Fox News has the report that the Supreme Court has OK’d federal prosecutions for medical marijuana violations. Score one for the bad guys.
FOXNews.com - U.S. & World - Supreme Court OKs Medical Pot Prosecutions
Another state to avoid driving through this summer – IIRC, there are seven states west of the Mississippi that have helmet laws. They are: Washington, Oregon, Kalifornia (go figure there), Nevada, Missouri, Louisiana, and Nebraska. That means for me that, if I want to visit my in-laws in Illinois, I can remove my helmet once I enter Idaho, and not have to put it back on until I return (my route, calculated a few years ago when I had a Sturgis trip planned, went through Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, Iowa, and into Illinois, deliberately skirting Missouri). In fact, if you’re over 21, once you leave the Left Coast states, you can get all the way to the border of New York before have to put a helmet back on – New York, Vermont, and Massachusetts form a helmet-required block that prevents you from getting to the more libertarian minded New Hampshire and Maine.
Check out the helmet and other MC laws here or here.
TheOmahaChannel.com - Politics - Motorcycle Helmet Bill Dead For Year
A Miami news site is reporting on how one tribal school in Arizona is handling tardiness and absenteeism among it’s students. They fine the parents. One only hopes that this type of socialist thinking doesn’t catch on in normal public schools.
Can you imagine it? Not only does the State rob you to pay for public schools (property taxes in my jurisdiction, despite the fact that I have no school age children), but now in at least one tribal jurisdiction, they’ll charge more if your kid doesn’t make to school on time, or decides to skip school completely. What if the parent’s are home-schooling – do they get charged per day for every kid they don’t send to school? How enforceable is this rule, anyway? Why isn’t anyone else asking these questions, or not reporting on them if they do?
My advice to parents who have kids in the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation school system - get your kids out now. If not, your kids who graduate under this level of oppression and control will never have the mental fortitude necessary to fight it when they’re confronted with the natural expansion of this power in the future.
One of the things I get in my e-mail inbox regularly is “A Note from John Stossel” – I signed up for it on the ABC website, as I admire John for his regular and consistent libertarian outlook on the “Give Me a Break!” segments on 20/20, and his specials that highlight libertarian viewpoints of current events issues.
One of the letters this week is as follows:
"Dear John Stossel, I enjoyed reading your book ["Give Me a Break" ORDER HERE] so much that I bought a dozen copies and sent them out to friends and family. I am writing to let you know about one of the few negative responses I received...I almost always sent out your book accompanied by another; 'Black and White World' which is a collection of editorial cartoons by John Cox and Allen Forkum... When my brother received his copies of the books, he sent me... 'John Stossel seems like a good guy, just at the wrong time. I don't think the Republicans need defending... This response caught me completely off guard...I had a similar response from a Right-wing friend of mine -- only he accused me of being too liberal. I sent him the SAME two books!" Troy Omelchuk, Scottsdale, Ariz.
It think this illustrates the point I’ve always made about libertarians – we’re neither left nor right, liberal nor conservative, but a mix of both. Libertarians tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative, fighting for more civil liberties in the way we run our lives, and less government intrusion in the form of taxes and fees. I just thought this letter was very telling – the liberal brother thinks Stossel defends the right, while the conservative friend thinks he’s too liberal. In fact, libertarians rise above both.
Read down this story , and when you get to the fourth paragraph, you’ll be asking yourself the same question I did: Are you fucking kidding me? They can’t account for how much? You know, I had to actually cut a check to the IRS this year for the first time in my 38 years as an American citizen, and survive a small investigation of my return from the year previous – I thought I handled it well and professionally, but now I wonder if I shouldn’t have put up a bigger fight.
In a slightly related story, I was reading an old copy of Wired magazine from December 2003 – there was a story about a guy who was a tech support expert for a Mafia-run betting operation. He doesn’t make much considering what he does (an entire IT department’s worth of work for him and a second guy), but since it’s all illegal money, he has zero income and files no income tax. Wonder how I get a job like that?
How Your Government Wastes Your Money
Interesting take on the judicial filibuster talk filling everyone’s minds with FUD. The one thing the author forgot:
Filibusters are a child screaming to get it’s way.
In short, Democrats now (as well as Republicans and Democrats in the past) have used the filibuster as a kind of ad hominem against the other side. Instead of debating the relative strengths and weaknesses of the candidate and putting forth logical objective arguments on both sides of the coin, Democrats are resorting to parliamentary procedures to simply dismiss judicial candidates.
Think of it this way – you’re a pre-teen age child and you want to stay up an extra hour. Your parent’s say no, go to bed. You then launch into a meaningless argument about why you should stay up, ask your parents when they go to bed, drink 3–4 glasses of water, come back downstairs to get something, ask them some philosophical question, hang around until you get noticed, and try like hell to get that extra hour out of them. That’s what these Senators are doing – the President says, here are my candidates, and rather than accept them and vote on them, the Senate filibuster crew badgers everyone, makes a big stink, and refuses to do anything meaningful. The difference is they don’t have parent’s around to smack them on their skinny little asses and send them to bed.
Ask me again why I think we should hit the reset button on government…
The Top 10 filibuster falsehoods ... [Media Matters for America]
The bad news – a national ID card passed the Senate 100–0. We all voted for these fuckers…
The good news – governors of several state aren’t taking this lightly. They may have the wrong reasons for it (money issues, unfunded mandates and all that), but at least they’re complaining.
For me, I plan on simply not renewing my driver’s license when the time comes to nationalise.
Read about it in Wired News.
In the Concord Monitor Online, New Hampshire, a report from Monday talks about a man who was arrested for not being a licensed cosmetologist, and yet giving a manicure. It was a protest – he’s not trying to be a manicurist in New Hampshire, but trying to expose useless licensing laws.
To be a manicurist in NH, you need around 300 hours of training, and take and pass numerous written and practical tests. My wife was a licensed cosmetologist in the state of Illinois – the training requirements are comparable there to be a hairdresser. IL even has a continuing education requirement – you need to take courses throughout your career to renew your license.
My big question is this – let’s assume I don’t have a license, but want to work in a barber shop. I know nothing about cutting hair – how long will I last in the business? If it’s my shop, I’ll fold in a month when people stop coming in – if I’m working for someone else, I’d give it a day or less. Now let’s say I know how to cut hair, but don’t know about sanitary practices. If I cause injury to someone because I don’t know how to properly sanitise things, I’d be liable for medical expenses and damages, and the bad PR and money I’d have to pay out would close my shop. Now let’s say I figure that out and re-open, but I’m just not very good – people want styles I can’t reproduce, or procedures I don’t know how to do. In order to expand my business, I’ll need to learn new skills – to be successful, I’ll need to keep up on the latest styles and techniques.
In other words, in order to run a successful business, I’ll need training on how to cut hair, how to do it safely, and keep up to date on the latest in my industry. Everything I need to have a successful growing business I would do without a license, so why do I need one again? Oh, right, so the government knows what I’m doing for a living.
Thank You, Dennis Myers, for an objective look at the filibuster, for removing the ideological arguments for or against it from either party, and for giving me the word in your final paragraph I’ve been looking for to describe the Republicrats and Democans. The word “dogma” connotes so much in the way of religious overtones and obstinate closed-mindedness – it fits the current political climate well, and also helps explain my own failing interest in politics lately.
http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2005/05/04/opinion/myers.html
Oh, and I notice I forgot to include the link for my previous post – sorry. I added it back.
You know, I’m not sure how I feel about this story – for starters, I do think it’s a novel approach for the states to deal with illegal immigration (and a great way for states to start exercising their sovereign power over the federal government that Lincoln usurped in the 19th century). On the other hand, I think the person they chose to use for their test case was bad – while he might have been an illegal alien, he was a working productive individual. Perhaps NH could go after the illegals getting welfare or unemployment, rather than someone who came here to make a better life for himself and seemed to be doing it.
Brilliant commentary on the recent spate of comments coming from religious conservatives about “activist judiciary”. The term “activist” has never been satisfactorily defined in this context, and from my POV, they’re merely engaging in some rhetorical, vocal, and very public “sour grapes”. Reason helps put this into some ironic perspective (FDR, the Great Socialist, had the same views and used similar language as the New Fascists do) – unfortunately, it’s been my experience that you can show a fundamentalist the blue sky above, and he’ll still condemn you to Hell for denying that it’s raining.
Reason: In Defense of "Judicial Tyranny": The religious right's court-unpacking scheme
In Counterbias: The End of Personal Responsibility, the author, one Susan Shafer, makes a very nice, and somewhat satirical, plea for the restoration of personal responsibility. I agree, fully and whole heartedly, with her viewpoints here, although I’m not on her side of the political spectrum.
I also think she missed the boat on one thing concerning public schools, although I concede that, as elementary school librarian, she’s much closer to the problem than I. Her statements around government controlling what is taught make it seem as if this is some future possibility, rather than a present fact. Ask any kid in high school history class what the cause of the War Between the States was, and he’ll say, “What?” until you explain to him that you mean the “Civil War”, then he’ll say, “Oh, OK. Slavery, dude.” Ask him who the 15th or the 17th President was, and he’ll answer “Who? Uh, Kennedy?”, but he’ll be able to name the Great Emancipator and recite anecdotes ad nauseum. Ask him what the 9th or 10th Amendments to the Constitution are, and he’ll look puzzled, but he’ll know tha the 1st gives you freedom of speech at least (maybe religion and the press as well, but it’s doubtful he’ll know about assembly or redress of greivances). Now I ask you, if the government isn’t running the government-run schools and controlling the curriculum, who is?
I received a comment on one of my entries (I’m not sure what I’m more happy about - the new information, or the fact that someone other than me reads this bloody thing), correcting my presumption that the Founding Fathers were all Christian. In point of fact, not of all them were – the commenter was good enough to forward a link from the Quartz Hill School of Theology that explains and supports the religious thinkings of our Founding Fathers. While it appears the School is very Christian in it’s doctrine and offerings, the article above is refreshingly open and forthright. I also appreciated the section about the separation of Church and State with supporting quotes from various founding fathers.
My thanks to Colin J. who took the time to correct me and provide supporting documentation.
In a recent story in the Pacific Northwest Medical Journal, titled Curing Obesity through Sterility: California 's Controversial Program Under the Microscope, I discovered a program implemented by the State of California (also called the Republic of California, which I refer to as the People’s Republic of California) which, in one sweep of a pen, could become this countries first mandatory eugenics program. (I was unable to find a corroborating link for the San Francisco or the California program, or any web references to the state’s Committee for Exploratory Medicine).
While the current program is voluntary, it is scary – begun in San Francisco, this program offers state funded vasectomies to men diagnosed as being clinically obese. The reason is rather simply stated in the second paragraph above – to eliminate the genetics of people deemed inferior to the defined norm.
Get that? California is saying that if you are genetically inferior to some defined norm, they’ll pay for you to remove yourself from the available gene pool. Other countries have enacted state funded sterilization in order to prevent overpopulation
Knowing the fact that California is anecdotally the most progressive state in the union, how long will it be before “voluntary” becomes “highly recommended” to “required” for certain cases? How many other genetic differences will California add to the list? Anti-social? Homosexual? Brown eyes? I see this as the first step in a eugenics program funded by taxpayers to weed out undesirable elements – the next step would be to add incentives for people with desirable genetics to breed like bunnies. Ever see “Gattaca”? This is where California is headed.
This is now reason number one why I will never, ever, live in California, and another reason to never ever visit either.
Check out the Constitution Reform Act (H.R. text here, the Conservative Caucus page on it here), and tell me what you think.
I think it sucks. I hate laws, even laws that make sense to implement. But you need some more viable reasons.
First, it tries to enforce via law the myth that:
Aside from the fact that I am an atheist, I do believe in Natural Law – i.e. there is an absolute right way to live, and that includes my absolute freedom to do as I please. I don’t believe it was handed down from some anthropomorphic Zeus impersonator, but is a natural offshoot of my intelligence and evolution – I think, therefore I am and all that. However, I don’t think this is legislatable – it’s a personal choice, a philosophy of life, much like someone else’s choice of god, religion, church, and morality. It cannot, should not, and if I have any say, will not be codified in some half-witted set of words that defies further scrutiny,
Second, it tries to limit the interpretation of our laws by banning the use of foreign sources when judges write their decisions. At best, this will mean that judges (who don’t live in cocoons) will simply write their decisions so as to appear capricious (rather than citing a U.N. resolution to support their stance). At worst, we’ll move closer to a fully politicized and activist Supreme Court, more interested in figuring out what the legislature wanted to do rather than saying what they can’t do.
Third, it doesn’t restore a damned thing. In fact, one can argue (but not if it passes), that it actually violates the Freedom of Religion clause in the First Amendment (by recognizing the existance of God, you have a de facto state religion, loosely based on Judeo-Christian origins). Now, I know my history - the Founding Fathers were all Christian to a man, various flavors of Protestantism. Our government was founded by these men with their 18th Century Christian principles laced through the documents that form this country. Our country has wavered from these principles time and time again - the Conservative Coalition would have you believe that gay marraige is the primary sign of the End Times, and the biggest wavering from our Constitutional principles there ever was. They are, of course, wrong – events such as the Whiskey Rebellion, the War Between the States, Income tax, welfare, social security, the War on Drugs, and the War on Terror are all more heinous and serious breaches of our Constitutional government than gay marriage could ever be.
If you’re Congressman is on the list of sponsors or co-sponsors, write to him and tell him that government should stay out of your, my, and everyone else’s personal life, and that his personal life should stay out of his job.
Check out the Constitution Reform Act (H.R. text here, the Conservative Caucus page on it here), and tell me what you think.
I think it sucks. I hate laws, even laws that make sense to implement. But you need some more viable reasons.
First, it tries to enforce via law the myth that:
Aside from the fact that I am an atheist, I do believe in Natural Law – i.e. there is an absolute right way to live, and that includes my absolute freedom to do as I please. I don’t believe it was handed down from some anthropomorphic Zeus impersonator, but is a natural offshoot of my intelligence and evolution – I think, therefore I am and all that. However, I don’t think this is legislatable – it’s a personal choice, a philosophy of life, much like someone else’s choice of god, religion, church, and morality. It cannot, should not, and if I have any say, will not be codified in some half-witted set of words that defies further scrutiny,
Second, it tries to limit the interpretation of our laws by banning the use of foreign sources when judges write their decisions. At best, this will mean that judges (who don’t live in cocoons) will simply write their decisions so as to appear capricious (rather than citing a U.N. resolution to support their stance). At worst, we’ll move closer to a fully politicized and activist Supreme Court, more interested in figuring out what the legislature wanted to do rather than saying what they can’t do.
Third, it doesn’t restore a damned thing. In fact, one can argue (but not if it passes), that it actually violates the Freedom of Religion clause in the First Amendment (by recognizing the existance of God, you have a de facto state religion, loosely based on Judeo-Christian origins). Now, I know my history - the Founding Fathers were all Christian to a man, various flavors of Protestantism. Our government was founded by these men with their 18th Century Christian principles laced through the documents that form this country. Our country has wavered from these principles time and time again - the Conservative Coalition would have you believe that gay marraige is the primary sign of the End Times, and the biggest wavering from our Constitutional principles there ever was. They are, of course, wrong – events such as the Whiskey Rebellion, the War Between the States, Income tax, welfare, social security, the War on Drugs, and the War on Terror are all more heinous and serious breaches of our Constitutional government than gay marriage could ever be.
If you’re Congressman is on the list of sponsors or co-sponsors, write to him and tell him that government should stay out of your, my, and everyone else’s personal life, and that his personal life should stay out of his job.
Molly Ivins on the Terry Schiavo case – I’ve been watching this, and I have nothing to add. You all know how I feel about big government sticking it’s nose outside the narrow confines of the Constitution – Molly says it better than I could anyway.
WorkingForChange-Pull the plug on pandering
Especially if McCain and Feingold have their way. According to a recent story on CNet (faithfully forwarded to me by the Advocates for Liberty), the Internet exemption on political speech around election time may become illegal. That means blogs, e-mail, home pages – anything on the Internet that connects you to a candidate or party – may become illegal under the auspices of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law.
You may remember when this law was passed, there was an outcry about it’s effects on the First Amendment – you know, that little part of the Constitution that says, among other things, that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech – not only in the world, but on this blog when the Supreme Court upheld it. This is why – government is now, with the blessing of the Supreme Court, not just ignoring the First Amendment, but actively working to do away with it, just as they have with the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth.
Oh, recognized journalists still have their exemption, as long as it’s broadcast or some sort of periodical (magazine, newspaper, etc) – amateur grassroots editorial journalists like most politically motivated bloggers aren’t in that club, and no one quite knows how to categorize a randomly updated blog. Guess we need some sort of ID that tells the government we’re journalists and should be exempt. If so, I’ll keep mine in my wallet next to my firearm owner’s permit, Social Security card, and that empty spot reserved for my Freedom of Religion registration card.
On a serious noite – how bad does it have to get, people, before we decide enough is bloody enough? Our Founding Fathers went to war over less than this in the 18th century. Someone once said that there are four boxes used in defense of liberty – soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. As I mentioned before: this blog is my soap box, our votes are ignored, and the Courts have nullified juries across this country. What do we have left?
Read this story, then ask yourself these questions:
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – mainstream broadcast news is either so far out of touch with reality their reports are useless, or biased so far to the left or right (unconsciously or not) they alienate two thirds of the population with every syllable. Do your own news research – get a good RSS reader (like KlipFolio, which I use), or a good search engine (I use Google News Search in KlipFolio), and find the news that matters to you.
ABC News: Boy Injured When Gun Goes Off at School
Interesting comments from a Repbulican blog – problem is, he’s associating Ownership with Republican values, when in fact, he’s co-opting long-standing libertarian values because they coincide with his own at this point. I wonder if the author would continue to espouse a libertarian viewpoint when it comes to the Patriot Act (and all it’s ramifications), the Drug War, abortion, taxation, etc. Somehow I doubt it, but I only read a few postings on this blog.
Redstate || Collaborative Republicanism for the Masses
OK, enough is fucking enough – suing because you didn’t get warning of a natural disaster? Give me a fucking break! And to top it off, not only are they suing the U.S. (deep pockets), but also Thailand because they didn’t warn Sri Lanka. Tell me something – if a mugger just beat you up and robbed you, would you be liable if you didn’t yell down the street at the next victim?
I lump these morons in with James Sokolove, professional ambulance chaser – you’ve seen his TV commercials, trying to solicit business and get his 33% take for asbestos victims, Vioxx victims, or whatever other hot button has some dollars signs next to it. They’re claim of “justice” is ill sounded when, in fact, money is the prime mover in Sokolove’s little love triangle. Who is responsible for your life? Ask Sokolove, and it’s anyone with deeper pockets than you.
Wired News | Victims Sue Thailand, U.S., Accor Over Tsunami
Another opinion (rather sardonic, which I like immensely), basically calling the recent Supreme Court decision one leg in the race towards a Mediocracy.
My opinion? The Supreme Court is a court concerned with the laws of the United States, not Europe, the U.N., Africa, or the rest of bloody world. How can I as an American voter influence the laws in Europe that are influencing my laws? Short of becoming a mercenary, I know of no way to do so.
HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE :: The End of American Exceptionalism by Mac Johnson
For once, I find myself agreeing with George Will, although that doesn’t happen very often. I especially like his opinion (mine as well, and at least one other person’s) that what happens in the world has no bearing on how we run our own country.
Good one on how bad traffic sucks around here, and why.
The Seattle Times: Local News: Hey, no cutting in line!
Story at Bloomberg.com: Top Worldwide. I only hope the Justices see the light on this one - ruling against the homeowners will signal a fundamental shift in the relationship between property owners and government.
Freezerbox: Private Ryan, Amnesiac
Got this from the ACLU - I'm on their Action Alerts e-mail list:
Eminent domain is, at it's best, the government forcing you to sell your property for a fair price, because the land can be put to better use for everyone (like building a hiway through it). However, lots of states use eminent domain to take your land, pay you a pittance for it, then sell it to developers who turn it into a luxury hotel. This is wrong - I don't give a good god damn what the gomerals and imbeciles who call themselve state Supreme Court Justices say or think. Taking someone's land because someone else can build something that brings in more taxes is evil. Honest politicians tell you they're raising taxes and take their lumps - cowards and subhumans take your land and get their goons to make it legal.
That being said, it looks like the case will go to the U.S. Supreme Court - I'm not sure if I'm happy or worried. The issue will be decided for a while (until something comes up to make the precedent useless), but the way the Supreme Court has been interpretting the Constitution of late, I'm not sure I want that pack of thieving illiterati telling me what the 5th Amendment means - they certainly don't know what the 1st, 2nd, 9th, or 10th mean...
BTW, if you live in Connecticut, I'd be thinking of selling and moving now, before the Governor comes to your house with a check for $100 and a bulldozer...
OregonLive.com: NewsFlash - Court takes on question of seizing land
I've been thinking a bit about diversity lately, and have come to the conclusion that diversity as it is enforced in our schools and companies is a farce. We're trying to make sure there is a diverse population that mirrors our American society, but doing it by surface values, not by the things that make us diverse in the first place.
We enforce diversity by looking at:
But not by looking at:
We pay lip service to diversity, but don't actually provide for diverse populations. The recent primary election in Washington should provide some backing for this.
In this election, for the first time in 70 years in Washington, people had to pick a party in the primary (former primaries were blanket primaries, meaning voters could vote for whoever they wanted to in any party - in other words, a baby general election). Results from this primary were fairly consistent - Republicans and Democrats got 98-99% of the vote, and Libertarians got the remaining 1-2%. These results were consistent whether it was a statewide race (governor, senator, etc) or local races (county reps and such), which helps to normalise the diverse population of the state and each individual political unit.
What does this show, you ask? Well, there's one more piece of background info - this is the first election in Washington that the Libertarian party had major party status (i.e. they were called out on the primary ballot as a party - there were no Greens, Socialists, or other parties on the ballot). For the first primary ever, Washingtonians had a third choice, a third way of looking at things, a third ideology to apply to the problems of the day. And the diverse Washington population still followed the sheep mentality of voting Republican or Democrat by a 98-99% margin. Even the fringe news stations in this area concentrated on R v. D races, not mentioning any Libertarian candidates or their races. Debates leading up to the primary, and planned debates leading to the November election, excluded Libertarian candidates.
In other words, while Washington has a very diverse population in terms of nation of origin, creed, race, sex, religion, and physical handicaps, we're still a homogeneous pack of sheep, listening to the media focus on the big two parties and not thinking for ourselves. In other words, where diversity really counts, we're not diverse - at least, we're not teaching people critical thinking, which helps lead to diverse ideas and ways of thinking.
One corollary to this - I heard last week that the head of the Aryan Nation passed away. He lived in northern Idaho, and his death was celebrated by many. My question is this: in a population committed to diversity (such as a university or a company), would his presence be welcome? He does represent a different ideology than other people, and therefore would help increase the diversity of that population? Your answer, of course, depends on whether you define diversity properly or politically correctly...
This is an interesting story, from both points of view.
I applaud the university for not dropping the hammer on Montgomery. Jennings needs to read some history, as does the professor Jones. He finds it's hard to untangle the Confederate flag from racial inequality, but I feel that is because Northern historians have worked so hard to make that connection that it's almost heresy to speak otherwise.
In short, the War Between the States had as much to do with slavery as WWI had to do with the killing of Archduke Francis Ferdinand. Was it an issue? Sure. Was it a major issue? Doubtful. Was it the single most important cause of the war? No.
On a side note, Jennings and Jones need to look up the word "diversity" in one of their college library's dictionaries. A diverse population will have equal amounts of liberal blacks, Northern socialists, and Southern flag wavers. Their cause of ridding the world of the Confederate flag is no different than Hitler's cause of ridding the world of Jews - it's just a smaller scale, and politically correct to boot. Or should that be jackboot...?
Today is primary election day in Washington state. Despite some of my preivous posts and rants, I voted today, for a few reasons:
That last point needs some explaining. The application of game theory here deals with actions and outcomes. There are two possible actions: voting and not voting. There are (simplistically) two outcomes: a wasted vote or a vote that counts. By applying game theory, I see that if I don't vote, I have a 100% chance of wasting my vote, and a 0% chance of making it count. If I vote, I have a 50% chance of wasting my vote, and a 50% chance of making it count. These percentages can be argued, but the important point is there is a non-zero probability for either outcome if I vote, and a zero probability of having a vote count if I don't. Simple game theory - if I want my vote to count, I need to vote.
That said, I also support Initiative 318, Instant Runoff Voting, currently being circulated. I feel this makes a much better alternative to a primary or caucus system and saves money - how much better can it get?
Put aside the fact this is an 18 year old child, Christian, and conservative, and just look at the words here.
Then take into account the youth and culture this child has, and read it again.
Is there any excuse here? I think not.
What I got from this essay was: state's rights are a farce, a strong federal government is necessary, and government should use that strength to enforce morality. Of course, the idiocy of legislating morality, from Congress, the Constitution, or the bench, seems to slip past this boy. He also ignores the fact that the federal government has grown stronger under his conservative Republican administrations, while simply paying lip service to the idea of decentralization of power.
This boy needs a dose of reality, and some real history lessons.
I'll have more comments on this later, but for now, vote your conscience, not what the media thinks. Remember there is always another choice, and until the NOTA meme is more popular, your vote is never wasted on a third party candidate.
Picking Neither of Two Evils by Bob Murphy
This election, in Washington (as I expect in most communities), there are a host a bond measures and tax increases for things like fire coverage, libraries, and other items. The big ones for me this year is a fire department property tax increase and a library bond renewal measure.
Before you go ahead and vote yes for these (I like fire services, and love libraries), ask yourself: Is there a better way to pay for these services? Property tax increases affect everyone, even if you don't own a home (if you rent, the owner will pass on the tax increase to you, his customer). Bonds need to paid off sometime, and that requires more taxes as well.
As I said, I enjoy fire services and libraries, but I'll be voting no to each measure. Simply put, I'd rather pay for the service directly than indirectly. I'd have no problem contracting with a local fire department for service, or paying for the service after the fact if I was not contracted. I'd also rather pay for my library card directly (I don't think $25-50 a year is exorbitant) than make everyone in my community pay for the library.
Vote no on these measures, and make people come up with alternate, more libertarian, funding measures. Your neighbors will thank you when their taxes decrease.
Good reading for those of you interested in how we started as a republic and ended up a socialist state.
Reason numer 237 (yes, I have 236 other reason) never EVER to live in California. Like they say:
WHEN SILLY STRING IS OUTLAWED, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE SILLY STRING
ENN News Story - Silly string ban a serious matter in Los Angeles
FT.com / Home UK - Rival prescriptions for health costs
And on the other side of the Republicrat fence (you do know Republicans and Democrats are just two factions of the same politcal party, right?), John Kerry thinks people who make over $200K a year are "super-rich". I guess that includes congressmen and public officials, right? Covenient number, since rank and file Congressmen make about $150K a year in salary (not counting benefits). Majority and Minority leaders in both houses make a little more at $175K (how does being voted captain of the team warrant an extra $25K a year?), while the Speaker of the House make over $200K a year.
How much would he make as President? Over $400K, plus free room and board, free security, free travel anywhere, with an extra $50K for expenses. The VP gets a little over $200K a year. Both are eligible for a $150K a year pension with an extra $150K for an office and staff for that office.
Like I said, $200K is a convenient number, and while it appears "super-rich" to people on welfare, it should strike people like Kerry and Edwards and simply being a pay raise for winning a popularity vote.
Of course, as members of government, neither Kerry not Edwards (nor Bush nor Cheney) need worry about public health care - they have a government benefits plan that covers them very well indeed, as well as a retirement program they donate into, just like I do at my place of business. The difference here is that my company makes it's money by inventing, manufacturing, and selling things - Kerry's employer makes it's money by holding guns to people's heads and taking a third of what they earn.
FT.com / Home UK - Bush's speech to focus on owners' society
Why do I get the feeling that, while Bush talks a good game about people owning things, he's really after fictional entities owning things, like the RIAA, MPAA, and so on. This sounds like lip service to libertarian ideals as a way of beefing up the Justice Department to crack down on file sharers - in other words, another neocon holy war to centralize and enhance power in the capitol.
Another nail in the coffin of the Lincoln myth. Point of fact - Lincoln was not a great man. He was a tyrant who's main purpose in waging war against the Confederacy from 1861-1865 had nothing to do with slavery, but everything to do with consolidating supreme federal power in Washington D.C. Don't believe me? After reading the article below, read DiLorenzo's book "The Real Lincoln" listed at the bottom of the essay.
Lincolnâ??s 'Great Crime': The Arrest Warrant for the Chief Justice by Thomas DiLorenzo
This is a very interesting editorial. The writing smacks of a college junior or senior in journalism, but the issues are good and so is the information. I've got some argument points with the author on certain things, like where power flows from and to (he alludes that it flows from the federal down to the states, when in fact it wasn't that way until Tyrant Lincoln made it so) and he puts a lot of faith in the 9th and 10th Amendments, but other than that, I like this author.
Snitch: The rights stuff: What to do
In today's Onion:
| WASHINGTON, DCâ??The nation's garroting survivors demonstrated outside the Capitol Monday, raising a hoarse but plaintive cry for a nationwide ban on potentially lethal wire. "Every year, dozens of people are severely injured or even killed by garroting," croaked Gerald Michaels, who still bears a necklace of scars from a 1997 telephone-cord-assisted mugging that nearly claimed his life. "This legacy of shame will continue until we eliminate the lethal wires that run through our homes, above our streets, and through our very way of life." Michaels recently accepted a $2 million grant from a coalition of sponsors that included Bluetooth and Cingular Wireless. |
Dr. Paul Hein has a great essay on LewRockwell.com about why voting does no good. I agree with him, but there is one small flaw in his argument - while not voting make sense from the point of view of the non-voter, it tells the person up for election absolutely nothing. There is nothing that differentiates the indifferent, apathetic non-voter from the principled non-voter. Thus, someone who gets 75% of the vote (with a 25% voter turnout, this means 2 of every 10 Americans) claims a mandate for their particular views.
How to resolve this situation? We need a way to separate lazy people from principled people who don't like thei system or their choices. One way to do this is an idea I stole from L. Neil Smith, author and libertarian. The idea comes from one of his books (either The Probability Broach or The American Zone, I've forgotten which one - doesn't matter, buy them both and read them). The idea is rather simple, and can be ramped up from a grass-roots write-in campaign to deliver a message to true democratic reform.
For every election where there is a person running for an office (i.e. not referendums or initiatives), one additional selection will be added to the list of people running for that office. That entry will be titled "None of the above are acceptable." That's it - nothing could be simpler.
If NOTAAA wins a majority of the vote, then the second place finisher gets the office, knowing he failed to appeal to a majority of the voters and, more importantly, having any "mandate" he may have felt taken forcibly away from him. It also gives local, state, and federal officials a good idea of how many people came out to vote and didn't like their choices, as well as an historical record of
Here's where the ramp-up comes in - at a later point in time, this can be expanded to where, if NOTAAA wins, the office remains unfilled (I like this option, as it cuts down on the size of government). There are problems here - unfilled seats on the state or federal level may have to be filled by appointment or other method that sidesteps the voting issue, and it does nothing to address the huge pyramid of civil servants who are never elected to office but do all the work.
So, there you have it - the reason why not to vote, and one reason why I would consider voting again. It's too late for this election to put NOTAAA on the ballots, but by 2008, I'd like to see this taking off in local elections in my home state, wherever that is at the time.
A recent essay called Kumiai by Mike Rogers on lewrockwell.com highlights one of first-level derivatives of my own philosophy of personal responsiblity. Simply put, I believe I am responsible for my own actions. My actions can be injurious or beneficial - I try to correct the injury if I can and share the benefits with my neighbors if I can. Deriving from this is the concept of community, where people working together in local efforts of their own free will can have a larger beneficial effect on the locality as a whole. Mike's explanation of the Japanese idea of kumiai illustrates this beautifully. I believe this loss of community in the large urban and suburban centers of America have had a deliterious effect of our national sense of liberty and the wish/need for central government to our rescue.
There's an interesting story on the Minnesota Public Radio site that details efforts to get a concealed carry law passed in Minnesota. Problem is they tacked the conceal carry bill onto another bill - dealing with a Department of Natural Resources technical bill. In other words, the two bills in one package are completely and totally unrelated, which seems to run counter to a clause in the Minnesota state Constitution which prohibits it (Article IV, Section 17 states "LAWS TO EMBRACE ONLY ONE SUBJECT. No law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title.").
I tend to agree here. State and federal legistatures do this often, group unrelated bills and add riders to other bills in order to get things done, i.e. create more laws. I'm glad the Minnestoa State Constitution prohibits this, but am disturbed that it continues to happen in the face of a clearly written law. The article even says that the Minnesota state legislature passes hundreds of bills a year - that's hundreds, if not thousands of new laws for you to deal with. And the bills aren't particularly useful, IMHO - a bill regulating circusses (wonder if that applies to the state legislature)?
In any case, opponents of the conceal carry law may be doing Minnesota a favor by challenging it in the state's Supreme Court. While their motives are suspect, their cause may be a good one, getting a ruling that bills need to cover a single subject, as the Minnesota State Constitution says. It could mean more bills (splitting multi-subject bills into multiple bills), which can mean less of them getting to the legislature and getting passed. Of course, it could also mean a longer legislative session, more legislators, and more tax dollars to make sure Minnesotan's are protected from circusses and their garbage is properly disposed of.
"A defendant has a right to offer a defense no matter how outlandish, silly or unbelievable one might think it will be," [Judge Robert L.] Holzberg said.
The emphasis was mine, but remember that line if you're ever called denied your day in court.
ABC13.com: Woman claims she's innocent because she was performing oral sex
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
Well, this is my soap box. I've tried the ballot box, but the 2000 election conviced me that it doesn't really matter. Judges have already, through the voir dire jury selection process, nullified the jury box. What does leave us?
RSS or
