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