GOP House Leader Says There's No Room to Cut Federal Budget

This came in my recent Liberator Online newsletter from the Advocates for Self-Government. If you haven't been there, go already - they're one of the best libertarian grass-roots organizations out there.

---

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) wins, hands-down, the award for the single most mind-bogglingly absurd political comment of recent weeks (if not years).

Fiscal conservatives have expressed alarm over the Bush administration's proposal to spend
anywhere from $60 billion to $200 billion or more in New Orleans disaster relief. Many argue that this money should at least be raised by cutting unnecessary federal spending, rather than by still more deficit spending.

But that's just not possible, countered Rep. DeLay in a press conference after the president's proposal. Get this: DeLay said that Republicans have done such a stellar job of slashing federal spending during the past decade that there simply is no place left in the federal budget where further cuts are possible. (No, he wasn't joking.) According to DeLay, the GOP has won an "ongoing victory" against wasteful federal spending.

"My answer to those that want to offset the spending is sure, bring me the offsets, I'll be glad to do it. But nobody has been able to come up with any yet," the Texas Republican told reporters. "Yes, after 11 years of Republican majority we've pared [the federal budget] down pretty good."
The GOP House Leader's comments stunned and outraged fiscal conservatives and libertarians, who have watched President Bush and the GOP Congress lead one of the biggest social spending sprees of all time.

The arch-conservative New Hampshire Union-Leader newspaper responded bluntly: "That has to be the lie of the year. The only thing Congressional Republicans have pared down is the party's reputation." DeLay, the paper charged, is guilty of "lying to the American people about how their government is being run."

The San Diego Union-Leader similarly noted:
"Since the GOP took over Congress in 1994, the supposed party of small government has presided over the largest expansion of federal spending since the New Deal -- and, no, that doesn't count the post-9/11 spikes in military and homeland security spending. This binge has only accelerated with a Republican president. No wonder the president blithely touts a $100 billion-plus rebuilding of New Orleans without outlining how to pay for it; his indifference to running up $1 trillion in total debt since 2001 shows it might as well be Monopoly money to him."

"If Mr. DeLay actually believes what he said then he has clearly lost touch with reality wrote John Berthoud, president of the National Taxpayers Union, in the Wall Street Journal.
"After all, total federal spending, aside from interest, has increased 79 percent since 1995 -- much greater than the inflationary increase in prices of 28 percent. Republicans have dramatically increased the size of government to an extent not seen since Richard Nixon was in the White House."

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) -- a nonpartisan organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government -- was quick to respond with a long list of specific proposals for cutting.

CAGW released "Prime Cuts 2005," which catalogues 600 recommendations throughout the government that could save taxpayers $232 billion in fiscal year 2006 and $2 trillion over the next five years.

Just a few examples from "Prime Cuts" of programs that could be abolished: Community Development Block Grants (saving $24.7 billion over five years); the White House's National Youth Anti-drug Media Campaign (saving $1 billion over five years); the Advanced Technology Program (saving $750 million over five years) and on and on it goes, page after page of waste, duplication, and federal destructiveness.

Our own suggestion is that Rep. DeLay spend some time talking with his fellow Texas Republican House colleague, libertarian Congressman Ron Paul. We have no doubt at all that Congressman Paul could come up with a few suggestions for trimming the budget.
In fact, Congressman Paul has proposed a bill, The Liberty Amendment, to restrict the federal government to performing only those functions permitted it under the Constitution. (Talk about a radical proposal!) Doing so would cut the federal government so dramatically that the entire federal income tax could easily be abolished.

Unfortunately, only two GOP Congressmen have thus far signed on to support it. Perhaps Congressman Paul could persuade DeLay to be the third?
(Sources:
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050914-120153-3878r.htm
http://www.washtimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20050918-101526-2359r
http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=60591
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/op-ed/editorial1/20050919-9999-lz1ed19top.html)

---

I didn't put add any links to the story, but did correct some formatting - this is as it appears. Check the sources yourself, and for the love of all that is free, if you live in DeLay's district, vote him out ASAP.

America Has Fallen to a Jacobin Coup by Paul Craig Roberts

Very bleak, very black, very depressing - don't read the linked storyif you scare or worry easily, or if you voted for Bush.

The only problem I have with it is that is merely spells out, rather clearly, what's wrong, but offers no prescriptive advice on how to correct it. Waiting until the next election is clearly not the answer - the only party who might have an inkling of cleaning things up is the Libertarian, and in today's divisive political climate, there's hardly any room for a third party to get a word in edgewise. Impeach Bush? Big deal, didn't do anything to Clinton other than give us another reality TV show. I'm telling you, we held a revolution and a war between the states over less crap than this...

You know, one thing has hit me - Republicans were all over Clinton over Whitewater, a money making scheme that seemed to fail. Aren't the Republicans supposed to the party of Rich White Guys? Seems that money-making ventures (Halliburton, SnL scandal) would be something they could get behind. Now, the Democrats aren't getting over Bush's War (not sure why) - aren't they supposed to be the war-mongers? WWI, WWII, Viet Nam - all Democratic President's. Seems like the tables are turning - the Conservatives are the war-mongerers, and the Democrats are the money-grubbers. Like they both saw the grass on the other side, and decided to see if it was greener or not. Just cements my belief that there's no difference between the two major parties. At all.

America Has Fallen to a Jacobin Coup by Paul Craig Roberts

World Peace Herald

Apparently, all the other religion and government issues have been resolved, so now we can tackle the crap issues. Not that this isn't important, but in light of evolution v. creationism in government schools, and the U.S. Military freeing the people of Iraq to come up with a Constitution based firmly and solely on Sharia law, this is really small potatoes.

I like the fact that Tom DeLay calls the Pledge a "vital, ennobling part of our national identity", despite the fact that the Pledge was written in 1882 by Francis Bellamy, a Baptists minister, Freemason, and Socialist in order to foster a his socialist vision of a centralized government run economy; that he put in "one nation" to support the Lincolnian vision of a federal republic superior to the individual States and the people; and the "under God" clause was not added until 1954 after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic lay organization. Vital and ennobling my aching ass - it's a way to indoctrinate youths into the social order our Government has in store for them. It fits very well into the structure of public schools, derived from Prussian military schools where the commoners went to learn basic skills, learn to follow orders, obey the command structure, and jump when a horn was sounded.

From a strictly procedural position, it could be worse - we could have the pledge devised by George T. Balch in 1892, which included a flag salute that included, with the right arm, touching your forehead, then your heart, then outstretching it, palm down, in the direction of the flag - in other words, a very scary mix of the Catholic ritual of crossing oneself (minus the shoulder to shoulder motion) with a Nazi salute (to be fair, the Nazi party wasn't in existance yet). His pledge also included pledging your hearts and heads to God and Country, and endorsed the notion of an official language.

Some interesting links on the Pledge:

http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm
http://pledgeqanda.com/


World Peace Herald

The Flight That Fought Back

I just got through watching "The Flight That Fought Back", a special on UA Flight 93, the fourth hijacked airplane from 9/11/01 that crashed in Pennsylvania. It was affirming - the passengers of Flight 93 were acting as the citizen's militia when they attacked the hijackers, causing the plane to crash into an empty field rather than into a random building in Washington. I have nothing but the greatest respect to those people, and honor their memory and their families.

But I have a problem with some of the messaging surrounding the program. The CEO of Ask Jeeves said it, Elizabeth Wanio's sister said it, and the new website dedicated to erecting a memorial to the flight - that the people on that flight sacrificed themselves to protect the lives of others. While in hindsight, that is true, I doubt it was the first thing these people were thinking when they attacked the terrorists. They wanted to take the plane back - they had a pilot on the ground (the husband of a flight attendant), a pilot on the plane, and a plan to retake the plane. They wanted to live.

Part of me is angry at this spin on the passengers of Flight 93. Their actions and memories are being used, rather cheaply, to advance the the false morality of self-sacrifice (yes, I subscribe to Ayn Rand's philosophy). This idea, that self-sacrifice is the highest moral behavior one can aspire to, is cancerous to the ideals of liberty, where self-reliance, self-responsibility, and individual integrity are the ultimate aspirations. Self-sacrifice is a form of cowardice, the triumph of feeling over accomplishment, the antithesis of personal accomlishment and integrity.

For the record, in my opinion, the lesson of Flight 93 is that individual's acting of their own free will are more powerful that anything government can put together.

The fallout from 9/11/01 has actually made it harder for a group of citizens on a hijacked airline to do what these heroes did. They at least has forks and knives from the airline galley - now they'll have to fight attackers with plastic utensils. Since terrorists don't follow the rules to begin with, why do we assume they won't have knives? There have been potential terrorists who have caught on planes with blades and shoe bombs - how will we fight back now? And how effective has the TSA been in stopping people from getting on airplanes without weapons? I know they've managed to keep babies off planes and disarm grandmothers of knitting needles.

Anyway, I did enjoy the movie, and think the passengers of Flight 93 embodied the truest ideals of what it means to be American. Too bad our elected officials can't say the same thing.

Appeals Court Rules No Right to Trial for U.S. Citizen Jose Padilla

Well, there it is - and you thought the Constitution meant something to this administration. Think again.

We held a revolution and a War Between the States for less than this.

Media Alert | September 9, 2005 | Appeals Court Rules No Right to Trial for U.S. Citizen Jose Padilla

Gouge On

A follow-on to my September 1 posting on price gouging - here's some Economics 101 on Price Controls that should make you think twice about calling your Congressman to complain about high prices...

Why Aren't Public Schools More Like Universities?

Interesting article comparing American universities (which foreigners flock to) to American K-12 schools (which even Americans want to avoid). The entire argument is pro-privatization, which I support for just about everything government currently handles as "entitlements".

Why Aren't Public Schools More Like Universities?

In Defense of Price Gouging

A good essay by John R. Lott, Jr. and Sonya D. Jones on why "price gouging" is another politcal dirty word...

In Defense of Price Gouging by John R. Lott, Jr. and Sonya D. Jones

Smithsonian in trouble

According to an article snippet forwarded to me from a friend, this appeared in the New York Times on August 25, 2005:

Ominous drips from strained expansion joints have sprinkled down amid Asian artifacts in the institution's Arthur M. Sackler Gallery. The historic Arts and Industries Building is closed to visitors to protect them from metal panels dropping from its beautiful but dilapidated ceiling. At the National Air and Space Museum, a water stain mars the Lilienthal hang glider that inspired the Wright Brothers to fly. Even the 1940's prototypes of what was to become seemingly indestructible Tupperware were irreparably damaged in a plumbing breakdown.

The world's largest museum complex, the Smithsonian includes 18 museums and galleries, 10 science centers and a zoological park. It is charged with conserving and displaying the country's treasures, both grand and whimsical - the Star-Spangled Banner that flew over Fort McHenry, bits of moon rock from the earliest space missions, the "puffy shirt" worn by Jerry Seinfeld in his hit television series.

But years of inadequate financing and maintenance have led to widespread disrepair that is imperiling the collections, institution officials say.

My friend added this comment:

The whole article makes for very sad reading. But as a nation, it is
what we want, apparently. “No More Taxes” inevitably means “No More
Financing for the Smithsonian”. Ah well, as the NASM rots, we can enjoy
that big SUV...

I was going to reply to my friend, but didn't want to start a political discussion, so instead I'll vent here.

No more taxes? You've seen no more taxes? I sure as hell haven't - I saw a extra refund a few years back (then saw massive deficit spending, but that's another essay), then my tax bill got higher than it ever has. I've seen government on every level do everything it can to squeeze more taxes out of me (the recent Kelo decision is the latest attempt), even when I've voted to pass laws saying it can't. I've seen the IRS bill me for ten large (that's $10,000) because it didn't like the fact that I only reported my income once (that's right, they were counting some of my income twice and thought I owed them more). If my tax money isn't going to fix the Smithsonian buildings, I wonder where it is going. Hopefully it's not being used to force democracy on a sovereign nation halfway around the world.

I'm also wondering why my friend decided to send this out to everyone - shouldn't he be whipping out his checkbook and writing a big fat one off to the Smithsonian to help? I mean, this is something near and dear to his heart, right? Couldn't he give extra money to the government for a specific purpose? Of course, if it were a private institution, this would be no problem - donations of this sort are done privately all the time.

That brings up another issue - do privately held museums have this problem? The Museum of Flight in Seattle is owned by Boeing Aircraft - wonder if they've let their building deteriorate to the point where it's causing irreparable damage to exhibits and holdings. What kind of museum curator lets his building fall down around his ears? Does he not care about the exhibits? Where does the money the Smithsonian does take in go? Do they charge admission on top of the government handout? That's still not enough? Who's overseeing the accounting? How much is the curator's salary? The salary of others who work there? Will they take a pay cut to preserve the artifacts they've been hired to preserve? Can the labor force be reduced to cut costs, or are all they all "civil servants", basically tenured for life? I'm thinking that the Museum has no shareholders to answer to, and the money is free, so why should the curator care? It's not like his salary depends on the number of people paying admission - if it did, he'd be working on better exhibits than Tupperware and Seinfeld's shirt (preserving the first is ironic, preserving the second is just silly and pointless) in order to get more people interested and coming to the museums. In other words, if he had a selfish self-interest in the success of the Museum (i.e. ownership, or some part of his livelihood tied to ownership), this wouldn't be happening.

There are three things to do - let it fall and lose all those exhibits (I'm appalled by that idea as well, although Indiana Jones' fedora can crumble to dust for all I care); funnel more money into it (maybe we can pass the hat around for donations - let's start with our service men and women in Iraq and see what they think); or sell it to a private party to fix, preserve, and profit from.

Instead of whining, my friend should be forming a private organization, dedicated to raising money to buy the Museum and put it in private hands. Contract with the government to preserve citizen access to the exhibits, but allow it to show a profit, attract investors, and purchase new holdings and exhibits to keep the whole thing running. If he cared enough about it, this is what he'd be doing - as it is, he cares just enough to whine that no one else is helping...

Your government at work #2

You know, there are people who think, rightly so, that you should be free to live your life as you see fit. That your life is your own responsibility, and the harm you cause to yourself is up to you to deal with, and when you cause harm to others you should be responsible enough to make it right. Too bad Northbrook Village Board President Gene Marks (e-mail him here)isn't one of them, according to a story in the Northbrook Star.

Apparently, in his experience as a firefighter, the number of dead people in house fires he's seen has bothered him (as well it should, as it would anyone). Now, as a duly elected official (and newly elected - his four year term runs til April 2009), he's gonna by gumption do something about it, namely require sprinkler systems in all new single family homes in Northbrook Village, Illinois. As some on Fark.com put it, now, when you burn the toast, instead of that annoying beeping, you get to haul the soaked contents of your home to the curb and buy new shit.

One other thing Gene Marks doesn't believe is that there are limits to what government can and should do. Board Trustee James Karagianis has it half right when he says, "Government should not intrude in every area of life, and this is one area that I think is intrusive." Actually, I would say government should intrude as little as possible into anything. Two other Trustees, Sandy Frum and Mike Scolaro, are wary fo the measure, but for the wrong reasons - they're concerned about the cost. In dollars, not in freedom lost.

Another Trustee, one Julius Kole (address 4036 Linderwood Lane, Northbrook, IL 60062, Phone: 847-498-0669, E-mail: kole@northbrook.il.us - all public info from the Northbrook web site), actually said, "I think there comes a point that you have to force some things down people's throats." (emphasis mine) Do the residents of Northbrook Village realize what this guy is saying? If you're living your life in such a way that seems to be wrong to the Board, they'll force the right thing down your throats. Got an old tree in your front yard that drop leaves on the road in the fall causing a hazardous driving condition? Cut it down! Got a leaky faucet that wasting a hundred gallons of water a year? New plumbing mandated! Got a leaky ring in your engine, causing it to smoke when it's cold? Fine and fix! It's all for your own good, you know... Quite frankly, elect these petty little Nazis out ASAP. If there's an impeachment process, do it, and do it now. It can only get worse.

Seriously, folks, if a random person off the street tried to force this crap on you, you'd be well justified in telling them to stuff themselves. If a company tried to handle you this way, you'd be justified in filing a lawsuit and spreading so much bad publicity for them they'd pay you to shut up. But when government does this, what recourse do you have? Move? Vote? Neither do much good - busy-bodies who want to be paid from the public dole are everywhere. Write letters? All I ever get in return from my Congressperson are form letters (mail and e-mail) when I'm in agreement with them, nothing when I'm not (actually, only one Senator even acknowledges my letters to her - the junior Senator and the old Rep seemingly never hear anything). Run for office yourself? You lie down with the dogs, you wake up with fleas - I personally don't trust anyone who wants a public position.

The Founding Fathers held a revolution over less than this...

Outrageous!

Before continuing, read the story in the Fairfield (CT) Herald.

Out-FUCKING-rageous! Not only have these people been paying their property taxes, but the City is now charging extra, as well as offering them prices that are five years old. If I lived in New London, I'd move. Now. Just leave. Sell your house for less than it's worth (once the New London officials get a mind to take it, it won't be worth even that), trash the place to kill the property value, salt the earth, and move anywhere out of the state of Connecticut.

Now, most libertarians with any sense of property rights will tell you that property taxes are, in essence, rent you pay to government for land you supposedly own. This actually isn't very surprising, and is completely legal (think of any civil case where the loser has to pay court costs and interest on money not paid during the contest), but it is completely outrageous, and the officials in the city of New London should be voted out of office next time around. I also wouldn't be patronizing any establishment that set up shop in the new buildings that are going on top of these people houses and land.

The problem here is the mentality at work - public officials need money to do the things they need (and simply want) to do. Since government doesn't produce anything like a business does, they have no real income. Therefore, government relies on taxes (i.e. theft) to provide that income. As government spends, it is asked to spend more on things the people think government should be doing - providing education for your kids, maintaing public roads, helping the poor, fighting wars far away from home, etc. It needs more money to do so, so it raises taxes.

In recent years, however, a number of states have passed laws and initiatives barring the random and capricious increase in taxes to provide these public services. Lawmakers are therefore looking for more creative ways to increase the amount of money they get without actually raising taxes. Using eminent domain in this creative way (and getting 6 of 9 Justices to agree with you) is very creative, doesn't increase the tax rate at all, but increases the value of the land being taxed. If you can overlook people being ousted from their homes, it's brilliant.

Any libertarian will tell you that 99% of the things government does today it shouldn't do - eductation, transportation, charity, ecology, etc., are all done better and cheaper in the private sector, and what's more, offers you a choice of options. That's the main problem with government - there is no choice. If I don't want a telephone, I don't buy a phone - if I don't like the way a company does business, I don't buy from that company. But if I don't like my government stealing from me to give to the needle exchange clinic down the road - tough. In this case, New London stole land from these people and gave it to a private developer - which is more moral or ethical?

Your government at work

Thank the gods we’re being kept safe from these dangerous people flying…  Reason #2 why I’ll never board a plane voluntarily again.

Oh baby: Infants among those caught up in 'no-fly' confusion - billingsgazette.com

Parental Rights vs. Public Schools by Wendy McElroy

Good essay, but it misses one point completely.  Why didn’t the father in this case simply remove his son from the school, tell the officials to go fling themselves in the lake, and home-school the boy?  If you want there to be no influence of government-run propaganda camps (aka public schools) in your life, the best thing to do is keep your kids out of them. 

Parental Rights vs. Public Schools by Wendy McElroy

USATODAY.com - Chertoff: Privacy fears not justified

This is the danger of having people appointed to key positions rather than voted into positions – he has no one to vote him out, no way to remove him unless we go to his boss, George Bush.  This is also the latest in a string of reasons why I will never, ever, fly again.

USATODAY.com - Chertoff: Privacy fears not justified

Where?s the Kelo Calamity? by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Interesting take on the recent Kelo decision, where the Supreme Court ruled that the city of New London, CT, could make it’s own eminent domain decisions.  I hadn’t thought of the issue the way lew did – it makes for a very interesting juxtaposition of ideas. I recommend reading the essay with an open mind and thought to true liberalism (AKA libertarianism).

Where’s the Kelo Calamity? by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Libertarians propose taking Breyer land

Another justice who supported New London’s eminent domain case, another proposal by libertarians to eminent domain his house, this time into a public park.

Nola.com: NewsFlash - Libertarians propose taking Breyer land

Seattle Post-Intelligencer: High court: U.S. Constitution limits searches

This is actually good and bad news – good news that the Washington State Supreme Court is interpreting the U.S. and Washington Constitutions correctly, bad that it even had to be done in the first place.  I mean, come on people – you search without a proper warrant, and expect whatever you find to be useful?  That’s what happens in totalitarian regimes, like Cuba, China, North Korea, and the former Soviet Union.  That’s not how it’s supposed to happen here.  (I’ll refrain from inserting disparaging remarks about the Soviet Socialist Republic of California at this time…)

And no, I don’t care that the cops were trying to shut down a crack house.  What happens when it’s your condo or apartment and the cops decide they’re going to enforce the flag desecration amendment, or gay marriage, or gun rights?  Sure, warrant-less searches seem like a good thing when you want to get rid of drug dealers (remember, there’s no amendment saying you can’t ingest whatever you want, nor that can’t manufacture or sell it), or when you want to stop terrorism, but it’s a slippery slope – that means that actions which seem to be doing good now may be used as precedent to support actions which are tyrranical in the future (just in case you were wondering ).

This won’t make it to the U.S. Supreme Court - this was strictly a State of Washington matter, and the U.S Supreme Court has no jurisdiction here.  If it is appealed there, I’d expect the Court to decline review, but then again, I’m reasonable and figured the Court would find eminent domain applied in New London, as well as interstate commerce and/or the 9th and 10th Amendments would cover medical marijuana in California.

Seattle Post-Intelligencer: High court: U.S. Constitution limits searches

Initial reports were wrong

Looks like the initial reports about Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brasilian shot by British police last week, were wrong. He wasn't wearing a heavy jacket and was not in the country illegally, according to a report by the Guardian quoting his sister. This is looking worse and worse for the Bobbies (got a friend who is an ex-London police officer, haven't talked to him about this yet).

The bombings in London and their fallout in public policy missteps also ties back to the renewal of the Patriot Act in the US. In an essay on LewRockwell.com, Ron Paul has an interesting quote:

Let’s remember that London is the most heavily monitored city in the world, with
surveillance cameras recording virtually all public activity in the city center. British police officials are not hampered by our 4th amendment nor our numerous due process requirements. In other words, they can act without any constitutional restrictions, just as supporters of the Patriot Act want our own police to act. Despite this they were not able to prevent the bombings, proving that even a wholesale surveillance society cannot be made completely safe against determined terrorists. Congress misses the irony entirely. The London bombings don’t prove the need for the Patriot Act, they prove the folly of it.

Remember, you deserve the government you vote for, and I didn't vote for any of my representatives...

US police pursue girl over stone

This is being reported on, of all places, the BBC – not sure if there are other local stories about this, but LewRockwell.com has a decent essay about this.

My thoughts?  Well, this is reason #44 (I think) why I’m never living in California.  You know, I remember when kids could be kids and not have three police cars sentence you to 5 days in detentions (with only a 30 minute visit with family) and a month’s house arrest.  As a matter of fact, I thought courts were supposed to the sentencing, not the cops, but I digress.

In our current atmosphere of fear and insanity perpetuated by our current government, this kind of thing just seems routine, not extraordinarily extreme.  What’s will it take to wake people up?  SWAT teams sent into pre-schools to arrest 4 year olds caught slapping each other?  A few dead kids because a police sharpshooter took them out when he mistook their jumbo burrito for an assault weapon?  What else does the American public need to wake them up to the fact that the State has over-stepped it bounds, well and properly over-stepped them?  Remember, the Founding Fathers led an armed revolt over less than this…

BBC NEWS | World | Americas | US police pursue girl over stone

A few things

First, in a move that would make Nixon piss himself, it looks like the state of Hawaii is getting involved in price-fixing of gasoline.  What economics professor failed the head of the Public Utilities Commission?  What literature professor was glad when this guy dropped out because “Atlas Shrugged” was too long a book for this guy to read?  At least Hawaii’s governor is against it, even if Senator Ron Menor is blocking her attempts to repeal the law (note – if he’s your Senator, write him and tell him to read some economics books written by capitalists).  Setting price caps will spread the cost of getting gas to Hawaii to the rest of the nation, driving our gas prices up.  As the costs of producing gas go up, the price caps will move slower, cutting into the profit margin of the gas company (remember, companies are there to make profit, not be charities) and eventually get set less than the cost of producing it – in other words, gas companies will lose money by selling gas in Hawaii.  Why sell at a loss?  Get out of the market – let the Hawaiian’s walk and ride bikes.

The second thing is a new blog I found called Liberty Now (also linked on the right).  Decent opinions, but seems to be focussed on Iraq and the “War” on Terrorism more than actual liberty.  In any case, his latest post is on the PATRIOT Act, and the fact that the House passed a more Draconian version of it than the Senate is considering.  I posted a comment there, but left out a few things…

The Senate version of the bill has a provision that you will be notified within seven (7) days if you’re the subject of a secret search.  While being notified at all is better than never knowing, it’s still unacceptable – there should be NO SECRET SEARCHES.  No warrant-less searches.  At all.  Period.  By standing up and accepting notification within seven days, we’re letting our liberties seep away.  I think I’ve said this in this forum before – if you drop a frog in a pot of boiling water, he’ll jump out; but if you drop him into lukewarm water and slowly turn the heat up, he’ll fall asleep and die.  In this case, supporting a seven day notification is the equivalent of giving the frog the controls to the fire, but only letting it get hotter.  Not to go too far down a tangent, but this is the also the same game the NRA plays with your gun rights, negotiating for the lesser of two evils in Congress rather than standing up and saying, “What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ is unclear to you, Senator?”

In any case, I’ll be reading more Liberty Now in the coming weeks – it’s given me some things to think about and some things to talk about.  I hope you’ll be reading it as well.

And for all you snooping FBI and TSA and Homeland Security agents – try reading the First Amendment before coming back.

Police-Shot Brazilian Had Expired Visa

You know, if I hadn’t heard the fucking statists on the Bob Rivers Show on KZOK-FM this morning trying to make the British police sound blameless, this headline would have been more shocking.  Apparently, he was being monitored from home, while on a bus, and only when he headed for the Tube was he chased.  Imagine – running for a train while wearing a heavy coat is justification for police execution.  What will the British cops do when winter sets in?  Start shooting every dark skinned person who’s running late for work?  Have the bobbies opened their ranks to the Klan?

The apologists will say, well, the cops didn’t know he wasn’t armed when they shot him.  Well, shouldn’t they assume that?  I mean, Britain has the most Draconian gun control laws on the books – the cops should be assuming that citizens aren’t armed and be using non-lethal forms of subduing potential criminals.

Even if you come to correct conclusion that massive gun control does nothing to assuage crime in general (and merely disarms law-abiding citizens, hereafter referred to as “victims”), I’m sure that the apologist’s next statement will be about defence.  Defence?  Five head shots is “defence”?  A shot to the leg  or shoulder is defence – if a weapon is brandished, a shot to the chest or head is justifiable.  Five head shots is nothing more than fear, uncontrolled emotional outbursts that, quite frankly, all gun owners should be in control of.

Police-Shot Brazilian Had Expired Visa

Justice Souter's Home under Eminent Domain threat

Brilliant ploy, brilliant tactic – while I cannot condone the taking of someone else’s land to give to someone else, this may be an exception I’m willing to live with.

Freestar Media, LLC

Science Blog -- Grizzly-sized catfish caught in Thailand -- (Slashdot Effect Version)

Not exactly American, but definitely liberty minded.  A doctor from the WWF (not the WWE) is saying that we need to protect the habitats for Mekong giant catfish, or they face extinction.  Two sentences earlier, he said that they are poorly studied.  Why do we need to prevent their extinction?  If they’re poorly studied, how are you going to protect them?  What role do they play in the ecosystem that is unique and non-replaceable?  How do they contribute to improve the lives of humans other than as food?  Before we start enacting wide-ranging regulations and procedures, we need to figure out why they need protection.  The Earth has adjusted quite nicely to life without dinosaurs, smilodons, mastodons, dodos, and passenger pigeons – I’d hope it will adjust quite nicely without giant catfish, but if the WWF can prove to me it won’t, I’m willing to listen.

My other question about this is more humorous – what line and bait did they use?  I’m thinking 20 lb. test and some stink bait ain’t gonna cut it… :-)

Science Blog -- Grizzly-sized catfish caught in Thailand -- (Slashdot Effect Version)

Playing With Fire by Becky Akers

Nice essay – never read any of her stuff before, by I echo her sentiments.

Playing With Fire by Becky Akers

Lessons From the Kelo Decision by Rep. Ron Paul

I love Ron Paul.

Lessons From the Kelo Decision by Rep. Ron Paul

Time Magazine to Hand Over Reporter Notes - Yahoo! News

First Amendment rights?  What First Amendment rights?

For those of you keeping score at home, here’s the latest tally of the Bill of Rights that are either dead or coughing up blood (I’ll not go through the whole Constitution at this time):

• 1st Amendment
  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.“
• 2nd Amendment
  “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
• 5th Amendment
  “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
• 9th Amendment
  “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
• 10th Amendment
  “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Good thing military recruitment is down, or the 3rd Amendment would be next.

Time Magazine to Hand Over Reporter Notes - Yahoo! News

Property rights? What property rights?

OK, folks – how many fucking rights does the Supreme Court have to take away before we decide enough is en-fucking-nough?  This ruling enforces the feeling most libertarian property owners already have, that you don’t really own your land, but just rent it from the State – when they want it back, they can take it back.  I sense a Carl Drega moment coming to New London any day now…

Guardian Unlimited | World Latest | Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

Reason #5: Why I Will Never Live in California

I will agree with the Supreme Court here - they had no jurisdiction - although in the wake of more recent rulings, that in and of itself comes as a shock.

Supreme Court Backs Government in Land Rights Case

Justice Thomas Dissent

If you’ve been living under a rock, maybe you don’t know that the Supreme Court ruled that the government can prosecute medical marijuana possession, even if it doesn’t involve interstate commerce.

The vote was 6–3 – the writer of the dissenting opinion was Justice Clarence Thomas, who has, in my mind, partially vindicated some of his earlier controversy.  Read his dissent here (PDF format).

Where do you go...

… when the people who are supposed to uphold the supreme law of the land don’t?  Simply put, the Supreme Court’s decision to allow federal medical marijuana prosecutions to move forward is in direct violation of the Interstate Commerce Clause, because the case in question did not cross a state boundary at all.  Instead, in a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court decided that current federal interests trump Constitutional limits – why bother having a Constitution if we’re going to ignore it?

At the risk of invoking a version of Godwin’s Law, I blame Lincoln for starting all of this.

Cato Daily Dispatch for June 6, 2005

Papiere Bitte by Doris Colmes

You know, when a Holocaust survivor compares the Real ID act to Nazi Germany, Godwin’s Law is trumped.

Papiere Bitte by Doris Colmes

U.S. & World - Supreme Court OKs Medical Pot Prosecutions

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

Nebraska Motorcycle Helmet Bill Dead For Year

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

Hope this doesn't catch on

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.

Letter to John Stossel

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.

How Your Government Wastes Your Money

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

The Top 10 filibuster falsehoods

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]

Good news, Bad news

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.

Man arrested for giving a manicure without a license

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.

Pahrump Valley Times - Nye County's Largest Newspaper Circulation

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.

Boston.com / News / Local / N.H. / Police charge illegal immigrant with criminal trespassing

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.

 http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2005/05/03/police_charge_illegal_immigrant_with_criminal_trespassing/

Reason: In Defense of "Judicial Tyranny": The religious right's court-unpacking scheme

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

Counterbias: The End of Personal Responsibility

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?

Correction to previous story

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.

Be afraid - be very VERY afraid

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.

Constitution Restoration? Or just Christian Fundamentalism?

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:

1. God exists, and
2. All our freedom comes from him

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.

Constitution Restoration? Or just Christian Fundamentalism?

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:

1. God exists, and
2. All our freedom comes from him

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.

Pull the plug on pandering

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

Warning: This blog may be illegal

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?

This is why I don't read/listen to mainstream news

Read this story, then ask yourself these questions:

1. Why did the boy have a gun in his backpack?
2. Why was the boy bringing the gun to school?
3. Why would all Columbus schools cancel classes because of one episode at one grade school?
4. What actions did the police take with the mother?
5. Why did the reporter not think to ask these questions?
6. Who thought it was a good idea to report Ms. Kim Bell’s thoughts, despite the fact her comment is patently false?  (read the quote: “It’s not a school a kid would bring a gun to,” is foolish, ignorant, and asinine, since a kid brought a gun to the school despite her inane assertion.)

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

Collaborative Republicanism for the Masses

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

Victims Sue Thailand, U.S., Accor Over Tsunami

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

HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE :: The End of American Exceptionalism by Mac Johnson

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

 

Supreme Court - out of control?

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.

Concord Monitor Online

The Seattle Times: Local News: Hey, no cutting in line!

Good one on how bad traffic sucks around here, and why.

The Seattle Times: Local News: Hey, no cutting in line!

Supreme Court hearing arguments in New London eminent domain case

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.

mcall.com - Jesus speaks through the Republicans

Reason #1 why I'm neither Christian nor Republican.

mcall.com - Jesus speaks through the Republicans

Progressive News - The News Media?s Political 'F' Word by Normon Solomon

Interesting piece - while I cannot even remotely classify myself as a "progressive", I agree with this viewpoint, 100%.

Progressive News - The News Media?s Political 'F' Word by Normon Solomon

Yahoo! News - Boston Highway Project Said Full of Leaks

Who could have guessed a government project that already went over time and over budget (to the tune of $15 billion dollars) would also have other problems?

When you're done shaking your head and thanking whatever diety you want that you don't live in Taxachussetts, head over to The Cato Institute for some refreshment.

Yahoo! News - Boston Highway Project Said Full of Leaks

Supreme Court hears case on drug-sniffing dogs' role in searches

Hmmm... The Supreme Court looks to do damage to the Fourth Amendment as well. While they make the argument that dogs sniffing luggage at airports is OK, I don't think it is. Besides, the main difference between airports and hiways is that the dogs are sniffing to protect the safety of the passengers on the plane - hiway stops have no such wide ranging public benefit (of course, if you believe drugs are a moral crime, then you won't believe that either).
KR Washington Bureau | 11/10/2004 | Supreme Court hears case on drug-sniffing dogs' role in searches

Yahoo! News - Ashcroft, Evans Resign From Bush Cabinet

One down - three to go (Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney).

Yahoo! News - Ashcroft, Evans Resign From Bush Cabinet

Communications Privacy: A Significant (If Quiet) Ruling

Here's one reason not to trust the mainstream media, whether the nightly news, radio news, or e-news providers. Do your own research to find the stuff that's important to you - get an RSS reader (I use Klip Folio, and read what it gives you. Then you won't be so worried about GMail and more worried about how the First Circuit has wiped it's ass with the Wiretap Act in regards to Internet communications.

And remember - behave in such a way that you wouldn't be ashamed if other people talked about you in public, even if they lie.

Communications Privacy: A Significant (If Quiet) Ruling

Times Online - Sunday Times

There's are some damn good reasons never to fly again - here's one reason never to leave England on a plane as well. I am actually flabbergasted that one woman thought a naked picture of her via this device was "less intrusive" than a manual search. Are people that scared of freedom?

Plane passengers shocked by their x-ray scans

Why a Republican senator won't vote for Bush

Worth the time to read. Of course, it only concentrates on certain factors of the Bush Administration - there are other concerns that could be applied to Kerry, or Badnarik, or any of the four Socialists (including the Green), one Fascist (Constitution Party), and the independent Nader.

Actually, for the first time, I find myself actually agreeing with something George Will says. I'm also noticing that as he gets older (or as I get older), William F. Buckley starts sounding more and more mainstream.

Muslim American Society

Freezerbox: Private Ryan, Amnesiac

A very good essay on American revisionist history since WWII. For the record, I question America's involvement in the War in Europe, but not the War in the Pacific.

Freezerbox: Private Ryan, Amnesiac

Part of the Patriot Act struck down!

Got this from the ACLU - I'm on their Action Alerts e-mail list:

ACLU ASKS MEMBERS TO ACT As Congress Considers New Law Enforcement Powers

Ruling in an ACLU case, a federal court has struck down a Patriot Act provision that gives the government unchecked authority to issue "National Security Letters" to obtain sensitive customer records from Internet Service Providers and other businesses without judicial oversight.

"This is a landmark victory against the Ashcroft Justice Departmentâ??s misguided attempt to intrude into the lives of innocent Americans in the name of national security," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "Even now, some in Congress are trying to pass additional intrusive law enforcement powers. This decision should put a halt to those efforts."

The ruling is the first to strike down any of the vast new surveillance powers authorized by the Patriot Act. Saying that â??democracy abhors undue secrecy,â?? Judge Victor Marrero of the Southern District of New York struck down Section 505 of the law on the grounds that it violates free speech rights under the First Amendment as well as the right to be free from unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment.

At the very moment Judge Marrero issued his decision, members of Congress were debating whether to give the government additional Patriot Act-type powers. The debate over new law enforcement powers came as Republican leaders in the House and Senate engaged in a game of political marksmanship with Democrats. The ultimate loser could very well likely be our rights.

Over the next few weeks, Republican House and Senate leaders are expected to bring the question of new law enforcement powers and several other controversial measures to a vote. You can make a difference today by taking action and sharing this information with your friends, family, colleagues and neighbors.

OregonLive.com: NewsFlash - Court takes on question of seizing land

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

Property rights assault in King County

The King County Council is considering a proposal to limit the use of lands owned privately. Go to the Citizens' Alliance for Property Rights for more information.

And if this passes, welcome to Soviet Seattle.

Diversity: Useful or farcical?

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:

• skin colour
• gender
• religion
• cultural elements
• physical handicaps

But not by looking at:

• ideologies
• personal philosophies
• structures of thought

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...

The Confederate Flag, from Lincoln Journal Star

This is an interesting story, from both points of view. 

Lincoln Journal Star

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.

• The War Between the States was not fought about slavery, but about the federal government excercising power it did not have unequally between Norther ports and Southern ports.  The war started, after the secession of South Carolina, with a blockade of Southern ports by unarmed ships of war.
• Abolitionists made up about 2% of the population in the years leading up to the war.  Allying yourself with this small fringe at the time would have been politcal suicide, which is why Lincoln never did.
• Slavery was not a serious issue in the Presidential debates leading to the 1860 election of Lincoln.
• Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation did not appear until 1863, and only freed slaves in the Confederacy, the one place Lincoln's Union had no power to enforce it.  It was a measure used as a propaganda weapon, not a serious effort to free slaves (which didn't happen until the 1870's and the 14th Amendment).
• The Confederate flag (which I proudly display as a bumper sticker on my motorcycle) is a rallying point for state's rights and small federal government.
• The flag's rise to prominence in the 1960's had less to do with racism in the South and more to do with federally mandates affecting state's rights again.

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...?

Primary election today

Today is primary election day in Washington state.  Despite some of my preivous posts and rants, I voted today, for a few reasons:

1. This is a primary election, not a general election.
2. Everyone running today is a state office seeker, not national.
3. In uncontested races in Washington, you need to get 1% of the vote to move on to the eneral election in November.  This is critical for Libertarian candidates in Washington, who are mostly running uncontested in the their parties for some seats.
4. Simple game theory.

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?

Hiding behind states' rights

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.

Hiding behind states' rights

Picking Neither of Two Evils by Bob Murphy

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

Bond issues on the ballot

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.

Driver?s License? We Don?t Need No Stinking License by Paul Clark

Good article...

Driver's License? We Don't Need No Stinking License by Paul Clark

Reject the National ID Card

Here it comes again folks. Remember that you heard it hear first - if this passes, there will be nothing left to distiguish 1937 Germany from 2004 America than an accent in our leader's voice.

Reject the National ID Card by Ron Paul

The Origin of the Income Tax

Good reading for those of you interested in how we started as a republic and ended up a socialist state.

The Origin of the Income Tax

ENN News Story - Silly string ban a serious matter in Los Angeles

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

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

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.

The 9-11 Commission Charade by Ron Paul

I love Ron Paul and the job he does in Congress.

The 9-11 Commission Charade by Ron Paul

Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections by Roderick T. Long

Long but worth the read...

Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections by Roderick T. Long

Lincoln's 'Great Crime': The Arrest Warrant for the Chief Justice by Thomas DiLorenzo

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

Snitch: The rights stuff: What to do

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