become more desperate, my phone has been ringing off the wall with calls from media outlets wanting to interview me and get my opinions about what is going on and how we need to deal with it.
During the presidential election, do you remember how the media scoffed at my suggestions that we were facing economic disaster? They laughed at my calls for limited government, for abolishing the Fed and the IRS, for cutting federal spending at home and abroad to balance our budget, and my call for a sound monetary system.
Today, with the crisis at hand, they are not laughing any more.
But, if we love our nation, it is not sufficient for us to sit back and say “we told you so.”
The task before us is huge. Our challenge is both political and philosophical, but either way the solution must begin by properly educating Americans as to why our current out-of-control, misguided political and financial systems have failed, and what must be done to turn things around.
My Foundation for Rational Economics and Education (FREE) has been waging such an educational effort for several decades. We have had a great deal of success publishing newsletters and books and producing radio and TV programs teaching people about the Constitution and free markets and sound money.
FREE has done much to educate patriots like you and to win the battle for the hearts and minds of Americans young and old. Today, however, given the severity of the crisis we face, we must do even more in our battle to spread the truth It is imperative that we redouble and expand the work and scope of FREE’s educational effort. Right now, while people are still looking for answers and even the media is trying to figure out what in the world is going on, we must step in to fill the void that exists and to provide answers and solutions for the problems that face us.
You have been a faithful supporter of the cause of liberty. You understand the serious nature of the threats that confront us and the dangers posed to our freedom and our very way of life.
It is up to us step up and lead the pro-freedom movement, not just in Congress, but in every community and at every level of government and every institution of learning.
Our ability to lead this movement comes from your tax-deductible contribution to FREE. $50 or $100, or even $250 or more if you can afford it, is urgently needed to help fund the effort to turn our government and our nation around… before it is too late.
Leadership is sorely lacking in Washington. It is time for true leaders like us to step forward and offer the vision needed to point Congress and our nation in the right direction… and to halt the assault on our nation’s sovereignty.
This is a dangerous time. But it is also an historic opportunity. Please help today with your most generous, tax-deductible gift for freedom. We must act swiftly to fill the leadership void in Washington. The time is NOW and the need is urgent!!!
Please log on to www.FREE-NEFL.com and contribute to the incredibly important work of FREE. No gift is too small… and every donation will help me continue to lead the battle for Liberty.
I’m counting on you.
For Liberty,
Ron Paul
P.S. If you can help with $50 or more, I will send you my “Freedom Report” newsletter for a full year as my “thank you” for your generous help. And for a gift of $100 or more I would like to send you a copy of my book on foreign policy… A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship
P.P.S. If you can help FREE with a magnificent gift of $500 or more, I’ll send you a personally autographed copy of my best-selling book, The Revolution: A Manifesto
The late Robert Anton Wilson ( January 18, 1932 - January 11, 2007, age 72) was the author that woke me up at an early age to how the world really works. R.A.W.’s main thesis is that your perception of reality ultimately controls reality. While that is an oversimplification of his ideas, he’s one of those prolific writers that you really must spend some time understanding. I think that everyone can get something out of reading Robert Anton Wilson. As an introduction, I’ve decided to post a documentary film entitled: Maybe Logic. If you enjoy the film below, please consider purchasing it, or some of his books. Trust me, it’s worth it.
The late Robert Anton Wilson ( January 18, 1932 - January 11, 2007, age 72) was the author that woke me up at an early age to how the world really works. R.A.W.’s main thesis is that your perception of reality ultimately controls reality. While that is an oversimplification of his ideas, he’s one of those prolific writers that you really must spend some time understanding. I think that everyone can get something out of reading Robert Anton Wilson. As an introduction, I’ve decided to post a documentary film entitled: Maybe Logic. If you enjoy the film below, please consider purchasing it, or some of his books. Trust me, it’s worth it.
I love coffee. Coffee is the second most valuable traded commodity behind oil. Millions of people worldwide participate in the economy of coffee. The topic of coffee is a widely discussed and debated topic amongst its fans. Everyone has their own favorite bean, drink, preparation method and style. Coffee is perhaps the most personal beverage one can consume. Many people use coffee to just get them up in the morning, and pay little mind to the taste. Some people dump tons of cream and sugar into their coffee or drink expensive fashionable espresso drinks. Others have a true passion for fine, fresh roasted coffee and love tasting coffees from different origins, roasters, and preparation methods. I personally love straight black drip brewed coffee, freshly roasted and freshly brewed. I’m partial to coffees of southeast asian origins such as Sumatra. I figured I would put together a list of coffee related resources for other lovers of the bean. Whatever your coffee style, I’m sure the following sites will give you a lot more information about your favorite beverage.
Coffee Websites
CoffeeGeek - CoffeeGeek is a great resource for coffee lovers looking to learn more about the bean. CoffeeGeek has extensive reviews on everything from espresso machines to home coffee roasters. Check out the forums for discussions about everything coffee related.
CoffeeForums - CoffeeForums is a long standing forum with tons of information. I especially like the sections by/for coffee shop owners to share their knowledge and experiences in the coffee industry. Worth checking out.
SCAA - The Specialty Coffee Association of America is dedicated to bringing together and representing all parts of the coffee industry. The SCAA hosts events and connects all of the major players in the world of coffee together.
BaristaExchange - Barista Exchange is a social network for Baristas. Even if you aren’t a Barista you can share your passion for coffee with others in the industry. Quite a new concept here, looking forward to seeing the community develop more.
BaristaConnection - Barista Connection is another social network for Baristas. Much smaller and newer than Barista Exchange, but still worth keeping an eye on.
Counter Culture Coffee - Counter Culture Coffee is a great example of the social consciousness of coffee. From their website:
At Counter Culture, coffee isn’t merely a bean or a beverage. It’s the furthest thing from a commodity. Coffee is a process involving high standards and tough decisions. Coffee is relationships and responsibilities. More than anything, coffee is a connective force that has the potential to bring out the best in people.
They have a good bit of information about coffee on their website including detailed info about the origins.
Espresso Parts Northwest - In my opinion Espresso Parts Northwest is the best online retailer of coffee related items in existence. They have a wide range of consumer, prosumer and commercial offerings.
Home Barista Forums - A forum dedicated to making coffee at home with consumer grade equipment. Filled with discussions, tips and tricks from other coffee lovers all over the world.
Alt.coffee - Alt.coffee is one of the oldest coffee discussion groups on the Internet. For those unfamiliar with “news groups” I’ve linked to the Google Groups format. Alt.Coffee first hit the scenes in 1994, so its been around for almost 15 years.
Coffee Review - Reviews of beans and roasters from all over.
International Coffee Organization - the ICO has a wealth of information about Coffee as a commodity. They also have a lot of information about coffee quality.
My Starbucks Idea - Love or hate Starbucks you can now use this site to vote for your favorite suggestions. I do have to give Starbucks credit for having such an open resource and listening to their customer concerns. Ideas that have come to reality from this site include: Free Refills of Drip Coffee and Free WIFI
Coffee Research - Coffee Research has a ton of information about coffee. They also publish a newsletter that is available for download.
Coffee Science - Mainly focusing on heath related issues of coffee, Coffee Science is run by the National Coffee Association.
Books
I love coffee. Coffee is the second most valuable traded commodity behind oil. Millions of people worldwide participate in the economy of coffee. The topic of coffee is a widely discussed and debated topic amongst its fans. Everyone has their own favorite bean, drink, preparation method and style. Coffee is perhaps the most personal beverage one can consume. Many people use coffee to just get them up in the morning, and pay little mind to the taste. Some people dump tons of cream and sugar into their coffee or drink expensive fashionable espresso drinks. Others have a true passion for fine, fresh roasted coffee and love tasting coffees from different origins, roasters, and preparation methods. I personally love straight black drip brewed coffee, freshly roasted and freshly brewed. I’m partial to coffees of southeast asian origins such as Sumatra. I figured I would put together a list of coffee related resources for other lovers of the bean. Whatever your coffee style, I’m sure the following sites will give you a lot more information about your favorite beverage.
Coffee Websites
CoffeeGeek - CoffeeGeek is a great resource for coffee lovers looking to learn more about the bean. CoffeeGeek has extensive reviews on everything from espresso machines to home coffee roasters. Check out the forums for discussions about everything coffee related.
CoffeeForums - CoffeeForums is a long standing forum with tons of information. I especially like the sections by/for coffee shop owners to share their knowledge and experiences in the coffee industry. Worth checking out.
SCAA - The Specialty Coffee Association of America is dedicated to bringing together and representing all parts of the coffee industry. The SCAA hosts events and connects all of the major players in the world of coffee together.
BaristaExchange - Barista Exchange is a social network for Baristas. Even if you aren’t a Barista you can share your passion for coffee with others in the industry. Quite a new concept here, looking forward to seeing the community develop more.
BaristaConnection - Barista Connection is another social network for Baristas. Much smaller and newer than Barista Exchange, but still worth keeping an eye on.
Counter Culture Coffee - Counter Culture Coffee is a great example of the social consciousness of coffee. From their website:
At Counter Culture, coffee isn’t merely a bean or a beverage. It’s the furthest thing from a commodity. Coffee is a process involving high standards and tough decisions. Coffee is relationships and responsibilities. More than anything, coffee is a connective force that has the potential to bring out the best in people.
They have a good bit of information about coffee on their website including detailed info about the origins.
Espresso Parts Northwest - In my opinion Espresso Parts Northwest is the best online retailer of coffee related items in existence. They have a wide range of consumer, prosumer and commercial offerings.
Home Barista Forums - A forum dedicated to making coffee at home with consumer grade equipment. Filled with discussions, tips and tricks from other coffee lovers all over the world.
Alt.coffee - Alt.coffee is one of the oldest coffee discussion groups on the Internet. For those unfamiliar with “news groups” I’ve linked to the Google Groups format. Alt.Coffee first hit the scenes in 1994, so its been around for almost 15 years.
Coffee Review - Reviews of beans and roasters from all over.
International Coffee Organization - the ICO has a wealth of information about Coffee as a commodity. They also have a lot of information about coffee quality.
My Starbucks Idea - Love or hate Starbucks you can now use this site to vote for your favorite suggestions. I do have to give Starbucks credit for having such an open resource and listening to their customer concerns. Ideas that have come to reality from this site include: Free Refills of Drip Coffee and Free WIFI
Coffee Research - Coffee Research has a ton of information about coffee. They also publish a newsletter that is available for download.
Coffee Science - Mainly focusing on heath related issues of coffee, Coffee Science is run by the National Coffee Association.
Books
With a little over a week left before this campaign season ends there is still little to no coverage for any of the third party candidates. As usual, one of the exceptions to the rule comes from the wonderful people over at CSPAN. In particular, their program Washington Journal has highlighted three of the candidates over the past week. Chuck Baldwin (Constitution), Cynthia Mckinney (Green), and Bob Barr (Libertarian) all received 30 minutes of airtime which consisted of an interview and a Q&A session with callers from across the nation.
Thankfully, Cynthia Mckinney was more receptive to answering the moderator’s questions than she usually is in interviews. One example of her usual and more difficult style would be when Greta Brawner interviewed her for an hour for CSPAN’s series entitled, Road to the White House. She displays an Palin-esque quality of avoiding any direct question and talking about whatever she feels. This becomes annoying at best - angering at worst. Coming from someone who generally supports her and agrees with much of what she says, I can only imagine what it must have been like to hear her reapetedly ignore the questions posed by NPR’s Neal Conan on Talk of the Nation for someone unfamiliar with her. NPR’s Scott Simon of Weekend Edition can also be credited with giving her some airplay in one of Cynthia’s better, albeit brief, showings.
Bob Barr is polling at a modest 1.5% nationally and has also benefited by being featured on Road to the White House. I feel he had a far better showing on both Washington Journal and Road to the White House due to actually presenting some sort of concise message. Not only that, but he succeeded in the simple task of answering questions posed to him. What a radical move. Especially considering the hosts of CSPAN and NPR tend to be far more fair in comparison to most moderators. NPR’s News & Notes also gave him a few minutes to detail his campaign goals alongside Weekend Edition’s profile of the candidate.
Unfortunately for Barr and Mckinney, neither of them appeared in the only Third Party Debate after the one at Columbia was canceled. Complete with caller responses immediately following the event, Ralph Nader and Chuck Baldwin were the only two to take part. This is a really pathetic result for something I personally deem to be quite important. I was personally influenced by the Libertarian platform presented by Michael Badnarik in the 2004 election as a result of CSPAN airing the Third Party Debate. Ralph Nader and Chuck Baldwin were both also featured on NPR’s Weekend Edition.
After viewing and listening to the minimal coverage the Third Party Candidates receive, I honestly have to say I’ve been the most impressed with Chuck Baldwin’s performances. He comes off as the most honest of all the candidates and presents the most compelling message. He is the most outspoken against real issues such as the Federal Reserve, the New World Order, gun rights, and other Constitutional principles. This is not an endorsement, however. Unfortunately, I disagree with him in regards to some other elements of his platform.
At the end of the day I am still an undecided voter. All I know is that I reject the two corporate puppets that most media outlets present to us as the only options. Its sad that many people believe them.
With a little over a week left before this campaign season ends there is still little to no coverage for any of the third party candidates. As usual, one of the exceptions to the rule comes from the wonderful people over at CSPAN. In particular, their program Washington Journal has highlighted three of the candidates over the past week. Chuck Baldwin (Constitution), Cynthia Mckinney (Green), and Bob Barr (Libertarian) all received 30 minutes of airtime which consisted of an interview and a Q&A session with callers from across the nation.
Thankfully, Cynthia Mckinney was more receptive to answering the moderator’s questions than she usually is in interviews. One example of her usual and more difficult style would be when Greta Brawner interviewed her for an hour for CSPAN’s series entitled, Road to the White House. She displays an Palin-esque quality of avoiding any direct question and talking about whatever she feels. This becomes annoying at best - angering at worst. Coming from someone who generally supports her and agrees with much of what she says, I can only imagine what it must have been like to hear her reapetedly ignore the questions posed by NPR’s Neal Conan on Talk of the Nation for someone unfamiliar with her. NPR’s Scott Simon of Weekend Edition can also be credited with giving her some airplay in one of Cynthia’s better, albeit brief, showings.
Bob Barr is polling at a modest 1.5% nationally and has also benefited by being featured on Road to the White House. I feel he had a far better showing on both Washington Journal and Road to the White House due to actually presenting some sort of concise message. Not only that, but he succeeded in the simple task of answering questions posed to him. What a radical move. Especially considering the hosts of CSPAN and NPR tend to be far more fair in comparison to most moderators. NPR’s News & Notes also gave him a few minutes to detail his campaign goals alongside Weekend Edition’s profile of the candidate.
Unfortunately for Barr and Mckinney, neither of them appeared in the only Third Party Debate after the one at Columbia was canceled. Complete with caller responses immediately following the event, Ralph Nader and Chuck Baldwin were the only two to take part. This is a really pathetic result for something I personally deem to be quite important. I was personally influenced by the Libertarian platform presented by Michael Badnarik in the 2004 election as a result of CSPAN airing the Third Party Debate. Ralph Nader and Chuck Baldwin were both also featured on NPR’s Weekend Edition.
After viewing and listening to the minimal coverage the Third Party Candidates receive, I honestly have to say I’ve been the most impressed with Chuck Baldwin’s performances. He comes off as the most honest of all the candidates and presents the most compelling message. He is the most outspoken against real issues such as the Federal Reserve, the New World Order, gun rights, and other Constitutional principles. This is not an endorsement, however. Unfortunately, I disagree with him in regards to some other elements of his platform.
At the end of the day I am still an undecided voter. All I know is that I reject the two corporate puppets that most media outlets present to us as the only options. Its sad that many people believe them.
[batteries not included]
I had a really good idea..
Wrapped in a shell that is my own consciousness, an idea formed, giving a certain spark of life to something new. A concept, or envisioned thing, if you will, springs forth from the impenetrable fortress that is my brain.
[batteries not included]
I had a really good idea..
Wrapped in a shell that is my own consciousness, an idea formed, giving a certain spark of life to something new. A concept, or envisioned thing, if you will, springs forth from the impenetrable fortress that is my brain.
I’m not very comforted when people in power with access to sensitive information make declarative statments about imminent dangers posed to me. I’m especially worried when a guarantee is made to me in regards to these dangers by someone who has a proven track record, for whatever reason, to have his pulse on “the real threat” which may come in “the belly of a plane.” Now, good ol’ Joe the Politician is making even more difinitive statements in regards to what our future has in store for us.
Joseph Biden has stated that “we’re going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis” and that he can “guarantee you it’s going to happen.” He continued to state that “it’s not going to be apparent that we’re right” in regards to how an Obama/Biden administration would handle such a situation. Here - take a listen for yourself:
He isn’t the only one that feels this way. When questioned about Biden’s statements, Fmr. Secretary of State Madeline Albright felt that “its just a statement of fact, frankly.” Sen. Joe Lieberman appeared on Face the Nation on 06.29.2008 and echoed Biden’s sentiments by saying that “our enemies will test the new president early.” He also went on to tell Bob Schiffer to “remember that the truck bombing of the World Trade Center happened in the first year of the Clinton Administration. 9/11 happened in the first year of the Bush Administration.” I’d like to personally thank Joe the Politician #2 for narrowing the timeline for when the next terrorist attack or crisis will strike America and the world. It will happen with in the 1st year of the next President’s term.
However, that is not close enough. I think I’d like to narrow it down a bit more. Lets see what Fmr. Secretary of State Colin Powell had to say while appearing on Meet the Press on 10.19.2008:
In case you missed it, Colin Powell stated that “there is going to be a crisis [to] come along on the 21st or 22nd of January that we don’t even know about right now.” Oh, really? What an interesting thing to say. However, don’t worry! The United States Military is already in place and engaged in homeland tours - for your protection of course. Who needs a 2nd amendment and Posse Comitatus when you have the US Army on American soil to protect you? Oh, wait.
I’m not very comforted when people in power with access to sensitive information make declarative statments about imminent dangers posed to me. I’m especially worried when a guarantee is made to me in regards to these dangers by someone who has a proven track record, for whatever reason, to have his pulse on “the real threat” which may come in “the belly of a plane.” Now, good ol’ Joe the Politician is making even more difinitive statements in regards to what our future has in store for us.
Joseph Biden has stated that “we’re going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis” and that he can “guarantee you it’s going to happen.” He continued to state that “it’s not going to be apparent that we’re right” in regards to how an Obama/Biden administration would handle such a situation. Here - take a listen for yourself:
He isn’t the only one that feels this way. When questioned about Biden’s statements, Fmr. Secretary of State Madeline Albright felt that “its just a statement of fact, frankly.” Sen. Joe Lieberman appeared on Face the Nation on 06.29.2008 and echoed Biden’s sentiments by saying that “our enemies will test the new president early.” He also went on to tell Bob Schiffer to “remember that the truck bombing of the World Trade Center happened in the first year of the Clinton Administration. 9/11 happened in the first year of the Bush Administration.” I’d like to personally thank Joe the Politician #2 for narrowing the timeline for when the next terrorist attack or crisis will strike America and the world. It will happen with in the 1st year of the next President’s term.
However, that is not close enough. I think I’d like to narrow it down a bit more. Lets see what Fmr. Secretary of State Colin Powell had to say while appearing on Meet the Press on 10.19.2008:
In case you missed it, Colin Powell stated that “there is going to be a crisis [to] come along on the 21st or 22nd of January that we don’t even know about right now.” Oh, really? What an interesting thing to say. However, don’t worry! The United States Military is already in place and engaged in homeland tours - for your protection of course. Who needs a 2nd amendment and Posse Comitatus when you have the US Army on American soil to protect you? Oh, wait.
Way too much aggregated information about myself, and things I've been working on. by Kyle Ingrelli.
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- November 2006
- October 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- October 2005
- July 2004
- (Subscribe to this page via RSS!)