I have a different take on much of what happens, and hope you will agree!  I'm interested in politics, which is mostly what I cover here, but also enjoy sports, being outdoors, and birds -- watching them, photographing them, shooting them and eating them.


Politically, I seek liberty and freedom.  Therefore I distrust government in many ways, because every government action restricts in some way an individual's freedom to act.  At one extreme, even a basic law -- thou shalt not kill -- restricts a person's freedom to kill.  Many times this restriction is good, but even granting that government is good is subject to abuse.  If it is good to restrict killing each other, does it automatically follow that the other end of that spectrum is also good?  Should we have a law that prohibits us from offending anyone else? 


To the extent we have government, my distrust leads me to prefer government to be decentralized and localized as much as possible.  As difficult as it may be to change things here in Burien, Washington, it is vastly more possible for a small group to change a local ordinance than it would be for us to change a law passed in Washington, D.C.


I hope that I am practical.  A law that prohibits one person from offending everyone else is not workable, because what offends one frequently does not offend another.  I didn't like the national 55 mph our speed limit, partly because it was impractical -- almost none of us followed it.


The United States as a country is a force for good in the world, even though I have an inherent distrust to giving the national government too much power.  Evil exists, and there are evil men, and others who simply are bad, whom we must confront at times.  World War II is the obvious example, but the Korean War and the wars in the Middle East the past 25 years are also examples where we simply must confront evil.  Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden simply were evil, and we had to stop them.  Our country acted for good in doing so, even if everything was not done perfectly.


I am also interested in economics.  My basic philosophy is that when each of us is free to act in a way that maximizes his individual well-being, as a whole we are better off.  Looking at economic statistics as a whole cannot obscure that there is no such entity as "the economy."  We are a collection of individuals, and our happiness is the sum of the happiness of each of us.  It's basic economics, that when two of us enter into a transaction, each of us does so because it makes us better off.  Therefore, the freedom to enter into transactions is good, and anything that reduces the cost of the transaction makes it easier to enter into, and therefore makes us better off.   Conversely, making it harder for any one person to enter into a transaction reduces that person's ability to be better off, which makes "the economy" worse off.  And taxes, of course, make it harder to enter into a transaction because we have less money to use in the transaction.