Disturbing state lawmaking news

I'll comment more later, but here's some disturbing state lawmaking news.

Arizona Lawmaker Tries To Ban Naked Lady Mudflaps

No Bull: Lawmaker Wants Testicles Tossed

UPDATE: OK, both of these should be filed in the "all-other-more-important-problems-solved" department.

Rep. Ed Ableser in Arizona is the worst kind of politician - a busy-body who wants all of America to be as clean and sanitized as the Hallmark channel.  One of his supporters, Rep. Theresa Ulmer, obviously needs to take her son to a doctor, as he's either mentally retarded or partially deaf if she continually needs to explain the difference between idealized art and reality.  Has her son never seen a Barbie doll?  Why doesn't that idealized depiction of female anatomy confuse him.  And if it does confuse him, shall we try to pass a law banning them too, or just force stores to put them behind the counter next to the lighter fluid and cold medicine?

As for the bull balls story, Maryland State Delegate LeRoy Myers is a coward, hiding behind the standard statist shield of "we're protecting hte children".  How does Delegate Myers propose to keep children from seeing real animal testicles, say, on an un-neutered dog walking down the street?  There's an age at which kids don't need a full and complete explanation - a simple "they're decoration" should work on most any kid under 10.  I'll leave the explanation for kids over 10 as an exercise to the parent.

For both of these stories, take one lesson - life cannot be sanitized to protect anyone, especially your children.  You can either lock your kids in a Skinner box to keep them safe, or prepare them for life in the real world.  The loss of innocence is tragic, true, but necessary, and you as the parent have to be in control.  In other words: grow up, so your kids can too.

del.icio.us tags: government, laws

The Darkness Falls

We've all heard about the overreaction of the city of Boston to a guerilla marketing campaign for a cartoon show.  Today, we learn that the head of Cartoon Network is resigning over it.  And today, I'm going to comment on it.

Boston should slip into the sea.  Cleanse the idiocy with cold salt water and lobsters.  I'm sorry to say I lived there for a time, went to school there for a time, and enjoyed it - I'll certainly never go back now.

What happened to our collective common sense, people?  Ever since 9/11, were' so afraid of our own shadows that anyone walking down the street with a boxcutter in his back pocket, or two turbaned and robed men talking to one another quietly in the subway, or a Lite Brite on a street corner, is now considered a terrorist threat that demands some sort of response.  I guess we're lucky that the response was just a bunch of paranoid morons calling the authorities, and not some whack-job rounding up a vigilante posse.  Funny, I don't feel lucky - I feel dirty.

Turner Broadcasting, owner of Cartoon Network, apologized and has paid US$2 million to Boston to compensate them for the emergency response they took.  I'm sorry, but if I overreact to a situation and incur personal costs, why should anyone else but me be responsible for my actions?  Oh, that's right, I forgot - this is the New America, where personal responsibility is neither taught nor practiced.  Those few of us with this rare commodity are sitting back, shaking our heads, and wondering where the hell our country got off to.

Our elected leaders have paid lip service for five years that we should not lose the American Way of Life (tm) because of terrorism.  All this time, however, the American Way of Life has been slowly slipping away, slowly boiling to death like a frog in a pot of cool water over a Bunsen burner, as we submit to random searches and pat down on subways, invasive searches of our bags and limits on our speech as we try to board airplanes, and compilation of our personal data into lists that tell us where and how we can't travel.  We've lost our common sense to fear-based irrationality wrapped in the blanket of "security concerns".  We've lost our rational thought and replaced with jingoism.  We've lost our sense of humour and replaced it with self-importance as a cog in the great machine.

In my opinion, the head of Cartoon Network should still be in his role, and the head of Turner Broadcasting shouldn't be writing checks.  They should both be looking at the knee-jerkers and bureaucrats in Boston and asking them, "Why is your stupidity our problem?  Why should we pay for your actions?  Stupidity should be painful - more correctly, your stupidity should be painful to you."  And the people of Boston should be looking hard and asking hard questions at these mental midgets come next election day.

New York, The Nanny State (East)

New York State Senator Carl Kruger is planning to propose legislation that would make it illegal to cross the street in New York City and Buffalo while using an electronic device, like a cell phone, Blackberry, iPod, or Zune.  Apparently, Sen. Kruger is very concerned that two recent fatal accidents involving people in his district who were using said devices are an epidemic and needs some sort of government response.  No word on whether his district (District 27 in Brooklyn) has been gerrymandered to include Buffalo.

For a sensible alternative, check out the Nanny State from the Cato Institute.  And while your at it, take a look at some of the legislation Sen. Kruger is working on...  An informed citizen is a politician's worst nightmare.

And if you live in Sen. Kruger's district, use your feet, go to a poll next election day, and send him a message that he's not your freaking mother, you're a responsible adult, you resent being treated like a pre-schooler, and he can stay out out of your personal life as you vote him out of the public life, thankyouverymuch.

Just for kicks, ride the bike you work on to the voting booth, and make sure you carry a boxcutter and a copy of the Constitution with you (highlight the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments).

Ad hominem comments follow: Doesn't the phrase "plans to propose legislation" make your butt pucker?

New York and Masschussetts are now, officially, the East Coast cells of the Soviet State of California.  Remember folks, when the pain of the Nanny State spanking your ass gets too much, the porcupines are moving to New Hampshire.

UPDATE: ECanadaNow is reporting that three Brooklyn-ites were killed crossing the street with iPods, not one in Brooklyn and one in Buffalo as reported by WNBC.  Not sure who to believe or listen to, but now I'm wondering if Kruger will start handing out $100 fines for running with scissors or swimming within 30 minutes of eating as well...

UPDATE #2: Reuters has the story now, along with some more "nanny state" quotes from Comrade Senator Kruger:

Government has an obligation to protect its citizenry

Maybe in New York, it does, but in America as a whole, the Preamble to the Constitution defines what government should do - protecting its citizenry isn't one of those things.

It's becoming a nationwide problem.

This electronic gadgetry is ... becoming ... endemic...

Endemic?  Nationwide problem?  Where are the scores of reports of others suffering as three Brooklynites have?  I haven't seen them - tell me, if this is such an endemic problem, Senator, are there more people dying from other problems in Brooklyn, or is this numero uno on the list?

Then there's the problem I have with the sympathetic Reuters reporter, who is uncreditted in this story - this paragraph is editorializing, not reporting (emphasis mine).

Tech-consuming New Yorkers trudge to work on sidewalks and subways like an army of drones, appearing to talk to themselves on wireless devices or swaying to seemingly silent tunes.

If he was the only reporter to bias his reporting, it wouldn't be an issue, but he and the Senator are just two examples of an endemic nationwide problem.

New Toyota Commercials - WTF?

I wasn't sure where else to put this idea, but I've been really pissed at the new Toyota commercials.  Despite the fact that I'll most likely never buy a Toyota for my own use (my daughter has one I bought her when she graduated high school), these commercials ensure that I'll never buy one for anyone.

The commercials start innocuous enough - a few pics of scenery and people enjoying themselves, with a song-over with the lyrics, "This is the place I want to live... And the

way I want to drive..."  I can only presume they're tailored for different parts of the country - I live in Seattle, so it's tailored for the Pacific Northwest.

Anyway, after the song lyric, a voice-over comes on, in a gentle masculine voice, "There's something special about this part of the country," followed by different phrases, such as, "we care about the environment," and, "we care about family values."

WTF?

My first response to these was simple: Unlike those yahoo's in Montana.

Really, think about it - as if people in other parts of the country don't care about the environment, or have family values, or can respond to jingoistic marketing catch-phrases.  Give me a break.

Technorati tags: driving, marketing

Responsibility

Do you know the primary way you can tell if someone is a responsible adult?  Watch them drive.  If they drive responsibly (in other words, with purpose, on purpose, and predictably), most likely they act responsibly as well.  Case in point - one small episode from one day of my morning commute this week.

Normally, I ride a motorcycle - a 1996 Harley Davidson Dyna Wide Glide to me exact.  However, since the wind storm and freak snow storms Washington had since December, I've been driving my 2003 Mercury Sable to work.  This necessitates a change in my route, and my introduction to non-HOV travel on our fine state highways.

I found myself behind a large SUV on the I-90 floating bridge.  The time was about 8:30am, and we were heading east into the sun.  the sun wasn't too high, but it wasn't that low either - I personally had no problems seeing (at least seeing the SUV, but that's another rant).

The driver in the SUV, however, was having no end of trouble, from what I could see - first the left hand came up to shield their eyes, then the right (apparently, they got tired easily).  At one point, I thought the driver had their eyes closed and head down to avoid the bright light - from the movements the SUV was making, it appeared that way.  The SUV finally moved out of the left hand lane into the center lane, and I passed on the right.

When I did, I looked over to see who was driving - it turned out to be a very small woman.  Her head topped out at only halfway up the window, just about over the steering wheel.  Even with the visor down the she sat so low in the vehicle, the sun had no choice but to hit her in the eyes.

And here's where the responsibility comes in - don't buy a vehicle that's too big for you.  If you pull the visor down and sun still hits you in the eyes, either buy some sunglasses or drive a freakin' Miata.  I'm tired of the desire for a big expensive status symbol outweighing the need to act responsibly.  Sure, you can buy it, but if you can't drive it, you're no longer an important person - now you're one overcorrection away from being the "earlier accident that has traffic snarled."

Yes, I hate SUV's.  And No, there oughtn't be a law against them.

Technorati tags: driving, responsibility

Zune Marketing via Orwell

OK, this isn't politics per se, but I have to get it off my chest.  The Microsoft Zune marketing campaign is disturbing me greatly.

There are two ads I've seen for the Zune that make me think the marketing folks at Microsoft have taken George Orwell's 1984 and turned into a reference manual.

The first ad has text which reads, "Welcome to the Social".  The second ad reads, "Anti-antisocial".  Both are anti-anti-bullshit.

I remember when I was a teenager - Sony had introduced the Walkman a few years earlier, and I had a competitor's version.  I used to walk around wearing headphones and listening to mix-tapes I made or maybe a purchased album.  At no time did I think I was being social - as a matter of fact, I knew, and was told often, that wearing headphones was antisocial.  Well, duh, of course it's antisocial - when I'm on the bus, or a plane, or waiting around in public, it's easier to put on my music, open my book, and tune out everyone else.  Being social means interacting with other folks around you - I was doing the opposite.

The Walkman for the new millennium is the iPod, and one of its competitors is the Zune.  The technology has changed, but the result is the same - you plug in earphones and listen to your music and tune out the people around you.  It's no more social than the Walkman, or the Discman, or any other technology that diverts one or more of your senses away from the folks around you.  It's never been "social".  It's never been "anti-antisocial".  And that's the disturbing part...

Microsoft appears to be trying to twist the meaning of putting on a set of headphones and listening to your own personal soundtrack as "social" instead of antisocial.  Much like Orwell's doublespeak, Microsoft marketing is trying to pull a fast one on us.

Don't believe the hype - buy the player you want for the features it has, not for the hype.  Listening to music on an MP3 player, or a Walkman, or Discman, or whatever, is not, has never been, and will never be "social".  It will always be antisocial.  And it matters not one whit what a marketer redefines words to mean.

Technorati tags: marketing

Student Recites 8,784 Digits of Pi - Yahoo! News

It's not politics directly, but it strikes a chord with me and effectiveness of public education. Read the article, then come back...

Student Recites 8,784 Digits of Pi - Yahoo! News

Some thoughts I had...

But his mathematical feat won the praise of others, including the math and computer science teacher who got Gaurav interested in it.

What mathematical feat? Memorizing 8K+ numbers in a row is math now? Guess this must be the NEW New Math, a step up from the finger counting my daughter had to learn in grade school. When I was in high school (the kid's 15, he better be at least a freshman), the mathematical feats I did were proving geometric theorems, deriving the quadratic formula, applying calculus to physics, and learning to triple-integrate to get the space under a curve.

My math teacher (three years in a row - Trig, Algebra II, and Calc) didn't expect us to memorize crap - we got to bring into each test one 8.5"x11" sheet of paper with anything written on it we wanted. Her idea was that memorization was for magentic storage media - knowing where to find the information we needed was more important than memorizing the information.

The Teacher must be REAL impressed with cell phones – look at all the numbers they can remember and recite back…

Gooding holds the competition every year, and said she expected students to learn about 40 digits.

What the hell? Is this kid in a school for Luddites? Even rocket launches don’t need that much precision, and I'm certain the launch engineers don't enter pi into their HP calculators manually - they rely on the calculator's or computer's software to retreive a value accurate enough for their uses.

I see this as a complete waste of taxpayer dollars to have a teacher encouraging a student to do what a computer can do faster, cheaper, and easier. As a hobby, let the kid memorize whatever he wants, impersonate any austistic savant as much as possible - but to encourage this in a classroom, to expect kids to memorize 40 digits of pi, is insane bordering on criminal.

BTW, here's what I remember of pi: 3.14159725. And that's been good enough for any calculation, computation, or graphic display I've ever done. Actually, I don't think I've ever needed the actual value of pi before - I just use Math.PI in whatever graphics/math libraries the language I'm coding in provides me. And when I'm doing math long-hand, I just write pi.

New Florida Town Plans Abortion, Porn, Birth Control Bans

Man, this is a tough one.

On one hand, if a group of like-minded people get together to form a community based on their own beliefs, to the exclusion of others, there's a First Amendment that says they can. So long as they're not going to be displacing other property owners to make their Vatican Vacation Getaway, I don't see a problem with someone buying a few million acres, calling it Ave Maria, and parceling out to others under contract.

On the other hand, this is a going to be a town, where non-residents may be passing through freely, who require services not provided by the town. It may very well be unconstitutional in Florida, maybe not in other states.

Not sure how I feel about this one - I'm not Catholic, will never live there, will never probably go there, but who am I to say that a group of Catholics can't form their own little community and live the way they want to? Nuns and monks do it all the time.

Of course, there's another angle Monaghan hasn't though of - if there are a lot of influential Catholics all living in a small area, it's much MUCH easier to take them all out at once with a well placed briefcase nuke.

ChannelCincinnati.com - Family - New Florida Town Plans Abortion, Porn, Birth Control Bans

Inflating a resume illegal? It might be under new bill

Exactly how flipping deep is the Washington State legislature gonna bury their fingers in the private sector's ass? How does this even REMOTELY fall under the auspices of small focussed government? If you're an employer (like the federal government, cited in the piece) and you can't spare the time to independently check on a given credential, maybe you deserve what you get.

Inflating a resume illegal? It might be under new bill

Report cites ‘fraud and abuse’ at FEMA - Lisa Myers & the NBC Investigative Unit - MSNBC.com

This, of course, surprises no one. At least no one with a naivete level above that of a third grader...

Report cites ‘fraud and abuse’ at FEMA - Lisa Myers & the NBC Investigative Unit - MSNBC.com

East Texas Weekly Community Newspaper

Someone needs to explain something to Armstrong Williams.

There are numerous ways to defend America against terrorist attack. The way the President has chosen - and which Armstrong defends - have the unfortunate side-effect of destroying the America it's trying to defend. It's like killing an infection by application of cyanide - sure, we stop the infection, but at the cost of the patient.

His last sentence is particularly telling - since he's not a terrorist, or affiliated with a terrorist organization, Williams obviously isn't worrying. Can we extrapolate here a little? I will make the assumptive leap, for the purposes of my argument, that Williams is also not a drug runner - I'm sure he wouldn't mind being stopped in his car for an impromptu warrantless search. Since he's also not a murderer, he won't mind a similar warrantless search of his home for evidence of that crime. Since he's also not a pedophile, a search of his home computer would be welcome as well to allay the government's fears. Of course, we'd do this at times when it wasn't an inconvenience - say, search his car while he's in the office, his home while he's at work, and his computer at 2am when he's asleep. The one exception would be when he's trying to board a plane, at which point all concerns about convenience would be suspended.

Armstrong Williams needs a swift kick in his rhetorical pants - the America he and I both love is being killed by the cure he is supporting. America annot tolerate this without doing something. It will either fight back, or (as I fear and see), roll over and die. And then Armstrong Williams can feel safe knowing the government is watching over him and his family, because all they do and say will be screened for potential mindcrimes...

East Texas Weekly Community Newspaper

Eminent Domain: The Political Favor

Think the recent Kelo v. New London thing was a tragic anomaly, but couldn't affect you? Think again - government has all the time in the world to wait you out. Too bad taking them to court won't work...

KTLA The WB Where Los Angeles Lives Land Seized for Animal Shelter May Be Sold to Developer-Donor

Listening to the Radio

Usually, I ride my motorcycle to work, but since we've had rain for the past 24 days straight in Seattle, my wife thinks I should be driving the car instead. So, I've been driving the past few days, listening to the radio on the way in. I listen to KZOK-FM in Seattle, and the morning guys are Bob, Spike, and Joe from the Bob Rivers Show. They're reasonably funny, have good on-air chemistry, and I like them...

Until, that is, they start talking politics - I've turned them off more times than I can count when they start talking politics.

This morning, for instance, they were talking about the rebuilding of New Orleans. Apparently, a recommendation is being made that would allow local neighborhoods to decide how they would like to rebuild - what kidn of buildings, what kind of houses, etc. A good idea on the surface, but remember, this rebuilding is being paid for with tax dollars, not private money. The show's resident babe and socialist, Kaci (who, from her bio, has a PoliSci degree), said she liked it, because it got the free market out of the equation (???).

A caller with a definitely libertarian bent (although he called himself non-partisan) said it was a bad idea - New Orleans was a horrid place to build even before the hurricane, because it's below sea level. He was advocating letting salvage companies have the place, and if they took the risk and could make a profit, that's the way it was supposed to work. He also said what I feel - that his tax dollars shouldn't be going to New Orleans to rebuild restaurants he'll never frequent. Kaci commented, "Way to help your fellow man." In other words, a bleeding heart socialist.

There are a few things Kaci is completely missing. First, we have helped our fellow man - perhaps she forgets who was first into New Orleans to help. Hint: it wasn't the federal government. Give up? Private charities and companies were there to help when FEMA couldn't find it's ass with both hands.

Second, taxation is a poor way to "help your fellow man". It's theft, and if you believe the ends justify the means, then extra taxes to help rebuild New Orleans could be considered a charitable contribution, which means I can deduct them from my taxes next year, right? Come on - if I had the money the feds took from me every pay period, I might have some extra to donate to a rebuilding project in New Orleans - as it is, the feds take my money before I ever see it and use it fund imperialism in the Middle East, propagandize our kids, and subsidize failing businesses and stupid people who build houses in places that are doomed on a regular basis (flood insurance?). Given that my money already is going there, I don't see a need to donate to charities to do the same thing.

Third, why is this a federal problem? It's the city of New Orleans, wholly and completely located in (and under) the state of Louisiana. Where was the New Orleans money for the past 30 years when people in this area had their homes flooded due to heavy rain? Or was the fact that a person who builds a home at a place called Washaway Beach is obviously much better off than the working poor of New Orleans, and therefore doesn't need any help when Mother Nature knocks his home into the sea?

Kaci is a bleeding heart socialist - she's not talking about economics or politics in any objective or realistic way. She just wants to help the poor folk stuck in New Orleans because they can't find a way out. Everyone there should be getting the same education most of us did, in public schools - everyone there should be getting paid at a decent minimum wage - everyone there should be getting enough welfare to keep a roof over their head and three squares a day - so why is it that some people have more while others have less? According to Kaci, I guess, it's not because she and I are smarter, or have more initiative and drive to learn and succeed, or were fortunate enough to not be born into poverty (I was born into working poverty) .

I'm not sure why she thinks this, but I think I know her solution - simply redistribute the wealth. Tax people so that we can spread the money over the populace in an equitable manner. She and I and every other person making more than the median income should work hard so we can give all that excess to the poor in New Orleans (and New York, and Compton, and south Chicago, and east St. Louis, and presumably Seattle as well).

I invite her to go first.

Repealing the Magna Carta

A good article, and a good rebuttal to my previous comment - the Administration spying on U.S. citizens isn't the only issue, just the latest, and one I hope will be the straw that breaks the camel's back and pushes towards more liberty. I'm afraid, however, it's a juggernaut that can't be stopped short of revolution...

Repealing the Magna Carta

Comment from mistaken post

A while ago, I mistakenly posted my blog article on Bush's defense of domestic spying to my other blog. I pulled it once I found out about it being posted incorrectly, but still got a comment. Since I'm not going to mix messages in a blog, here's the comment, in it's entirety (not sure who sent it to me):

I don't know where your personal blog is, but you can take this comment and
shoot it over there (or just post the info and your response). If you are going
to post about such a complex legal issue as electronic eavesdropping on foreign
agents where domestic contact with said agents is possible, you might want to
(instead of using a child's view of the issue as a hammer to beat your political
opponents with) take a reasoned look at it prior to knee-jerking a response.
Since, I'm sure, you would not believe anyone's opinion on the subject who
doesn't hate Chimpy Bushitler McHaliburton, I'd suggest reading this editorial
by a former member of Clinton's Atty General's office, John Schmidt: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed

Of all the stupid, inept or quasi-legal things you can beat up BushCo for,
this isn't one of them. We need to be able to spy on foreign agents without
having to worry about whether or not Americans (who are calling or are being
called by these agents) get spied on as well. Quite frankly, its those people
who are the ones we need to be keeping track of in the first place.

Some rebuttal to the comment is necessary.

First, I'm not a Bush hater because I'm a good liberal - I'm a Bush hater because I'm a freedom loving libertarian (also known as a classic liberal, but since the word "liberal" has been co-opted and redefined, like "gay" and "patriot", I'll stick with libertarian).

Second, while the President may have had authority to do so, that does not make it right. The City of New London has the authority to take your property and turn it over to someone else by the same argument - that does not make it right.

Third, we're talking about actions taken well along the wrong path to neutralizing the threat of terrorists. By stating that there is precedent and authority and correctness in this action, we're justifying the actions that led to it. Draconian security at our airports and train stations, secret courts and NSA letters, and covert spying on Americans at libraries and on the phone are justified by that fact that we are at war, when in fact that the war itself could have been avoided had we simply kept our imperial noses out of other country's respective businesses. By meddling in the affairs of Middle Eastern countries, we've earned the enmity of those people, and have been reaping the rewards of that meddling since 1946. Had we left well enough alone, or engaged in free and open trade rather than obtrusive foreign policies and military aid, I feel Al Qaeda would be a non-entity as far as the U.S. was concerned.

The op-ed piece mentioned above also cites a clause in the knee-jerk Congressional order giving the President power to use all necessary force to prevent another attack. The War on Terror, however, like the Wars on Drugs and Poverty, are not, as mentioned before, conventional wars, and to my mind, were not considered in the Constitution when the President was given Commander in Chief powers at wartime. Open-ended ill-defined wars against intangible enemies only serves to preserve broad and unchecked Executive power over the lives and well-being of Americans, and cut the life expectancy of citizens of perceived enemy states. While quoting an act passed by a Congress desirous of appearing to be "on top of the situation" isn't the best way to gets one's point across, it is, however, merely a supporting argument, not the main one.

The op-ed further goes on to say that, while use of this power, if done properly, has immense benefit for little cost, there is still something to fear if this power is not limited as the Bush Administration assures us it is. Given that the administration won't honor agreements in writing (Constitution? What Constitution? Fourth Amendment? Fifth Amendment?), how am I to be assured that a purely verbal assurance will be honored?

In summation, justifying the use or abuse of power, whether legal or not, in order to assure the perceived safety of the citzenry, is immoral. Temporary safety should NEVER be traded for essential liberty - in fact, unrestrained liberty is the best defense against outside threats, and the most feared weapon against internal threats such as those coming from our government.

Fuck Christmas

This is brilliant - if you don't like essays generously sprinkled with the F-word, skip it, but if you're an adult, go ahead and read it.

Two things - first, let me say that I don't watch any news programs, let alone Fox News. I have nothing in particular against Fox News, just all newscasts.

Second, as for profanity, there's a paraphrase of Lewis Carroll I like - are you the master of your language, or your language the master of you? I believe I am the master of my language(s), and so I use whatever words I feel like.

Bush (tries to) Defend Domestic Spying

An AP Report in a WV newspaper site...

The CATO Institute said it best - I'm paraphrasing here. If the President can, by some extraordinary stretch of interpretation and imagination, defend any action he takes in the War on Terror as Commander in Chief, then 1) the Patriot Act is unnecessary, and 2) the doctrine of separation of powers is a joke.

Bush can claim he's not a dictator - I'm sure Castro and Stalin denied it to their people as well. When he took the Oath of Office (both of them), he pledged to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. This most recent news, IMHO, is just the most recent example that he does no such thing. If the Constitution was so important to him (ignoring the rumours reported last week), he'd petition Congress for a true Act of War, then act within that declaration to win it. There has been no formal Congressional Act of War against Iraq; the War on Terror, like the War on Drugs or the War on Poverty, are not wars in any traditional sense, but merely declarations of resolve to remove the planet of scourges both real and imagined; therefore any powers Bush has exercised under the guise of "Commander in Chief" are patently illegal. His actions are traitorous and more than deserving a vote of impeachment.

The lone non-voting senator

The results are in at http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00358.

Seems the lone non-voting senator wasn't Cantwell as I had previously thought - somehow, she cast an absentee vote of Nay from Iraq (perhaps I need to learn a bit more about how the Senate votes). The senator who didn't vote was Chris Dodd (D-CT). Why not? Nothing I can find - no statement on his website about it, just a Not Voting on the record. I used to live in Connecticut, Dodd was there when I was in the early 80's, although I think he was in the House at the time.

I'm still not happy she wasn't in D.C. when the vote was cast, but am a bit chastened by the fact that she did vote Nay. I still don't think it was her job to oversee foreign elections, though.

Maria Cantwell: Gross Negligence?

That's Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA).

Let me preface this by saying that I didn't vote for her, don't like her, and don't support her. That said, she is one of my representatives in the Senate, so I accept she won the election and deal with her when necessary.

Yesterday, however, my patience broke. You see, there's a bill going before the Senate to reauthorize the Patriot Act, with a bunch of extra crap thrown in for good measure. George "Its just a god damn piece of paper" Bush wants this bill - and why not? It gives him dictatorial powers by keeping us in a constant state of war, therefore making his role as commander and chief supreme to just about everything else.

The reauthorization bill passed the House, narrowly I hear, and is on it's way to the Senate. Some key senators are trying to fight with a filibuster, while others are fighting back pushing for a cloture vote, which would kill the filibuster and push the bill through the Senate.

Being a concerned citizen and unable to cast my own vote on this issue, I sent e-mails to both Patty Murray (my other Senator) and Maria Cantwell, urging them to vote against cloture and not to pass this bill. You can read about that on the ACLU web site.

Then, watching the news last night, I caught a story on the Iraqi elections going on. Who do I see in the background, acting as an observer but Senator Maria Cantwell. She's not in Washington to cast a vote - she's in Iraq making sure the votes cast there are fair.

In other words, instead of being in Washington protecting the rights of American citizens, she's in a foreign country making sure their rights are being protected.

The job description for a U.S. Senator is listed in the Constitution, and nowhere does it say, "Uphold and protect the rights of citizens of foreign lands on other sovereign nations".

I don't know how the Senate votes, but if she cannot cast a vote from Iraq, then she has abandoned her post. Should the new Patriot Act make it through the Senate while she's away and she doesn't cast a vote, I think she should be allowed to be away from Washington D.C. as much as possible after the next election by voting for someone who will be around when the shit hits the fan.

LATE UPDATE:

Just checked MSNBC (at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10485860/) - the Senate did their duty, by god, and rejected cloture, killing the bill until they could work some more civili liberty protections into it. Of course, the best protection they could add would be absolutely nothing - let the damn things sunset in a few weeks, and let's go back to the way things were before. Won't happen, but a boy can dream, can't he...

As an interesting aside, the vote was 52-47 - that adds up to 99. There are 100 Senators, 2 from each state. Whose was the vote that didn't get cast? The vote lists aren't up on the www.senate.gov website yet - once I see who didn't cast a vote, I'll post it here.

Patty Murray did vote against the bill - marks for her. She also has a statement about it on her website at http://murray.senate.gov/news.cfm?id=249858. Cantwell's last blurb on her site? Some socialist crap about oil exec's not being honest with Congress about fuel oil prices - apparently, she didn't like the answers she got before, so she asked, and asked again. The press release was about her asking again. Maybe while she's in Iraq, she can bring back some oil for the poor folk - isn't that why our troops are there, to get the oil?

Capitol Hill Blue: Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper'

Not sure how accurate this is, but I've been seeing this story, or reports of it, all over my news feeds.

If it's true, Bush needs to be impeached, then tried for treason.

If it's not, then it's a sad attempt to discredit him.

Let's figure out which it is, then take the proper action.

Rigoberto, Requiesce in Pace by Becky Akers

You know, my wife and I were talking about this story last week - I had my usual knee-jerk reaction (yes, I have them too, although I try to control them before I do something I can't undo), but she was more sympathetic to the marshals, as the reports had the victim shouting about a bomb on the plane.

Now, however, it appears the reports (which were given to news reporters by government agents) were wrong. Why should we be surprised

I had planned to take my wife on a trip to Vegas sometime soon, flying down and staying a week. Now, however, this story and the subsequent reporting by Ms. Akers, has reinforced my own principles (for which I am thankful) - I will NEVER fly again.

ABC News: Fox News Won't Show Ad Opposing Alito

This is interesting - the story comes from the AP, so don't go blasting ABC for reporting, as anything they added would be editorializing.

Why is it interesting to a libertarian? Well, for a few reasons...

First, although I abhor Fox News (in fact, I abhor most news broadcasts), they are a private company and can do what they wish, including refusing to sell their product (advertising airtime) to anyone for any reason. It's called private property rights, and if Fox doesn't want to run the ad, for whatever reason, so be it.

Second, the fight over Supreme Court justice nominations since the 1980's have focussed on a single issue - abortion rights. While the AP story does mention Alito's queer views on what constitutes a legal search, it also mentions his views on abortion when he was seeking a job in the Reagan administration. Abortion isn't the only issue here, and making the fight against any Supreme Court nominee hinge on his or her views on abortion is, in my mind, horribily short-sighted. Given his views on illegal searches, his views on abortion should be evident to anyone anyway.

Third, I find it an extraordinary juxtaposition of philosophies. You see, the abortion rights people feel that a woman's body, and anything growing inside it, it hers to do with as she pleases. While the religious fervor they exude is off-putting at best, the idea that what you do with your body is up to you stems from the most basic of property rights - you own your body. This is the "I think, therefore I am" of property rights, and it's culminates, in this story anyway, with Fox exercising its right not to air this ad.

Of course, despite the lip-service both parties hand out like candy at a parade, neither of the two major parties give a damn about your property rights, whether it's the right to your own body, or your real estate, or your domain name, or you broadcast airwaves, unless you've got some money and power that can help them.

And as for Alito's view on abortion, that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion", I'd encourage him (and the rest of you fascists who think there is no right to an abortion, or to use drugs, or prostitution, or any other supposed crime that involves consensual activities) to reread Amendments 9 and 10. Don't understand them? Well, the basically say two things:

• We couldn't list every right the People have, so we're explicitly saying there are more.


• We listed every power the Federal government has - any others are either State powers, or left to the People.

All this means we should be freeer and the government smaller, but it hasn't worked out that way, has it?

ABC News: Fox News Won't Show Ad Opposing Alito

Bush's Approval Rating Falls Again, Poll Shows

Interesting - need to find out if the Fark comment is correct. The comment is that Bush's current approval rating of 34% is the same as Lincoln's. In South Carolina. In 1863.

WSJ.com - Bush's Approval Rating Falls Again, Poll Shows

A BRILLIANT quote

Check out the link below - the quote is from the last paragraph. Substitute your own network, news program, and news anchor, of course...

Fox may be able to condense all the political news into a 30-minute 'No Spin
Zone,' but in those same 30 minutes a person could read the entire text of the
U.S. Constitution and gain a far better understanding of the American political
establishment than Bill O'Reilly will ever provide.

I Hate TV - Editorial/Op-ed:

Election results - Damage

I-901, the public smoking ban, passed in Washington yesterday.

You know, everyone wanted to make this strictly a health issue, and I don’t deny that health is a part of the issue. However, by making this ONLY a health issue, you ignore the infringement on private property owner rights. This sets a precedent that, if not overturned in court, will have repercussions in the future. For example, there has been talk about banning smoking in privately owned condos for the same reasons. There are people (like my mother-in-law) who have allergies to ingredients in perfumes and colognes – could this be next on the list of non-approved public substances? One of my hobbies is building model planes and cars, and the lacquer and enamel paint and thinners I use contain VOC’s (volatile organic compounds)– will the health issues of using VOC solvents override my rights to paint models in my garage someday?

From I-901 to the CAO all the way to the East Cost and Kelo v. New London, everyone’s property rights are under attack for one reason or another. I’m glad people feel safer and healthier – too bad that collectively we don’t truly own anything anymore. A government that doesn't respect your property rights will shortly and surely lose respect for your other rights as well.

Property rights and I-901

There's an election tomorrow, and in Washington state, there's an initiative on the ballot that would severly restrict property rights. It's not as blatant as the Kelo decision, but is much more insidious and just as outrageous. It's Initiative 901 - an indoor smoking ban for all private property.

This initiative, if it passes, would ban smoking on all private property if it's accessible to public - think restaurant, bar, MC repair shop. Any piece of property that you allow the public to access will be non-smoking, even if everyone on the property is a smoker.

The proponents of this initiative claim it's to protect non-smoking employees in smoking establishments - they parade a sad-faced working mom serving drinks in a smoke filled bar. However, the initiative would prohibit smoking even if you have no employees, or your employees already smoke.

This is nothing more than a CAO-like piece of legislation stripping your property rights, masquerading as a public health masterpiece. The juxtaposition of socialist agendas with libertarians ideals usually take the form of initiatives, and usually get settled in the courts. The problem is that the Washington Supreme Court (and the U.S. Supreme Court) have taken the side of the socialists in the recent past - gas taxes were reinstated, eminent domain was expanded, the Patriot Act still is being argued. I expect to see a court case on this, but not much news coverage and I'm not hopeful this will be overturned.

Remember folks - if you don't control what happens to your land, you don't own it anymore. A government that doesn't respect your rights to your property will soon stop respecting your other rights, like freedom of speech, bearing weapons, speedy impartial jury trials, keeping soldiers in your home.

Until then, smoke 'em if you got 'em, and read this guest article in the P.I. - I'm rather surprised the premier newspaper for Soviet Seattle let this one run. I guess they needed to run it to preserve some sense of "balanced reporting" (although how they, or any newspaper, can pretend to be impartial reporters of news is doubtful when they support key issues and initiatives - specifically, the P.I. has come out in support of I-901). You can also check out http://www.noon901.org/ for more info (I'm not a balanced reporter - you want the proponents web site, find it your-damn-self).

The Politics of Oil, and Economics 101

OK, he's a conservative, but this guy articulates the argument that when demand exceeds supply, prices should go up, and when people buy more of something, the company selling it should make more profit. Of course, you can read the rantings and ravings of the socialists on Fark as well (where I got the link from).

Instapundit.com

Interesting link from a friend with similar political persuasions.

Instapundit.com

New blog listing

Some format changes - I've added links to the stories I read and post here (thought that happened automagically - surprised me) and made the perma-links easier to find and click. I also split up the right side bar and added a new link to Melissa's Liberty Blog. She's as rabid a libertarian as I am, but uses cleaner language (that is, if you're offended by the words "fuck" and "shit" - if you're offended by the use of words like "socialism" and "collective", like I am, it's positively obscene).

I'm also trying to track down some editorials referenced in a recent letter I got from the Advocates for Self-Government. Two people, in three separate op-ed's, blame libertarianism for the damage Katrina did to New Orleans.

Close your mouth - took me a while to close mine, but it's better in the long run if you do.

Anyway, I want to find the complete editorials before commenting in depth. I also want to find contact info for the writers to publish here. Some quick thoughts on what I read:

• Libertarians didn't build substandard levees
• Libertarians didn't encourage people to live below sea level by providing cheap flood insurance
• Libertarians didn't deny basic 1st and 2nd Amendment rights to reporters and victims in the area
• Private organizations moved quicker and more efficiently to provide aid to victims, despite government efforts to stop them

Anyway, I'll have more once I find the complete op-eds in question.

Town's Sunday construction ban could affect do-it-yourself work - Monday, 10/17/05

People ask me sometimes why I'm against my little patch of unincorporated King County either incorporating into one of the neighboring towns (Seattle, Tukwila, Burien), or becoming it's own little town. I tell them right now I have three levels of government sitting on me - county, state, federal. Incorporating adds a fourth, which I don't like. When they ask me why not, I'll start pointing to this article...

WTF, people? You can't build a deck on Sunday in this little shit-ass TN town? You work 60+ hours a week, with lots of Saturday OT, and want to do some home improvement on Sunday, but the Spring Hill aldermen say, "not on Sunday".

It's a religious based decision, of course - someone brought up the question of Seventh Day Adventists celebrating the Sabbath on Saturday. No one brought up Jews, or Baptist's Wednesday services, but the argument is the same - the holy day shall not be used for work of any kind, especially the kind that can disturb you when you and the fellas watching the game and the women-folk are washing the dishes.

I'm presuming the reason why is noise - wonder if you're working on building some furniture in your garage, got the table saw and planer going full blast, making all sorts of noise with the door open if they'll stomp down on you. How about working on your car with the air tools? Band practice in the driveway?

Move out now.

Tracking Mobile Phones For Real-Time Traffic Data > October 17, 2005

Creepy, when you think about the "mission creep" as the article puts it. How long before they can track a single phone from point to point on a whim, rather than with a court order? If you're concerned about tracking, turn your cell phone off when in the car - you shouldn't be talking when you're driving anyway. How will they deal with out-of-state travellers as well? There have already been hassles between Missouri and Illinois over out of state auto purchases and riverboat casinos (in one incident, a riverboat turning around in the Mississippi crossed the court-enforced state line and was issued a citation by the State Patrol - I forget which state in which gambling is legal). Could be interesting if the Illinois and Kansas AG's gets a lot of complaints about possible privacy issues from residents travelling into Missouri on a regular basis (St. Louis and KC are border cities).

Thinking technically, does it matter if only one car in ten has a cell phone? I wouldn't think so - one cell phone moving 20 mph on the interstate out of St. Louis into the burbs should be as telling as 100.

You know, we have this type of feature in the Seattle area right now, without cell phone tracking. This is just another reason why, though I want to live in the St. Louis area, I plan to live on the Illinois side of the river...

Police Arrest Woman For $1 In Unpaid Taxes - Yahoo! News

Today's "The Government You Deserve" story brought to you by WLTW-TV in Cincinnati.

Remember all you Cincinnati folks, this is the government you voted for, the officials you wanted in office. Fred Enderle, City Manager who sent the police force after this woman, was either elected or hired by elected officials - and he's standing on the principle that it's OK to arrest and fine a woman for not paying her city income tax, all $1.16 of it. Thank the gods you Cinicinnati people have an upstanding principled city manager who won't let things like economies of scale or common sense get in the way.

Move out of Cincinnati while they still let you, and before they bring in another Kansas School Board member with an overload of principles and deficient common sense to be your next city manager...

Now before you all get on my shit for trashing a guy with principles (which I admire - about time we found a public official who actually has them and admits to them), let's discuss this from a different POV. Sure, he has principles, and he states them fairly accurately in the story - there are laws, and you have to comply with the laws. However, before that, he does state that there is some expense involved (ostensibly in the arrest and prosecution of this woman). This is where my admiration of his principles breaks down.

In the private sector, there are rules, by-laws, best practices, etc. You follow these because it's the best way to get the best return on your investment, whether that's a stock you bought, an employee you hired, some equipment you're leasing, or customer service you're delivering. Every rule, best practice, whatever, has a cost associated with it - computer programmers take extra time to comment code and follow standards because the initial cost (in terms of time) is made up later when it comes time to service the code. Auto manufacturers use bolts to fasten things, and take the time to specify those fasteners, because loosening a bolt is easier than breaking a weld when it comes time to service (a vast overgeneralization, I know, but bear with me - I'm running out of analogies).

So, there are costs and returns on the tules you follow when you're doing business. The minute the cost of following those rules becomes higher than the return you get from them, the rules get tossed. For example, if you're writing code that only gets used once in one place and will never be serviced, comments are not done, or are done in a very limited fashion.

The other thing to remember is that there very few universal laws, and almost none of them are codifiable into local code. How do you legislate being responsible? Honorable? Having integrity? You don't. The laws we follow in business - and the laws enacted by all governments - are made up by us. They may originate from a common experience, but they're certainly not universal.

So, the city manager asks what cost do you stop enforcing law? When the law is counter-productive to the economy of the city (i.e. when it will cost more to enforce than it will return to the city). And when the law being enforced does not protect one citizen from the harmful actions or inaction of another. The city is out $1.16, and has spent how much trying to track it down? Do the math - will the fines she pays even make up the difference? I doubt it, but I'd love to hear someone with real numbers...

Oh, and I've been getting spammed religiously in comments - if you've got something real to say, please do so, as I'd love to see something real. My dick and tits are big enough, my mortgage is fine thankyouverymuch, I don't want a fucking Rolex, and I don't need prescription Viagra - I don't give a flying fuck how much you like my blog, I ain't buying your shit, visiting your site, clicking your link, or looking at your pictures.

Vent mode off.

Why not to support the troops

Very well done, somewhat poignant, essay on why we should not support our troops. The whole thing boils down to a Rush Limbaugh paraphrase at the the end - you can't support the troops without supporting the war and government that started it. I support neither the war nor our government, and despite pressure from all sides, do not support our troops either. They are the instruments of an illegal war, and they have freewill, uniforms and chain of command notwithstanding. We didn't allow the "We were under orders" defense of Nazi prison camp guards - why do we put up with it now?

Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Oliver Burkeman: A treat for rightwing tots

I think I'll see if my library has the book and read it - of course, I think the Guardian got it wrong, comparing liberals to conservatives, neither of whom seems to think that government is too small. Better to see this as a libertarian children's book, but until I read it, the jury's out...

Free Talk Live

New site I found - podcast of a radio broadcast aimed at liberty. Now I'm listening to yesterday's second hour at http://www.freetalklive.com/files/FTL100505B.mp3 - well worth a listen.

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