This incapsulates how I feel. I want my kid not only to have all the things I had as a kid, but also all those cool things life had to offer before the pussy-ass liberals came and took away before I got to them.

I finally got back to reading Walden last night, I got through the chapters Where I Lived, and What I Lived For, and Sounds. I thought it was a nature book, but it is more like philosophical transcendentalist nonsense. I am forty percent done and the only nature I have seen in the book is in the last chapter, Sounds, he hears some birds; but that is after a ten page treatise on the economy and trade of fabrics and travelers since the chapter started by him hearing the train.

Don’t get me wrong it is still good enough and better than many, there are parts I really enjoy, I just expected more of a breezy jaunt rather than a literal trudge. Hopefully it gets more eco-friendly but with the next chapter named Solitude it does not look promising.

I just reminded myself with my last post, one of the items on my bucket list is to read the Bible from cover to cover. It is rough. I am about a third done with The Book of Numbers and only a third of what I read so far is worth reading.

I have an issue at the moment. I am currently reading several books, starting one and not finishing it, and by not finishing it for any particular reason, I leave the book in a state of limbo - being read and not read at the same time. It’s kind of like Schrödinger’s cat, well if Schrödinger was just too damn lazy to look in the box, then the cat could theoretically live forever. Hmm… I digress.

Current levels:

Atlas Shrugged 50%

 The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second look at the Federal Reserve 30%

Blood Meridian: or the Evening Redness in the West 90% I know, right?

Travels of a T-shirt in a Global Economy 75%

Papa Hemingway 30%

The Book of Numbers 30%

And, Walden: or Life in the Woods 25%

And that is just what I am claiming I am reading right now. Since I started Walden Last, I will try to finish that one first, and chisel may way through this list before reading any others. Also this does not count the more reference type books I read all the time: right now is A Patriots History of the United States.

I guess Gaddafi is dead, and this morning Obama stated he would pull the troops out of Iraq by Christmas, thereby ending two of our needless wars. Don’t get me wrong, I am not totally against war, I am just against (one) limited war, and a war where we have no business to be in in the first place. This is another huge difference between the conservatives of this country and myself. Not only that, they have transformed the meaning into something it is not, as my view is more conservative than the conservative opinion even though it is lumped in with the liberal Demoncrats.

I would personally prefer we leave those countries to their own demise, we have no business being there forcing our will and blowing our tax dollars on bloodshed, which I think runs pandemic in the despotic Muslim world, but we certainly don’t need to signing our name to the roster. I wouldn’t be so against the Iraq war if it brought us fifty cent per gallon gas, or we went in and just decimated the population to the point where they could not possibly mount another attack, leave the towns in rubble and bring the troops back a week or two later, regroup and plan for the the Iranian war. Neither would be ideal, but still better than the gangrenous wound we continually inflict on ourselves. The fact is we join, or pick, a fight with no clear objectives and severely limit the capabilities of our forces to the point where the shock would be if we actually did win. It sounds an awful lot like Orwell’s perpetual war. There is always somebody left to beat up if you refuse to kill anyone.

Doesn’t anybody with enough merit to matter realize the money we save, which is way lower than the amount they claim the war cost, can be used in schools or cut in taxes. That’s not even the worst of it, after we blow the shit out of the place we pay to rebuild it, if they blow the shit out of the place we still pay to rebuild it, if we recently rebuilt something that was blown up and it gets demolished yet again, there we are rebuilding it. It’s like the end of the Bridge on the River Kwai: Madness. I am not even an advocate of isolationism, as it has proven to be horrendous for every practicing country; I am an advocate of a more neutral non-interventionist type policy. A policy that prevents blowback. A policy where if we do go to war, we decimate the hell out of them and get back to perfecting our apple cider and pumpkin pie recipes. 

After the realization I had of Thoreau two nights ago from reading the first chapter of Walden, this seemed relevant. I wrote this in June.

Small Introduction: In college, I had a conversation with a teacher that went along something like this, “Why are you such a communist?” His reply was, “Because of Robin Hood.”

In America, parents have their children watch Disney’s classic animated films, they are entertaining, they have a few teachable moments, and they are good enough for me to still enjoy them. Although, almost of the villains are rich white people, most of their motivations, except Madame Medusa and Cruella DeVille, are personal. Most children have their introduction to wealth distribution by the 1973 classic Robin Hood. I understand that the version my teacher spoke of was most likely the 1938 Errol Flynn version. However, since this conversation seven years ago, a few of my friends have cited the Disney version. It is considered the definitive source for my generation.

So flash forward to 2009, I was reading Rand’s most awesome and life changing Atlas Shrugged, and halfway through the book they introduce the pirate Ragnar Danneskjöld. Ragnar is not just any pirate he has a noble mission. He steals and destroys the cargo of ships which are the beneficiaries of government handouts. The government has begun passing laws that any competitive advantage a company might have is unfair and therefore illegal. Through taxes, fines, and downright theft the government levels the playing field; mostly to help out the friends, or donors of the corrupt politicians. Ragnar tracks down these vessels and steals what ever material he can, and sinks the rest, since he feels the recipients of the materials did not earn it and are only the arbitrary “winners the government officials have picked. What he steals, he gives back to the rightful owner the government has taken it from in the first place, since they will be able to produce goods the world needs from it. He is truly re-leveling the playing field the legislature has tilted in favor of its cronies.

Philosophically though, he states he is out pirating to destroy a man, when asked what man, he replies, “Robin Hood. …He was the man who robbed the rich and gave to the poor. Well, I’m the man who robs the poor and gives to the rich – or, to be exact, the man who robs the thieving poor and gives back to the productive rich.” When I read this I had a revelation, although I understood his motives, Ragnar was all wrong and so was everybody else - and as it turned out, so was I. Robin Hood was the epitome of freedom. He lived in the woods as a bachelor, he derided the abuse of the poor, as well as stuck up for them, and most importantly, he spent his life insuring the economic freedom of his countrymen while a corrupt steward sat on the throne.

See, Robin Hood didn’t really steal from the rich and give to the poor, that is only the outward appearance. What he really did was take back the money that the “phony king” had illegally stolen from the citizens of England, by use of an oppressive tax structure, there by enslaving the entire country to the whims of the government. By the time the dust clears, as long as logic is present, all will see Robin Hood only protected the residents of Sherwood from the tyrannical Prince John. Never did he steal from the citizens of Britain, only the prince and his henchmen. The money was not taken by those who earned it, only from those who took it out of circulation by force of law, thereby keeping it from earning anything or allowing it to be used in the creation of goods and services.

This is the true reason every soul in Sherwood was destitute, not because of some unseen millionaire oppressing the people to slavery, it was the will of the government by illegal seizure of private citizens’ property. This, is (even in Robin Hood) actually proven to be illegal, when King Richard steps back into England and sees what has transpired during his absence, he restores the balance, pardons Robin, and punishes Prince John. Robin, by being exonerated is proven to be an agent of the very government he was protecting the people against. He was acting in accordance to what is true and just. The criminal, just as ironically, was an agent of that same government using it to oppress the people. By stepping outside his proper role, Prince John proved he was not truly an agent of the government he claimed to control. All is evident throughout the movie as the citizenry remarks about it several times, by lamenting King Richard’s involvement in the Crusades, looking toward his return as their salvation with hope, and referring to Prince John the First, to the point of ridicule, as both Prince John the Worst and The Phony King of England.

Ragnar did have a purpose similar to Robin Hood’s and his moral crusade was one and the same, as the people Ragnar stole from were the recipients of large taxpayer funded government bailouts. His beneficiaries were the same as Robin’s as well, the hard working people who use the money to purchase goods and services, and in turn create more wealth for all involved. Ragnar was only misarticulating the point of the Robin Hood legend to opposite effect. Robin Hood should not be “killed in the mind of men,” but celebrated; and his true mission should be known to all. He should be exalted as a paragon to freedom and justice, since he did not wait for King Richard to return in hopes that he would see the results of the tyrannical episode, he did what any hero would do, he believed in himself enough to do what is right no matter what the consequences. Needless to say he was vindicated in the end by his pardon, and he got to marry Maid Marian in the royal court - now, I am not really into bestiality, but Maid Marion is one fine looking animal.

So, in a sudden turn of events, I can say, the reason my friends and colleagues are such communists isn’t because of Robin Hood at all, it is because they are all short-sighted, close-minded, idiotic doughheads who refuse to see what is really going on in the world. The actions of Robin are completely situational, he never just went out stealing from anybody he passed by willy-nilly without disregard. Remember, he left Maid Marian and her family alone, and although they did not get into it, you can tell they were wealthy. They just saw what they chose to see, regardless of the truth that was presented to them. These people would probably never read a book like Atlas Shrugged anyways, or anything else that may be just as eye opening. So as it turns out, our dashing hero is a supporter of small government, individual liberties, and economic freedom for all - he’s a libertarian!