Garrett Michael Hayes for Liberty

The Next Health Care Question

Garrett Michael Hayes — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 22:11:00 GMT

I have a serious What-If question for all my Libertarian and libertarian-leaning friends, concerning the rapidly approaching health care takeover by the Federal government.

First, a basic assumption:

Let's assume that the Senate shows the same lack of spine that it has many times over and passes a compatrable version to the House abomination, it gets to the President's desk, he signs it, and eventually we end up with the predicted "Single-Payer" health system run entirely by the Federal government, based on taxation, cooercion and theft.

Now, I know, there are still a lot of potential roadblocks to that end-point, but let's assume that it DOES end up there, for the sake of the question I want to ask.

What do we, as Libertarians committed to FREE exchange, VOLUNTARY association and the rest, DO? Do we use that system at all? Do we set up a medical "underground"? How do we live in a system where just breathing requires you to participate in theft and coercion?

The Elements of Podiatric Marksmanship (A Defense of Apathy)

Garrett Michael Hayes — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:30:00 GMT

Wow! There's a LOT of stuff being hotly discussed on the ol' Internet these days! And that's a GOOD thing. Getting thing's out and talking about them is always helpful.

But you know what?

I really don't care all that much about a lot of it. Certainly not with the *obvious* passion that some of you do.

So I want to talk for a little bit about something I *do* care about - persuading people to a point of view. Let me tell you, a lot of you aren't doing it. Perhaps I am not either - but I do try - When I care.

I could list some of the hot-button issues that I see bandied about in places such as FaceBook, and about which I really don't yield an airborne fornication, but I won't, for two reasons:
    1) I'm really talking about talking
    2) I really don't want the people who are blazingly hot under the collar about those issues to start beating down my virtaul door.

Now, if you really aren't trying to persuade people, feel free to ignore the rest of this. If when you post articles, status messages, links, replies, etc., you are simply venting, or trying to make yourself feel smart and important, I'm not addressing you.

Observation One - Simple Abuse Persuades No One
"Idiot(s)!" (fools, sheeple, pawns, dupes, myrmidons, robots, kool-aid drinkers, etc.)

Odds that I'm an idiot about the subject and point of view you espouse? Pretty good. Odds that you'll interest me in exploring your point of view by CALLING me an idiot? Pretty poor. It may excite you and energize those who already share your point of view. After all, it plays directly into the "us versus them" dynamic. But it's an awfully poor persuader.

Observation Two - "Obvious Truth"... isn't
Pretty much once we've gotten past the point of "hey - that pink thing Mommy sticks in my mouth tastes pretty good!", there's not a lot that's really "obvious truth". Your car makes a funny noise. You look under the hood. Nothing. You take it to your mechanic. He (or she) looks under the hood. There's the obvious cause. The "obvious" nature of what you see pretty much depends on what has come before in your experiences and knowledge relevant to the subject, from cultural heritage to academic training to how much sleep you got last night. One person's "obvious truth" is rather likely to be someone else's "self evident nonsense".

Observation Three - Dedicated Study and Obsession Aren't That Far Apart
There's a little warning flag that goes off somewhere in the back of my brain when I come across a phrase like, "I've studied this for 20 years, and believe me..." I just recently finished reading a paperback on the psychology of serial killers (yes - another of my weird interests) and I was constantly struck by one aspect of the book. The author seemed to have an almost palpable obsession with repeatedly stressing their years of study, as a justification for the validity of their theories. Sorry - time spent is only relevant when it's relevant, as in "In 20 years of babysitting hundreds of children, I have never seen one spontaneously fly up and bounce off the ceiling." The more you want to reiterate your dedication to the study of your issue, the more I am likely to suspect you of obsession.

Observation Four - Sometimes They're Just Dots (and Numbers)
If you've ever taken a color blindness test, or looked at one of those "Magic Pictures" where if you stare at the page long enough you can see the picture of the spaceship in 3D, you already know that sometimes the image isn't really obvious. Just because you have connected the dots, or seen the bottom line, doesn't mean that I have. And it doesn't mean that I *will* the moment I look, either.

If you want me to see the picture, be prepared to help me connect the dots. Help me comprehend how these figuresd add up to the bottom line you see. (And please keep Observation One in mind while you do so. Please?)

Observation Four - "First, The Dinosaurs Came"
There's a great line in the comedy movie "Airplane", when one charactaer asks another, "Fill me in on everything that's happened so far." The other character replies, "First, the dinosaurs came. Then they died and turned into oil. Then the Arabs came..."

Please, don't think you're "connecting the dots" by recapitulating your entire 20 year oddysey of discovery - in chronological order. It was fascinating when James Burke did it in "Connections".   Among other things, I knew going into it that he was only going to take an hour. But when you do it, I'm actually wondering if the train of thought even HAS a caboose.

Observation Six - Mistakes Happen on All Sides
A number of years ago, a fellow published a dictionary for the IT (Information Technology) industry, which included the following defintion: "Martini: An alcoholoc beverage which I will buy for any reviewer who actually reads this far."

I'll bet you noticed that there are two "Observation Four"s, and then we skip straight to Six! Well, I made a mistake. I started to go back and fix it, but realized that it was a perfect illustration of my last observation. If I get any comments about the misnumbering, I'll know they commented without reading further - or by relying on the headings instead of the actual content.

The odds are pretty good one or more of us will commit an error in an online discussion. Reading ALL the comments and making sure you actually understand the poster's point before responding can go a long way toward being persuasive

Summary
That's pretty much it. Now go and espouse your point of view. Just don't be surprised if I'm still yawning. After all, I'm an obvious idiot.

An Open Letter to the Grocery Store Checker

Garrett Michael Hayes — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:21:00 GMT

First of all, you didn't embarass me. You didn't insult me. You didn't do anything wrong. So don't worry.

So why was I making such a point about NOT qualifying for the "Senior Citizen" discount you rang up? Why did I insist that you take it off the bill? Why, when it wasnt possible to remove it from the bill, did I wait for you and a manager to void the entire transaction and re-ring it? (To the other gentle readers, don't worry - it as only a 1 item sale. On the other hand, go ahead and worry, because I probably would have done the same thing if it had been a 200 item sale, but if you've read this blog at all, you already know me.)

Rest assured it was not about age. For some strange, unfathomable reason, anytime I get on my high horse about somethingh that remotely touches on age or birthdays, or any of that stuff, people just seem to leap to the conclusion that it's about - well - age...

Nope.

It's a lot simpler than that. You didn't insult me by assuming I was a "Senior Citizen." I'm in my early 50's but I *know* I look like I'm at least a decade older than that. Hell, store clerks, waiters and waitresses have been merrily trying to ringn me up as a "Senior" since I was in my early 40's. I get it. I look old. Any insult and irritation I may have felt about that went away a LONG time ago.

So why?

Because I'm a self-righteouos, moralistic prig who refuses to take what isn't mine. I'm the clown who finds a dime in the change slot and puts it on top of the pay phone in case the owner comes looking for it. (OK, maybe not the best example - you may be too young to know what a "pay phone" is.) I'm stubborn. It's that simple.

I love your store. I won't name it here, but let's just say it is (as far as I know) the largest privately held company in the US. You give great service and sell great products. In a few years, when I actually QUALIFY for the Senior Citizen dicsount, I'll take it happily. I may even ask you why you DIDN'T ring it up if you overlook it.

But until that day, I'll just continue to be a stiff necked pain in the aisle.

Health Care - Potential BIG BIG Win for The Democrats

Garrett Michael Hayes — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 02:45:00 GMT

Here's the situation, gentle reader: There are no Libertarians in National Office. The Republicans are already caving, with language like, "If the Democrats are going to pass healthcare ledislation anyway, then shouldn't it at least...?" The Democrats are looking down through their pince-nez at anyone daring to criticize the plan to their faces. It's beginning to look like a fait-accompli and a bigger win for the Democrats than even most opponents of the current health care legislation have realized.

It could, in fact, mean a Democrat lock on power for a VERY long time indeed. And it won't matter at all if the worst doom-and-gloom predictions of their opponents come true, and the country ends up with sub-basement quality care, rationed access and stifled innovation.

It will only matter WHEN that happens.

Before we start, let me say that I have no doubt that there are a great many Democrats - both in office and in the rank-and-file - who sincerely believe that what they like to call a "single-payer" system of health payment coverage (and I call a Government run, socialized medical system) will actually WORK and will produce GOOD results. I think they are dead wrong, but that is another discussion. Here, I want to talk about a venal, purely political calculation that I am quite convinced IS in the minds of at least SOME of the movers and shakers behind the current push in Washington. I say that without any documentary evidence, solely because it seems to me that, if they haven't thought about this, then they haven't thought about this.

Okay - here we go- stay with me. Keep your hands inside the blog at all times.

First, let's assume a worst-case scenario for the Democrats AND for the American People... That will be if the Republicans and Democrats manage to get together and craft *bi-partisan* health care demolition. Anything they manage to agree on will be about as useful as a gazelle with tank treads (made by the lowest bidder, of course). It will combine the most massive give-aways to the corporate-welfare drinkers with the most intrusive nanny regulations of the tiniest part of your relationship with your doctors. The true "nightmare" scenario. In other words, Phase II of the HMO wonderland that the Congress bequeathed to us in the 1980's.

But that's not the Win-WIn scenario or even the Win-Lose scenarios for the Democrats.

So let's keep imagining:

The Democrats in the House and Senate steamroller the minority Republicans, and enact something like the Toxic Medical Avenger currently stomping through the halls of Congress. What then?

Well, first of all, there's the worry of a backlash. IF enough Democrats are voted out of office in the next election cycle, and IF their replacements (of whatever party) have the stones to REPEAL what was done, then (and ONLY then) the Democrats lose. Do you want to take any bets on whether that backlash will happen and whether any new Congress will have the intestinal fortitude to say, "Reverso!' like legislative Harry Potters? I didn't think so.

So let's keep imagining:

Two possibilities emerge here...

First Possibility - It turns out that the nay-sayers are wrong, socialiized medicine in the United States becomes the 8th Wonder of the World, death is abolished, and the human lifespan extends to the 600 years that statisticians calculate we can go on living without succumbing to an accident.

Outcome? The Democrats become the party that saved everyone, and they live happily in power ever after.

Not very likely.

Second Possibility - It turns out that the nay-sayers are right, and everything goes to hell in a hand basket.

Outcome? Well, here's where the "WHEN" becomes so incredibly important. All the Deomcrats need to do to cement their power is to stave off the collapse for about 30 years. If that happens, it won't matter a bit how bad it gets. An entire generation will have grown up knowing nothing else but the Government system. There will be NO examples of a better way (outside history books, and who reads those) to point to . And any opposition will have two choices: Be the party that wants to dismantle the "natural way of life", or Be the party that wants to "fix" the system, in which case how are they different from the Democrats who built the system in the first place?

We see this already. It's pretty evident that the Walker and Power-Chair contingent in our society are routinely terrified with the Boogeyman that anyone but a Democrat is an evil, mustache-twirling villain bent on taking their [fill in the Government benefit] away and letting them die in agony.

How will it be different when the nation's populace is dependent on the Government for health care? Those who aren't in immediate need won't care (just as so many of our healthy young disdain to buy health insurance right now, even when they could easily do so), and those using the system will not dare to rock the boat.

So, the bottom line is, Health Care Legislation may well be the biggest gamble - with the biggest potential PAYOFF - that the Democrats have ever had before them. The risk that they will lose in this battle - not lose the legislation, but lose the political advantage they now have in their hands - is very slight.

What's our best hope? Simply that, like the Republicans who sailed into office in the 1990's on the winds of the Contract With America, that they lack the gumption to follow through. I usually will bet on Politicians being a timorous lot. Please, let's hope that's the way to bet now.

It's Time to Look Closely Into "....Er-Gate"

Garrett Michael Hayes — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 21:17:00 GMT

We've developed a shorthand in the last few years for categorizing issues as IMPORTANT or '~~trivial~~'. Or more precisely, the media has developed a lazy shorthand, and we mere plebian wankers have all happily followed suit. We've picked up the lingo and so we no longer need to waste any time on unproductive and wasteful things like critical thinking.

I refer, of course, to the use of the suffixes "-gate" and "-er".

It all began back in the early pleistocene era of modern politics, the Second Term of the Nixon Administration, which is as far back as any modern writer appears able to remember. The bugging of the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate office complex lead to the "Watergate Scandal" and opened the floodgates to unbridled "gating" ever since. We have been treated to an endless array of "gates", from "TravelGate" to "TestGate" to "TrooperGate"

If at this point in history, you dear reader are in any doubt as to what the suffix "-gate" means, then please permit me to translate it for you. "A source I kind of like has made some sort of an accusation I find interesting, and we need to talk about this, becasue it is our solemn duty as serious journalists to run down every possible lead, no matter how preposterous until the public has fully accepted that the scandal is real."

On the flip side, the history of "-er" is not so clear, but its origins probably predate "-gate" by about 20 years, going back to the days of the John Birch Society in its heyday. Members of that group were called "Birchers". Though it suffered under a pall of disuse, the venerable "-er" has seen a glorious resurgence with its application in the last few years to "Truthers", "Flaggers" (an appelation peculiar to the South) and most recently "Birthers".

I hope you will also allow me, gentle reader, to translate this power-packed suffix for you: "Some rube who I do not like has made an accusation I find uncomfortable, and they must be scorned as boobs for continuing to harp on this ludicrous subject now that I has spoke!"

Now, at this stage, I feel constrained to point out that I am not a Bircher, a Truther, a Flagger or even a Birther. I am, however, a Rotter, a Stinker, a Conniver and a host of other things that end in '-er' but which I can't think of right now.

So for all of those other writers out there - news, blog or otherwise - who jump gleefully on the "ErGate" bandwagon, here's a little reminder:

Motive is NOT Evidence! EITHER WAY!

No matter what the reasons - idiotic or idealistic - someone has for advancing a theory, supposition, claim or analysis, their motive is NOT evidence that they are right or wrong. It may well be reason to look with suspicion on the claim. It is legitimate to ask probing questions. It is always appropriate to be circumspect and cautious in one's deliberations.

But being able to slap a "-gate" or an "-er" at the end of a word is never an ANSWER.

It's a shorthand, lazy, dismissal of the duty to think. So please, leave your "ers" at the "gate".

The Hot Dog Bun Normalization Act of 2009

Garrett Michael Hayes — Fri, 29 May 2009 23:01:00 GMT

I love the South. I chose to live here almost 20 years go, and I have never regretted that decision. I probably wouldn't survive withoutthe magic of air conditioning, but that's a small problem.

HOWEVER....

Hot Dog Buns. That's a BIG problem.

I cannot find a PROPER Hot Dog Bun anywhere in the South to save my life. For some reason, folks around here seem to think that these poofy, bulbous things with the sidewys cut, that litter the grocery store shelves are "Hot Dog Buns".

No - they're NOT.

A PROPER hot dog bun has FLAT sides and is split at the TOP. (Trust me, it really DOES make a difference.)

So, what am I supposed to do, since the entire South (and much of the rest of the nation, it seems) has no clue how to make proper hot dog buns?

Well, how about "The Hot Dog Bun Normalization Act of 2009"? That's what we need - a Federal Law that will enforce standardization across this great land, and make sure that everyone can enjoy the benefits of PROPER hot dog buns!

Sound loony? Well, no more loony than the bill introduced into Georgia legislature a few years back that would have required every restaurant serving iced tea to offer SWEET tea. And no, I'm NOT really calling for Hot Dog Bun Normalization.

As the old saying has it, "It's differences of opinion that make a horse race." Of course I know that my Southern friends are wrong to eat those miserable puff-balls. But it's up to ME to decide if that's more or less important to ME to have an effect on where I choose to live. (And BTW, I despise the fact that in New England you can't get a bowl of oatmeal without them trying to drown it in milk and brown sugar - forget getting a decent bowl of grits!)

But unfortunately, it seems as if things like hot dog buns and hot cereal choices are the only things left that anyone wants to leave to PEOPLE to decide, let alone the States! For every single other thing, the media bombards us interminably with the cry for a "national standard" or a "Federal Law"!!!

I couldn't care less what kind of buns YOU like (whether it's around your hot dog or around your Hot Dog). But if the tastes differ from one place to another, SO BE IT. Let's stop this insane march toward a homogenized world view, and let different people in different places adopt different standards for just about anything they want.

Then we can all just vote with our feet.

Or we can do what I did, which was to buy a baking pan and take responsibility for solving the problem myself. (And if anyone doesn't know WHY flat sided hot dog buns are better, it's because you can GRILL them. So there.)

Bread and Surrogates

Garrett Michael Hayes — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 01:53:00 GMT

"Did you hear what Janeane Garrafolo said?!"
"Man, that Susan Roesgen at CNN is a <censored>!"
Yes, I heard. Yes, she is. And I don't care.

Ever since last week's "Tea Party" protests, and the predictably dismissive reporting on them, the net has been a-buzz with emails, blog posts and twitters back and forth about the depredations of CNN reporters and the imbecilities of "Hollywood leftists".

And the power-grabbing, big government, powers-that-be are sitting back in their chairs and giggling with glee. Like Emperor Commodus of Rome decreeing "Give them Bread and Circuses" to keep the rabble occupied, the PTB said, "Give them Bread and Surrogates", and out sprang the media darlings.

And brother, did we fall for it!

Every precious moment we spend arguing about Janeane Garrafolo or Susan Roesgen is a moment we AREN'T talking about the real issue - government growth. Every minute we spend defending ourselves against moronic charges of racism is a minute we AREN'T taking BOTH the R's & D's to task for putting us where we are today.

Instead of us staying on-message and going after our real objective, they threw chaff in our faces and we have been darting madly about swatting at it like sunbathers swinging at a sudden swarm of mosquitos. And face it - the likes of JG and SR are CHAFF - nothing more.

We need to stay on target and stay on the OFFENSIVE - not act the OFFENDED. We need to turn our tax-and-spend protests into a human wave assault of ideas. For every one of us they bowl over with their ambush microphones, let two more step forward, pick up the banner, and keep coming.

Don't play their game - play OURS!

To All My Fellow "Potential Terrorists"

Garrett Michael Hayes — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:34:00 GMT

This is to everyone who is concerned about things like the recent DHS report tagging returning veterans, Ron Paul supporters, people who know about that pesky little thing called the Constitution, and many many more as "possible threats" and "potential terrorists."

Stop for just one moment and HONESTLY ask yourself whether you stood up and shouted "NO!" - loudly and PUBLICLY - whenever the previous administration or administrations did each little thing that increased the scope and power of the Federal Government.

HONESTLY!

If you did, thank you. If you didn't, a belated 'thank you' for getting it NOW! Hopefully, it's not too late.

I reca;l being at a protest over the Patriot Act, when John Ashcroft came to Atlanta on his "public relations tour" (closed, of course, to the public) The number of people who oppsed that bill because Ashcroft was the devil was amazing. The number of people who supported that bill because Ashcroft was OK was what I found frightening.

It's not about who has the power when we GRANT it. It's about who has the power AFTER them, and after THEM, and...

To those who thought it was fine to give these sweeping powers to George Bush and John Ashcroft, I always posed a simple question: "Would you want Hillary Clinton and Janet Reno to have these powers? Because they, or their like, WILL someday."

Well, that day is here. Now it's Barack Obama, Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano.

So, if you're standing and protesting now - but weren't then - I don't have any condemnation for you. Just promise me this:

"I'll never sit down AGAIN!"

Ready to Bailout My Healthcare for me?

Garrett Michael Hayes — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 21:12:00 GMT

I have a medical insurance coverage issue. Here it is in a nutshell:

I'm out of a job
I've been out of a job for almost 6 moths
Group Coverage from my last job is over
Savings are running out
I'm a diabetic
The medictaions and supplies I have been using come to more than $1200 retail every month
Individual medical coverage that gives anywhere close to the same benefit levels I once had will cost me (...wait for it...) more than $1200 every month

So you see, I'm rapidly heading up a certain creek while not in possession of a certain implement of locomotion. Beyond the ongoing monthly expenses (just one of the two insulins I currently take comes to $800 a month - the other is $300) I've had two eye surgeries in the last year - one on each eye. I;m faced with diminishing resources, escalating costs and no easy prospects in sight. And that's assuming the eye surgeries both worked well, otherwise NOTHING is in sight, except getting a dog and a cane. (But hey, I miss having a dog, so maybe there's an upside, even there.)

With all of this, you might wonder if I'm feeling a little more amenable to "universal healthcare", in any of its many proposed form. After all, I'm now down in (or at least very close to) the foxhole with the other [insert your favorite number] uninsured Americans.

Well, for anyone out there readingthis who is a fan of any of these plans, let me ask you a few simple questions:

Would you think it was OK for me to go out on the street and stick up a few passersby to pay for my medications? How about a bank? Or maybe one of those evil rich people, who got "obscene bonuses"? Or maybe I should just go to tghe pharmacy and take it! Why not? And I could always go to the doctor who did my eye surgeries, or my endocrinolgist and get them to treat me at gunpoint.

This is really the bottom line question that everyone on the march for "universal healthcare" wants to dance around:

Exactly what in my predicament - real as it is - would give me the right to take money, supplies, time or skill away from someone else at gunpoint? And, if I don't have that "right", what on earth makes it right for one, or a dozen, or a hundred, or a thousand, or a million of YOU to HIRE someone else with guns to take it from one, or a dozen, or a hundred, or a thousand, or a million of "THEM" (whoever "they" are) and give any part of it to me?

Tell me. I really want to know.

Bring Back Cigarette Ads!

Garrett Michael Hayes — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 01:11:00 GMT

I don't know how many of you are old enough to remember when television actually ran advertising for cigarettes. You've probably seen some of the old ads on YouTube. If you haven't here are some pointers to some, so you young whipper-snappers can get an idea of what they were like:*

So - Why do I say bring them back?

Because the other side is getting airtime. You can't watch a day's television without seeing one of those "Truth.com" ads.

Now, let's be clear on my position and opinions:

Smoking is stupid.
I don't encourage smoking. [Full Disclosure Notice: I'm a cigar smoker.]
The Truth.Com ads can be VERY clever

But its an issue of basic fairness under the law - that pesky old "Equal Protection" thingy in that pesky old "Constitution" thingy.

One side is being allowed to get ITS message out through the most effective means of communication and behavior modification ever devised (short of snausages, but that's another subject). So why the HELL is the other side silenced about a LEGAL product? It would be different if we were talking about advocating robbery or advertising stolen merchandise.

But we're not. We're talking about convincing people that they either should or shouldn't kill themselves slowly with a legal poison. And for my money, anyone who can be convinced to poison themself, and to PAY for the privilege should have every opportunity to do so. It's been so long since the phrase entered our language that I fear most people don't even remember where it came from, but...

if you're gonna drink the Kool-Aid...

(*Strangely enough, BTW, I didn't find a good copy of any of the old Marlboro Man commercials. I wonder why?)

Oh, by the way, and just for fun - here's one more ad that kind of follows on that Lark ad linked above...

Crazy For Liberty radio show is on Hiatus

Garrett Michael Hayes — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 01:03:00 GMT

Just in case anyone is wondering, the radio show that Doug Craig and I do, "Crazy for Liberty with Doug and Garrett" is on hiatus at the moment. Don't worry, we haven't been cancelled - since we were paying for the airtime, they really can't "cancel" us anyway.

1) The "economic downturn" has actually caused an enormous BOOM in Doug's business, as he is picking up lots of trade from some of his failed competitors. (Go Doug!) As a matterof fact, go to his website http://www.vikingmetals.com/ and make him even busier!

2) I'm at the other end of the spectrum - out of a job since November - and dealing with a serious vision problem that kept me from travelling to the radio station for nearly a month. (Sob, sob - I know)

So - we're taking some time off. But Doug and I are still in this thing for the long haul. We're still going to continue being royal pains in the butt to anyone who thinks "liberty" is just a word and that gummint is all about the "goodies"! I expect we'll be back sometime in late summer or early fall, but Doug will have the final word. (Remember when I said "we" pay for the airtime? That was a euphemism. It's mostly Doug - I just run my mouth.)

Crazy For Liberty - February 15, 2009

Garrett Michael Hayes — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 00:29:00 GMT

Well, I'm slowly working through som eof the many missed podcasts since last fall. I'm starting with the most recent show, for February 15th, 2009.

In this outing, Doug Craig was absent WITH official leave (he was delivering goods to an out of state customer. Yay! Let's hear it for Interstate Commerce!) my Guest Host for this show was a libertarian friend named Rock Conner, from Dallas, GA.

Thanks much Rock for stepping into the void and helping me get through this relatively unscathed.

The primary topic for much of this show was the newly minted "American Recovery and Reinvenstment Act", AKA, the Economic Simulation bill.

So, here we go...

Under My Skin

Garrett Michael Hayes — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 08:05:00 GMT

Just a little political rant with images set to music. Kind of a "how I feel" thing on the state of Liberty in this country.
http://gmhforliberty.com/2009/01/10/under-my-skin.aspx
Also a larger version on my FaceBook page

Crazy For Liberty - November 30th, 2008

Garrett Michael Hayes — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:49:00 GMT

Topics:
Black Friday and business "Pundits"
WalMart's "Black Friday"
Drop in Energy use worrying utilities?
Thanksgiving - The original "Bailout"?
John Michael Hayes obituary
Chambliss vs. Martin - Doug can't support either of them

Screenwriter John Michael Hayes dies at 89

Garrett Michael Hayes — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 15:40:00 GMT

November 19th, 2008 - Hanover, New Hampshire

My father, John Michael Hayes, who made his career as a Hollywood screenwriter for over 40 years, died of natural causes Wednesday, November 19th, at the Kendal at Hanover retirement community in Hanover, New Hampshire.

I discussed my father's life and career briefly on our "Crazy for LIberty" radio show for Sunday, November 30th. (Even though Dad died before the previous week's show, I waited until the 30th, because the family had not yet made the formal announcemnt.) That show will be posted shortly. The portion cooncerning my father is at about 35 minutes into the hour - so slightly less than that when the commercials are removed.

Here are some references on the web to Dad, his career and his obituary notices:

John Michael Hayes dot com: http://www.johnmichaelhayes.com
The Internet Movie Database: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0371088/
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Michael_Hayes
Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/24/AR2008112402850.html
Los Angeles Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-hayes27-2008nov27,0,2561739.story?track=rss
London Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article5218670.ece
New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/25/movies/25hayes.html?ref=movies

And here is probably my personal favorite:
http://mysterymanonfilm.blogspot.com/2008/11/john-michael-hayes-lucky-bastard.html
The author is right in more ways than he knows...

Anyone wishing to do so is invited to make donations in his name to:

    Kendal at Hanover
    80 Lyme Road
    Hanover, NH 03755
    For: The Cadbury Fund

Crazy for Liberty, October 5, 2008

Garrett Michael Hayes — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 11:14:00 GMT

Guest host with me on this show was Daniel Adams, Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Georgia.

Topics:
Georgia Drought/ Water Mgmt
Buckley for Senate; Monds for PSC
Barr for President and Ballot access / Debates

The BAILOUT
Guest - Virginia Galloway of Americans for Prosperity
"Defending the American Dream" Summit

(Note: Our usual cohort, "Mr. Masked Engineer" was on something called a "vacation" [<==error, undefined external reference]. Our fill-in engineer wasn't fully familiar with the CFL operating style, so please be forgiving of the slightly higher than normal number of tech-related gaffs. Then again, we usually have so many of own that you may never notice!)

Crazy for Liberty, September 28, 2008

Garrett Michael Hayes — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 02:41:00 GMT

Crazy for Liberty, September 21, 2008

Garrett Michael Hayes — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 22:57:00 GMT

(Note: There's an echo on this recording for about the first minute. REALLY annoying, but it goes away pretty quickly)

Crazy For Liberty - September 7, 2008

Garrett Michael Hayes — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 22:19:00 GMT

Topics:
Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin
Second Amendment
RNC & DNC Protests
Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac - Thery just Federalized the Mortgage Market!

(Doug Craig was unfortunately absent for today's show...)

Crazy For Liberty, August 31, 2008

Garrett Michael Hayes — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 21:44:00 GMT

Topics

Obama and the Democrat National Convention
Shame on the Marietta Daily Journal
Bill Clinton "endorses" Obama?
McCain picks ~~Tina Fey~~ Sarah Palin for VP
Republican Convention & Hurricane Gustav
Clayton County Schools

Note: We've left one commercial in this podcast that we would normally have cut out. If you're wondering why it's <bleeped>, it's because I'm not about to give a bureaucrat a free plug. If you want to know what grubby politician used taxpayer money to enhance their own name recognition, go look it up on the Georgia gummint web site.

Second note: The proverb referred to is properly rendered as "qoH vuvbe' SuS"