Intriguing Proposition
Just got off the phone with Dr. P-Daddy (literally Daddy since his kid is now amongst us - thank god she looks like James). He has posited an intriguing proposition. We here at CMH are arguing amongst ourselves (with plenty of snark BTW - sorry Ryan my snark meter was off the other day). What about transforming CMH into a sort of think-tank to push our ideas further into the political sphere of influence?
What's that you say, a think-tank? Hell yeah, why not? We are a great bunch of bullshitters and can write a decent white paper on a particular topic of interest. So why not? I throw it out to the group to discuss in the comments, but I like the idea quite a bit.
Bring it....
To get an idea about what we are proposing, here are several think-tank websites I visit on a regular basis:
http://www.mises.org/ (a personal favorite)
I would prefer to take a proactive approach to the current "situation" as opposed to retroactive. Although, I still think that preparations are needed based on the mostly likely scenarios.
Reply to this
So, if we were to become this "think tank," are we then arguing on behalf of ourselves or our group? If I'm not arguing with someone, I'm not sure I know what to do... But seriously, as a legitimate "think tank" shouldn't we come across as a united front of individuals? We can't have one person going one way only to be challenged by another author of the "think tank", can we? What does the "think tank" consist of? It seems at each of these sites there is a central theme? Do we have a central theme?
Reply to this
It all depends on the articles of incorporation of our tank. We'd define our "mission" in those articles (and our by-laws), but could also put in a bunch of dreck about the desire to foster vigorous debate and encouraging opposing philosophical disputes. Marketplace of ideas and whatnot.
Or our united principles can focus around being assholes, with everything else as a faint and distant second. Or some other principle of curmudgeoness.
Or maybe we just need one good quote as the essential organizing principle.
This site always warms my heart on em':
http://www.anyman.com/gist.htm
"From new transmitters come the old stupidities."
-Bertolt Brecht
This one's perhaps too focused on the surveilance state instead of broad principles, but isn't bad:
Thanks, for a country where nobody is allowed to mind his own business. Thanks, for a nation of finks.
- William S. Burroughs
Also, whiskey, weed and women aren't a bad area of focus. As the person who has developed this theme, I task the rest of you with obtaining the private funding necessary to initiate our learned inquiry into these subjects.
Reply to this
If no one else is willing I will take upon myself the great burden of "The Whiskey Conundrum". In an easy 20-30 years I should be an expert with a transplant liver to boot. JG
Reply to this
Well a central theme is for what we would strive. Yes, the other sites have a "central" theme such as Mises is focused on economics, Federalist Society is focused on legal issues (mainly Constitutional Law issues), etc. We have a broad topic base here at CMH, but that does not have to be the "focus" of any type of think-tank we form. However, we would probably focus on one or two main general topics (legal and constitutional I bet) and yes we would disagree on those topics as many people do. However that is the purpose of a think-tank; to spur debate on the issues. We would post certain topics and maybe write a white paper or teo on a topic to spur debate, not only at the site, but in the political sphere as well.
My vote is the first white paper focus on whiskey and the original tax revolt - The Whiskey Rebellion" and take us from then til now (including the cursed NASCAR beginnings - White Lightening Runners).
Reply to this
howsabout the usurpation of constitutional authority by our elected officials. dating all the way back to the whisky rebellion (proper spelling of the word "whiskey" by the way). yes i know. my heroes are just as culpable as lincoln, wilson, fdr, nixon, kennedy, johnson, bush, clin-ton, bush, and dear leader. in fact they are the most culpable. had they held to the standards which they established, these following bureaucrats would have had no justification or their respective overreaches. ill get the ball rolling here. had it not been for Gen. Washington (PBUH) and his evil crushing of the Whiskey Rebellion, then the evil lincoln would have had no ground to "uphold the union at all costs." so i guess my focus on the think tank would be the mediocre presidents. you know the ones who took their oaths of office seriously and did their jobs. not expanding the powers of the executive. the simpsons had a good spoof on these presidents.
we are the mediocre presidents...
you wont find our faces on dollars or on cents...
van buren, harrison, tyler, polk, taylor, fillmore, pierce, buchanan
then enter the true usurpers, all down hill from this point. evil lincoln = father abraham. fdr = moses. dear leader = the christ. i guess you could say jimmy = john the baptist.
thoughts?
Reply to this
Maybe something on the 9th Amendement as the focus:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
While I do like a focus on Whiskey (the Irish and true spelling), it's hard to argue that the founders had a problem with Washington crushing the rebellion. No one really batted an eye. Don't forget that the country was founded with the expectation and understanding that the franchise would be limited to property holders, not the masses. And then the President most responsible for getting the vote to more people, Andrew Jackson, broke treaties (with Indians), violated Supreme Court rulings (holding that Jackson couldn't just deport all the Indians in a quasi death march to Oklahoma) and told Calhoun of South Carolina that if they tried to secede he'd march down there and hang every last one of them (which led to less talk of state's rights and nullification from the South Carolina delegation).
Based on the conduct of the founder presidents (Washington - Madison), I don't know if they'd say there was all that much usurpation. Just to be devil's advocate, maybe the growth of government is the natural collarary to the growth in the complexity (mecahnical, electronic) of society. There just isn't any western democracy without some form of social safety net. And in the face of WW II facisim, and cold war communist expansion, was there any other rational choice besides the expansion of the permanant US miltary (not saying it had to go as far as it did, not much of a real need to have enough nukes to wipe out the world 20 times over).
What I'm really trying to say is: no one wants to talk about the mediocre presidents.
And that Jimmy sometimes gets a bad rap. He did lead the deregulation of interstate commerce (trucking, airlines, etc) .
From the wiki:
"Carter had campaigned on a promise to eliminate the trappings of the "Imperial Presidency," and he began taking action according to that promise on Inauguration Day, breaking with recent history and security protocols by walking up Pennsylvania Avenue from the U.S. Capitol to the White House in his inaugural parade. His first steps in the White House went further in this direction: Carter reduced the size of the staff by one third; canceled government-funded chauffeur service for Cabinet members, ordering them to drive their own cars; and put the presidential yacht up for sale."
But he was called a pussy for that, so nobody campaigns on that anymore. It only worked after 'nam and nixon. And he did insitute the 55 mph speed limit. Of which we are thankfully free.
Reply to this
youre right, i had it backwards. it is whiskey.
Reply to this
Jackson was still a mother fucker. he would straight up bust a cap in yo azz! plus he liked fat TN girls.
Reply to this
fat bottomed TN girls?
And this is how he did the British (and while i don't know this for sure, it's my guess that he would save the children but not the british children)
Reply to this
thats an old video. Seems he was still a Colonel in 1958. by the time i heard the song in kindergarten ca. 1985 it was Gen. Andy Jackson. also not only would he not save british children, but he would eat them too. he also took florida from the spaniards.
Reply to this