Libertarianism can’t work, you need only watch an episode of Cops.

I forgot I said that. Heh. Any hoo:

Every once in a while, Tom gets it in his head to make the assertion that a criticism of something is invalid unless the person doing the criticizing offers a better plan. Sorry, but that’s horseshit. I can tell you that something sucks and not have a better solution. For example, abortion sucks. Making abortion illegal sucks. They both suck. I have no solution for that problem but when someone says we should make it illegal, I point out all the problems that will create. And I do so without offering a solution to make everyone happy.

Apparently, I should give accolades and a Coca-Cola to someone because they have a plan, any plan. Even a bad plan. Let’s take a scene from any action movie where the hero is about to cut the red wire (or maybe the blue one). He’s got a 50/50 shot? He cuts the wrong wire and everyone dies. Well, good for him. He had a plan.

On the universal health care bit, I’m not a fan. I don’t want the same people who spend $900 on a hammer having any say in my medical decisions. Period.

And one more canard:

Nearly 50 million Americans without health care?

That’s horseshit too. Now, if he’d said 50 million Americans without health insurance, he may have a point.

He also says that libertarians have no solution to global warming. He’s right. And neither do you. Not one that is workable, any way.

Every once in a while I have to remind people that I am a crazy-assed gun nut. It’s even more fun with friends and family because, well, they never expect it. So, I sat down figuring I’d write some elegant, well-thought out, convincing piece on freedom, sovereignty, and responsibility that detailed precisely why I am a gun nut. I couldn’t do it, I wrote this instead:

I am a gun nut and proudly so. Some folks say it like it’s a bad thing. I don’t know why, we’re mostly harmless. It’s true. As I’ve said before, people don’t walk down the street leery of gun nuts (well, except in England). They walk down the street either not leery at all or leery of criminals.

What makes me a gun nut?

Not the number of guns I own. For someone who yammers on so much about guns, I probably own considerably less than the average reader here. I own the following: Ruger 10/22, a Walther P22, Kel-Tec 380, an AR in 9mm, Glock 30, an AR in 5.56. I think that’s it. Six firearms. I have a lot on my to buy list but they always get pushed back due to other priorities or whatever. And here lately, I’ve actually sold a couple of firearms. One, because I didn’t care for it and one because I was offered too much to turn it down.

It’s not that I like how they work mechanically or tinkering. I do that with other stuff and I’m not nuts about that. I like to do woodworking but I am not a woodworking nut. And I don’t blog about woodworking.

It’s not hunting. I don’t hunt.

It’s not the zen of target shooting. I zen playing cards, golf, and other activities as well.

So, what is it? I thought about it long and hard. And it’s this simple truth:

If you fuck with me bad enough, I’ll kill your ass.

Simple. Not elegant. But that truth is what scares the shit out of others and it’s that truth that makes people look at you like you’re crazy. It won’t be a NRA slogan any time soon. But it’s what you’re asserting when you claim to be a gun nut, whether you like it or not. Now, this is the part where some ninny chimes in with well, that’s crazy or you’re not going to make converts that way. They may be right, but it’s the truth.

Now, that is not to say that I’ll kill your ass if you cut me off in traffic or generally do me wrong. I’m talking like if you really, really egregiously fuck with me. I’m mean life-altering, I’m fucked in a major bad way kind of fucking with me. If you enter my home uninvited and intent on doing me and my family harm, I’ll kill your ass. But it goes beyond just petty criminals. By your ass, I mean all manner of yous and their respective asses. That is to say, be they individual criminals trying to cause bodily harm, nefarious bureaucrats with nothing better to do, or tyrannical governments. I’ll kill their asses if they egregiously do me wrong.

If you, say, lie about a crucial piece of investigative work that lands me in jail, I’ll kill your ass. Or if you prosecute me for a crime that I’m probably innocent of based on scant evidence and for political posturing, I’ll kill your ass. If you try to take my house, I’ll kill your ass. If you arrest me and charge me with a non-crime out of revenge or to teach me a lesson, I’ll kill your ass. Sure, I’ll exhaust every legal manner with which to fight these abuses first but, at the end of the day, if I get royally fucked, I’m willing to kill their asses.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to kill anybody. I just realize that some things call for it. And that is what makes me a gun nut.

Think the Knox County School System has problems? You don’t know what real problems are. Take for example this story from St. Paul, Minnesota.

Read the rest of this entry »

Aunt B.:

I’m just reminded that the difference between most conservatives and the libertarians I know is that the libertarians I know seem to have some grasp of how the world works (even if we differ in our interpretations) and use such knowledge to formulate their opinions, whereas a loud strain of conservative thinkers just spout out opinions as if saying it loud enough makes it so.

Yes and no. Libertarians seem to have a grasp of how the world works when it comes to vice. Not so much when it comes to governing people, foreign policy, or, you know, developing a plan to get their message out.

No one is an extremist, just ask them. I’ve said it before and it bears repeating:

A common misconception we all have (other than that we’re good drivers) is that we’re moderate. We all think we are. After all, we usually associate ourselves with similar minded folks and since those folks are all around us, we must be middle of the road.

Well, I don’t but I’m reminded of this by Rich, who quotes Orson Scott Card’s book that I haven’t read:

A good working definition of fanaticism is that you are so convinced of your own views and policies that you are sure anyone who opposes them must either be stupid and deceived or have some ulterior motive. We are today a nation where almost everyone in the public eye displays fanaticism with every utterance.

It’s kinda relevant because some extremist, fanatic recently said:

Anyone who believes in the collective rights (or as it should be called the ‘no rights’) model of the second amendment is either clueless or a disingenuous hack.

But it’s OK. I’m comfortable with my own extremism. I fully realize that my views on guns and gun control; the role of government; the drug war; and a variety of other things are in not even close to a moderate view. It’s how I am. I’m a freedom extremist. And I am right. Just like everyone else is. They are right, just ask them.

I wrote about Orson Scott Card’s new novel “Empire” and commented on how this book has confounded the far left. The premise of the book is a second American Civil War between the Blue States and the Red States.

Is there an issue that could spark a shooting Civil War between Blue State America and Red State America?

I see only one issue that could ignite the country and that would be a mandatory federal government issued disarmament of the American citizen. This has happened in some degree in England and to a lesser degree in Australia.

Astute readers will note that in both England and Australia it is not total disarmament. Rifles, shotguns, and “antique handguns” are allowed to some degree in England and to a greater degree in Australia. The great concern is the “slippery slope” argument.

Should the Supreme Court strike down the Second Amendment as antiquated via the logic that “well regulated militias” are no longer a viable legal construct and that the militia component of the Second Amendment is the primary clause, then local communities could enact legislation to prohibit handguns and certain types of long arms if not all firearms. This could serve as a catalyst to dramatically polarize Blue State and Red State America.

Would Blue State America cheer such a Supreme Court ruling striking down the Second Amendment? A ruling is one thing, the day the law comes to the door of Red State America to confiscate certain if not all firearms is another matter.

Would Red State America turn in their firearms ammo first and create a shooting Civil War? The right to self defense is considered in almost all societies as sacrosanct. How could any court rule in a way that would put citizens at the mercy of criminals that have no regard for the rule of law?

Xrlq brings the snark. Heh.

In the past few weeks there have been two local events that should give anyone pause regardless of their feelings about firearms. Whether the concern is for the United States Constitution or just plain common sense, the idea that anyone should trust a criminal armed with a gun makes no sense.

The first event was this Metro Pulse Editorial. Boiled down to it’s essence it opines that Knox County Commissioner Greg “Lumpy” Lambert endangered his life by drawing his Kel-Tec .380 pistol to defend himself from 19 year old Kane Stackhouse. The Metro Pulse Editorial had several inflammatory statements such as, “In the process, he has shown himself to be a danger to himself and others” and “First he put himself at risk by drawing his weapon when he says he saw a gun come out of the young man’s pocket.”

So what is the message the Metro Pulse is sending? They are saying that Mr. Lambert should have trusted the criminal. Kane Stackhouse is not your typical 19 year old. Unknown to Mr. Lambert at the time he was looking down the barrel of Mr. Stackhouse’s .25 caliber Beretta, it has now been alleged that Stackhouse murdered David Lindsey in a Walgreens parking lot 10 hours earlier with the same gun he was pointing at Mr. Lambert. Stackhouse has been charged by the Knox County Grand Jury for the crime of murder.

The second local event happened Sunday morning on the “Inside Tennessee” political talk show on WBIR. You can see a clip from the program below. Panelist and local Knoxville attorney Don Bosch made a statement to Lumpy Lambert that defies common sense. Bosch said to Mr. Lambert, “You increased your chances many fold over of being shot by pulling that gun.” So what is attorney Don Bosch saying? He is saying trust the criminal.

There were six shootings in the same 24 hour period with two fatalities. The only firearm event that had a good outcome was the one where an armed citizen protected himself. The idea that armed citizens present a hazard to other citizens has not be proven, in fact in areas where carry permits are allowed violent crime has decreased.

The timing of this “Trust the criminal” mantra is curious. It comes at a time when Knoxville Mayor Bill Haslam needs all the help he can get. More charitable people may believe that Mayor Haslam just did not read the fine print on Michael Bloomberg’s Anti-gun movement before he signed on. Mayor Haslam’s slow response to explain the situation causes doubt. 120 Mayors across American have joined Bloomberg. Currently only one Mayor in Tennessee has signed on.

Some people might ask why would anyone be concerned about illegal guns? The logic is only criminals use illegal guns so getting illegal guns off the street makes perfect sense doesn’t it? No, it doesn’t. The hidden trap door of this movement is incrementalism. In the beginning it is more and tougher gun registration laws. Then as time goes on it may be a limit to the number of guns a citizen may possess. Then perhaps an urban ban on handguns. At some point it will be pointed out that most illegal guns come from home burglaries. As the tortured logic unravels then the end game will become clear. The only way to insure there are no illegal guns is to make sure there are no guns period.

What is an illegal gun? Depends on who you ask. If Mr. Bloomberg has his way will the definition expand to include all guns?

Here is my advice, don’t trust the criminal and don’t trust the billionaire Mayor of New York who wishes to disarm law abiding citizens.
Read the rest of this entry »

Some idiot wants to reinstate the draft. This prompted a discussion of whether or not the draft is constitutional based on the 13th amendment’s prohibition of involuntary servitude.

Just thinking but Congress can call forth the militia. And:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

And there’s the second amendment and all of that. Thoughts? Or am I just full of it?

Fight or comply? There’s an article about it herethat got me to thinking. I’ve said before to teach kids to fight back in case of a school shooting. I stand by that. That said, fight back whenever there’s a threat of physical harm (assault, battery, rape, if someone is trying to kill you, if someone is in your house, etc.). But here’s the rub, if it came down to just property, I’d let it go. If someone threatens me for my cash, it’s theirs. If they want my car, it’s theirs. I have insurance. That said, it’d be hard to determine if someone meant me harm or not. But, warranted or not, I would not use force merely to defend material things. It’s not worth it.

Rich relays a tale of a time he was robbed and emphasizes training.

The NYTimes reports that the big-tent Democrats now have room for righty candidates, most notably some people who take gun rights seriously.

Democratic officials said they did not set out with the intention of finding moderates to run. Instead, as they searched for candidates with the greatest possibility of winning against Republicans, they said, they wound up with a number who reflected more moderate views.

I have a friend who believes this country is going to hell. He sees the left-right schism getting wider and says it will eventually break out into civil war. I tell him there can’t be a civil war between right and left for one simple reason: the left has no guns. Bless his heart, his response is always “I’m trying to change that.”

By the way, I feel the need to point out the following:

I don’t think the manner in which New Jersey’s court OK’d gay schmarriage is acceptable. Just like I didn’t think Gavin Newsom was right when he allowed gay couples in San Fran to get hitched. Newsom broke the law. NJ made it up.

However, I’m not dissatisfied with the result of either.

The system is broken. But even a broken system yields a good result occasionally.

Tam on the middle class:

This is maybe the only nation on the planet where the guy in the $500,000 house with a new Benz in the driveway and the single mom making $8/hr at the Food Lion and living in a single wide will both sigh and turn up the volume to listen in when the TV announcer says “A new threat to the Middle Class!“, thinking he’s talking to them.

Read it all. Chick needs to write a book or something. I’d buy one.

New Jersey has just become the latest state to move toward civil unions. The NJ Supreme Court just handed down an opinion saying

the Legislature must either amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or create a parallel statutory structure, which will provide for, on equal terms, the rights and benefits enjoyed and burdens and obligations borne by married couples. We will not presume that a separate statutory scheme, which uses a title other than marriage, contravenes equal protection principles…. The name to be given to the statutory scheme… is a matter left to the democratic process.

All the rights and none of the dignity is not an acceptable result. I would like to see the legislature do the right thing and end civil marriage discrimination. I doubt they’ll do it, but that is the hope.

Here, I said:

if there’s one sure fire way to make anything worse, it’s to have the government either 1) regulate it or 2) ban it. Guaranteed.

I wrote that in haste and, well, obviously didn’t necessarily mean anything. Tom called me on it and said:

Yes, because lead-based paints are a far more pervasive problem than they ever were before the meddling government got involved…

There are, indeed, some things that the .gov ought to regulate. I think the more correct way to have phrased that would be:

If there’s one sure fire way to make any complex social issue worse, it’s to have the government either 1) regulate it or 2) ban it. Guaranteed.

I present as evidence: The war on civil liberties err drugs and prohibition. Discuss.

Outside the office just now is a plane flying overhead with a banner behind it. The banner has a picture of an aborted baby and the caption Abortion is Terror. Not a real tasteful way to get converts, there guys.

Drug War Rant reminds us that among the hidden costs of the drug war is police corruption.

Now you came into this thing a bright eyed, shiny young recruit… You’re a police officer four or five years — you see the wasted energy you spend on this drug war. And now you’re standing in a motel room where a drug arrest has just been made. Laying on the bed is a hundred and some thousand dollars which hasn’t been counted yet in cash… In your back pocket is a thirty-eight hundred dollar bill from the plumber that you didn’t know how you were going to pay… And, it doesn’t make any difference anyway. And you take your first taste. And then you’re gone.

The drug war is a bad policy that serve no constituency except tough-on-crime ideologues and companies that sell black tactical gear to police departments. The drug war makes us less safe and less free. Let your elected representatives know that (a) you oppose the failed prohibition and (b) you vote.

Update: Feh, nevemind

But that would excuse this nonsense.

If you had told your tale a bit differently, you’d have had my sympathy. But the crazy crept in and you said:

Men Are Scum Until Proven Otherwise

You are almost as vile and despicable as this Mathew Allen White you speak of. And the only reason I say almost is because your hateful words at least have the benefit of not causing physical harm. Misandry is as deplorable as misogyny.

Via AC, who says:

On a different occasion, I might quarrel with this assertion — but not today.

Sorry, but suffering a tragedy does not bestow infallibility on the victim. I hate that it happened to her daughter and I have no tolerance for abusive people. But it’s no excuse for crazy. And it’s no excuse for generalization. What if it was a black man? Do we then assert that Blacks Are Scum Until Proven Otherwise? No, because that’s racist and unacceptable.

And Sarcastro notes in comments:

Judging from the pics, it looks like left-handers could also be called utter scum until proven otherwise.

Update: Crazy lady responds:

Never mind that my choice of words was lifted verbatim from the mouth of my daughter’s father — a man who has been issuing the warning: men are scum until proven otherwise — since the day the first boy came near one of his daughters.

Perhaps you should have disclosed that in the original post? Or, more likely, you’re making shit up. And:

The problem is not my choice of words. The problem is that a woman said them.

I don’t care who said it. It’s a vile and despicable thing to say, but that’s what I’ve come to expect from egalia.

I’m not a defender of manhood. Just critical of hysterical, raving lunatics. My sympathies to your daughter for both the abuse she’s suffered and the perverted, disgusting life lessons you subject her to.

Update 2: Aunt B weighs in. A couple of points I disagree with but otherwise, right on.

Terry Frank on gay marriage:

The Professor is right. Gay marriage won’t affect my marriage at all. But he knows better than to act as if that will be the only fallout.

Ayup. But

It’s naive and disingenuous to state that teaching children in direct opposition to their parents beliefs is and will not be a potential problem. And given that school choice is nearly unanimously denied across this nation, I don’t see how the argument is ignored.

I didn’t know they taught gay marriage in school. And, if they do, it’s rather the parents’ job to discuss such complex issues with their kids.

On jury nullification:

Assume you’re a juror in a criminal case where you think the defendant is clearly guilty beyond a reasonable doubt — but you also believe that a conviction would be unjust. Maybe you disagree with the law on its face; maybe you just disagree with its application in this particular case. For whatever reason, a conviction is clearly the legally correct thing to do, but it might bother your conscience.

Would you ever convict in such a situation?

No. And he asks:

If your answer is that you would never convict in such a situation, then what would you do if faced with a choice between your conscience and the rule of law?

Conscience wins everytime. Sticking to the rule of law when your conscience says otherwise is for bureaucrats. The I was just following orders defense doesn’t cut it.

I went looking for an example and found one pretty quickly. Here:

a petty criminal has been sentenced to 30 years for selling $20 worth of marijuana.

Sure, I could vote on a jury that, yes, he is guilty of selling a teeny amount of marijuana. But if I knew he would get 30 years, no way in Hell. Even if it’s his 12th strike. That punishment seems so cruel and unusual.

Of course, I’d be unlikely to convict for any sort of victimless crime.

Update: that was quick, here’s another:

Since when did taking $15 worth of produce from a garbage can become a felony. Two members of the Rainbow Family were given 6 months in jail for stealing food from a dumpster behind a grocery store.

It’s almost like it happens all the time.

Balko says he would deceive to be on a jury to nullify a law. Patterico says:

I have said I would support jury nullification in extremely rare and desperate situations, where the fabric of our society was falling apart and our laws were inconsistent with basic humanity. For example, I would not convict someone of helping a slave escape his master. If we somehow passed a law making it illegal to be Arab, or Jewish, or black, or Mexican, I would not convict someone for that “crime.”

and:

Lying your way onto a jury isn’t the right way to fight these battles.

Well, in the event you see one of these extremely rare and desperate situations, how would one get on the jury without deceiving? After all, they’d be asked about it?

Would you, being the good sort of civic minded person you are, lie to get on a jury to challenge an unjust law? Even if the case was not extremely rare and desperate?

That’s a sticky situation. Sacrifice one set of principles for another?

I’ve opined in the past that denying felons the right to vote or the right to arms opens up a whole can of worms. We’ll call it can of worms because if I call it slippery slope, someone will say that’s a fallacy. Then I’ll tell them to leave their high school debate team bullshit back in high school (see rule #4). The reason it’s a can of worms is because if we accept that we can deny felons those rights, why not limit others? After all, we may not want them assembling peaceably, because that could be gang activity. We may not want them to be free from self-incrimination because, well, they’ve obviously done something wrong before. We may want them to convert to Christianity because those who find religion are more likely to reform. Yes, those are ridiculous extremes and that is the point. Where do we as a society draw the line?

This brings up Sean Braisted who writes:

I have trouble comprehending people who think just because a person doesn’t have legal status in this country, they should have no legal rights whatsoever. If that were the case, than the Government could easily just strip legal immigrants/citizens of their citizenship, thus making the Government unaccountable to the laws. This notion that illegal immigrants are somehow less than human, and shouldn’t receive medical treatment or have any basic human rights, is just ludicrous.

I like Sean’s blog. He’s a smart guy and reasonable. But I asked a simple question:

So, should illegal immigrants have the right to keep and bear arms? The right to vote?

Illegal immigrants cannot legally own a firearm (of course, they cannot legally be in the country either). In response to the first question, he answered:

As for Guns, unless they are members of a well regulated militia…well…you know the liberal position

Yes, and that position is total bullshit that is unsupported by any documents around at the time of the founding. And there is nothing to support the position without either making stuff up or disregarding the structure of the English language. So, for question two:

As for the right to vote, it is specifically limited to citizens of the United States.

Most matters regarding voting are left up to the states. The constitution doesn’t enumerate a right to vote specifically but mentions the right to vote. Determining those who can vote is generally up to the states:

The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or sex. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the “most numerous branch” of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members. Note that in all of this, though, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. This is precisely why so many amendments have been needed over time – the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld.

The amendments that do refer to the right to vote contain the phrase The right of citizens of the United States to vote . So, you know, he may have a legitimate out on that one.

Since Mr. Braisted believes in the fictitious collective right model of the second amendment (which says there’s no right at all and that the amendment doesn’t mean what it says) and thinks that the constitution grants the right to vote only to citizens, he’s avoided the question. Mind you, he thinks there is a right to health care and there is a right to being innocent until proven guilty, neither of which I can find guaranteed in my copy of the constitution. I’m not going to take his word for it since he ignores rights specifically enumerated. Getting Mr. Braisted to answer the question is like pulling teeth. Do we acknowledge that illegal immigrants can be denied rights or not? Or do we pick and choose which rights are restricted? Do we, for example, strip them of 5th amendment protections (though Mr. Braisted may or may not think that amendment means what it says it means) and deport them without due process of law?

Conversely, what if a State gave illegal immigrants the vote?

So, let’s try again. Mr. Braisted will not answer the question directly, so, dear reader, what are your thoughts?

Update: Publicola weighs in:

Most people reason that the enumeration of certain rights in the constitution are for the benefit of the citizens of this country. If you’re not a citizen or if you happen to be outside the country then the governmental gloves are off.

My take on things is that this is wrong. The constitution is a document which was designed to limit government as it was created, not grant protection from the almost almighty government to certain classes.

So does J0e:

… my position has long been that if someone has proved themselves so dangerous to society they can’t be trusted with possession of a gun then they can’t be trusted with a can of gasoline and a book of matches either.

Have you ever wondered what exactly is happening in your brain when you do drugs? Well, the University of Utah hired a bunch of cartoon mice to explain it to you (no coincidence, one of the drugs they study is acid). My favorite is the fidgety little guy on coke.

It’s great that people are doing more research into the brain chemistry of recreational drugs. This is the kind of stuff that could lead to safer (and legal) designer drugs, as well as better treatment for addicts.

I hope many, many mice were harmed in the making of this flash demo.

I’ve always thought the gateway drug theory was a ludicrous argument against drugs. All that time, all those studies, all that handwringing, just to prove that kids who do drugs are more likely to do drugs than kids that don’t.

Drug War Rant’s take on the gateway issue is succinct and more to the point:

Here’s what we know for sure regarding the gateway theory:

1. Over 99% of those who never try marijuana will not become addicted to heroin.
2. Over 99% of those who do try marijuana will not become addicted to heroin.

Radley says:

David Bernstein is looking for a soundbite definition of libertarianism.

He offers some. Well, it’s not something that’s easy to soundbite and I’m not much at marketing, but here’s some suggestions:

And my favorite (I’ve read it somewhere but not sure where – so no credit and it’s probably paraphrased):

Update: Or for smarminess, I’d say:

Offer your own.

It is interesting to read the different viewpoints between optimists and skeptics concerning the Weavergate conundrum. Local optimists believe Knox County government is made up of good people doing their best and they can disagree and still be friends. Local skeptics believe Knox County government is controlled by a very few un-elected people and everything that happens, happens for a reason.

Before the Tennessee Supreme Court issued the Bailey ruling that term limits apply in Shelby County, term limits were ignored in Knox County because of a 1994 opinion from the State Attorney General that State Constitutional offices could not be term limited even though Knox County voters clearly voted in a 1994 referendum on term limits that clearly stated that all office holders in Knox County government would be held to a maximum of two terms.

One of the problems is that the English language can be imprecise. Another problem is that no matter how well a law, Charter, or referendum is worded there is always a lawyer somewhere that can challenge it using some literal absolute interpretation. Optimists may say that Chancellor John F. Weaver was doing his job and had no choice but to enforce the laws of the State of Tennessee. Skeptics may say that the fix was in from the day the Supreme Court ruled in the Bailey decision to enforce term limits.

The outcry from the public is matched by the outrage in the press. Editorials from the Knoxville News Sentinel and The Metropulse have chastised the Weaver ruling as unfortunate, outrageous, and egregious. The most telling opinion is from the Number One optimist Mayor Mike Ragsdale who said, “This would be the same as a federal judge ruling that the U.S. Constitution is invalid simply because Jefferson or Adams signed on the wrong line or that Benjamin Franklin didn’t deliver the right copy to President Washington.”

One of the most significant sources on this matter has been Richard Beeler the former Knox County Law Director who took office in 1990 and was Secretary on the Charter Commission of 1988. His appearance on the Lloyd Daughtery Show and on WBIR’s Inside Tennessee have provided more information than almost any other source. Mr. Beeler defends John F. Weaver as a good judge and astute legal scholar but disagrees with his ruling. Beeler does not seem to fit in either the optimist or skeptic camps. His point is that the Charter had no problem in the fact that the Constitutional offices were not defined. They were not defined in the Shelby Charter either. There are defined in the State Constitution.

Beeler’s other main point is that the Charter became effective upon being ratified by the people and that the return receipt from the Secretary of State is an overblown issue.

But here is where it gets interesting. Beeler notes that the term limits referendum was brought forth by a regular citizen and was not correctly written according to State law. Stop right here, this is the important part. The Charter was never the problem, the term limits referendum was the problem. The State Attorney agreed that the term limits referendum was incorrectly worded when he gave his opinion in 1994 that the Constitutional offices were not affected by referendum. Since 1994 Knox County Commissioners have used that opinion to disregard the will of the people on term limits.

The question people will ask is why did Weaver muse out loud in court that the Charter might not be valid? Betty Bean was far ahead of the curve on this when she wrote about the problem of obiter dicta.

Optimist may say that Weaver is just a very analytical judge who made this ruling in only a legal interpretation of the law. Skeptics may say there is an end game. If the skeptics are right, what is the end game?

AC says, of regulating indecency on cable, etc., that:

As these things become the norm in households across the country how to we protect children from seeing images that they are not prepared to process.

My first thought is that’s what parents are for. But AC thought of that too and says:

It’s easy to put it all on the parents but how can two working parents, to say nothing of single parents, possibly monitor the media their children are exposed to?

It should fall on the parents. End of story. Turn the TeeVee off or set parental controls (which cable and satellite both come equipped with). If your child happens to catch Shannon Tweed naked and writhing on some guy at 3 in the morning on Cinemax; or violent war footage; or some midget porn, it’s your fault.

The only reason I get Skinemax is to see Shannon Tweed naked. And for the midget porn. It’s there. You can see it if you kind of squint a little. Conservatives love the free market, unless it involves titties.

Aunt B. on The Most Important Thing I’ve Learned from the Libertarians:

The government does not grant us rights. Rights are inherent to us and we lend the government the power to constrain some of those rights so that we can function as a society–we delegate power to the government. But the government doesn’t inherently have power, especially not the power to grant us rights.

Well, sort of. Some rights we do not delegate to the .gov but they seem to take them willy-nilly. I think the only amendment in the bill of rights that hasn’t been completely bastardized for political convenience is number 3. I’d recommend that Aunt B. also read One Thing.

Over at Drug War Rant.

Or (in my best The Tick voice) the righteous ass-pounding of justice is kinda icky:

I’m sorry, but those who wring their hands over state executions, while laughing at the idea that prison gang bangs are a convict’s just reward, lose their right to claim human rights as a motivating force for their objection to the death penalty.

Amen. Now, it’s no secret I oppose the death penalty but not for that hippie tree-hugging most folks do. I oppose it because it is disproportionately applied to minorities (specifically the poor). So, my opposition is not due some human rights claim.

Aunt B. asks:

Do People Have a Right to Be Stupid?

Or is it okay to impose your will on them if your will is that they remove their heads from their asses?

I say yes. She continues:

I start to suspect that this is the fundamental question of our time.

Indeed it is. Seat belt laws, helmet laws, anti-smoking laws, drug laws, the coming war on fast food, and a variety of other stuff is designed to keep you from hurting yourself. The .gov should only be concerned with protecting me from others. I’ll protect me from me.

It’s true. You see, according to Kevin, when it comes to things that are all sciency ‘n’ shit, the scientists hold a vote and whoever gets the most votes wins the game at determining what things are scientific fact vs. what is scientific theory. As Stormy said in comments:

Contrary to common belief, science is not the process of gathering a hundred experts in a room and having them vote on what they think the truth is.

See, after they have that vote, a point is no longer debatable. And if you, being the guy who vaguely remembers something about the scientific method from the eighth grade, point out that consensus does not equal fact, then you are no better than a person who believes that the Earth is flat nor are you better than a person who denies the holocaust happened. Hell, while I’m at it, I also believe that my truck is powered by two hamsters and a rubber band; that gnomes are stealing my odd socks; and that Chimpy McHitlerburton’s daddy planted an Uncle Tom Supreme Court Justice in 1991 as part of an elaborate plot to steal the election in 2000 that they knew was coming nine years in advance!

You see, yours truly touched upon the sacred cow of Bushitler hating: Global warming. While I acknowledged that global warming is real (the Earth’s temperature has gone up between 0.4 and 0.8 degrees Celsius in the last 100 or so years), I take issue with the extent to which human activity has attributed to that. And I point out that there is no scientific fact established that human influence has affected global warming significantly. And, in a bit of dramatic irony so hot that it will surely raise the temperature of the earth another 0.01 degree centigrade or two, we’re debating it which makes it debatable.

Yes, I know, those coal-fired steam plants at TVA do more damage to the Earth than every SUV in the state; that mother nature can just decide that there will be an ice age on, say, Thursday; and that the Earth’s temperature has only really stabilized in the last few tens of thousands of years, which is insignificant when compared to the age of the planet; but I’m clearly a Flat Earther. And despite that last comment, I also think that Scientologists have been watching our planet since it’s creation, which was 6,000 years ago, by God.

But it’s not that I think humans have no effect on the Earth’s temperature. Rather, it’s the fact that there are so many other factors that play a part in the equation. The Earth is complex, as is weather. Whether or not humans are some sort of primary cause is entirely debatable as there are many natural things that affect the Earth. We do have ice ages, you know, but (thankfully) the industrial revolution happened shortly after our last one and warmed the earth up.

And, yes, I’m fully aware of the general asininity of this post of equating various ridiculous things with other things but that’s what my AmeriKKKan Rethuglican overlords tell me to do. That was rather the point, actually. And, yes, there is validity to scientific theory but it is not the same sense of absoluteness associated with verifiable scientific fact. When you proclaim that something is not debatable, you’ve basically admitted that there’s no convincing you otherwise. Then, if you’re Kevin, you point out that same shortcoming (whether it exists or not) in others because you’re not capable of admitting that something may be debatable after all.

Update: And Jesus and Santa Claus teamed up once to do battle with Dinosaurs and, subsequently, saved humanity.

In light of recent events, I have some more thoughts and information on Scoot. Nine years ago, he was convicted of two felonies. Those were felony contempt and felony reckless endangerment. All I know is the names of the charges and have no other details of the crimes. My wild-ass guess is he violated some sort of court order (restraining, child support, etc.) and fled when confronted. I have no factual information pertaining to that and it’s just speculation.

In the past, Scoot was an EMT, an occupation that requires a license that you’re apparently excluded from if you have a criminal record. I Googled his name and discovered that he appeared before the Tennessee Department of Health for an appeal hearing, and they approved his license despite his conviction noting that he does not endanger the general public. Additionally, I’m fairly certain he, at some point, had passed a TICS. And, according to him, he also had custody of his kids.

In my mind, something doesn’t add up here. Something is missing and I don’t know what it is. Those are three things that you would not associate with someone who is a felon. Also, not all felonies are equal. A person who murders a child is a felon. But so is a person who imports orchids into the United States. You can lose your right to arms, right to vote and others whether you’re an axe murderer or you import lobster tails in plastic bags instead of cardboard boxes. Obviously, some crimes warrant stripping access to guns.

In other words, when it comes to determining the severity of a person’s crime, the term felon is about as useless as a cock-flavored lollipop.

Aunt B., in a post entitled Slowly, Slowly, These Gun Nuts Work Their Way With Me, says it’s not the nanny state we have to worry about but the busy-body state:

Holy shit. This isn’t just a “nanny state;” this is a “busy-body state.”

So, I’ve been thinking all morning about what it might mean to think about the busy-body state. I hate to use the word “reframing,” but I think it fits. What if I reframe the way I think about judging appropriate government intervention as the difference between encouraging a busy-body state and not?

Which brings us back to the gun nuts, in the first place. I’m interested in hearing their take on this, because I think this has been their big complaint and I just didn’t get it. See, I’ve been thinking about the whole gun issue as a broad, panicked public safety issue–guns are dangerous, therefore we must get guns off the streets–and haven’t been too concerned with the implications of that.

Uncle concurs, generally. However, I don’t see how the abortion thing is only busy-body type stuff. As I’ve said many times: abortion is a heinous, disgusting and deplorable practice but it can only be made worse by criminalizing it. I don’t buy that opposition to abortion is a matter of being a busy body because it ends a human life (and arguing about whether that life has really started or not is just details). Criminalizing it will not stop abortion. You just open up an unregulated black market where, instead of a sterilized and safe doctor’s office, women will go to some shack where there’s a guy named Snake holding a pointy stick. And that would endanger two lives. And one thing a ton of pro-choice folks do that annoys me is assert woman this or woman that when there’s also the issue of the man involved and what say he has in the whole thing. Takes two to tango but only one to make a life altering decision that will lead to a life time of regret? Feh, no thanks. Aunt B. buys into that line of thinking as well, when she says:

Here you have a moral issue that has been turned into a legislative issue by people who believe that women cannot control themselves and that sweeping legislation must be enacted to make all women’s lives difficult, even though women have many legitimate reasons for needing abortions and what those women do almost never adversely affects the anti-abortion people.

Now, I know a lot of anti-abortion people (who I also disagree with). Not a single one has ever said that women can’t control themselves nor have they ever expressed desire to control women. They just take issue with the whole ending a human life thing. So, I don’t buy the whole guns and abortion are equal in terms of the impact of busy bodies because, while my gun ownership affects no one else really, abortion does affect others.

But guns, tobacco, drug, and a whole host of other laws are entirely busy body in nature.

Apologies for the rambling nature. No real point here other than to kick out some random thoughts.

I’ve been pondering the possibility of the end of life or civilization as we know it. Not from a conspiracy theory or religious perspective but from events I find likely or at least possible. Such as:

Natural disaster – Ice age, major seismic shifts, global warming, etc.

Interstellar event – Meteor hits us, black hole opens up next door, the universe decides to unbang itself.

Unnatural (i.e., man-made) disaster – Nuclear war and subsequent winter, splitting some subatomic particle we shouldn’t be splitting, some group of scientists decide to splice tyrannosaurus rex DNA with a koala which creates the koalasaurus rex who breeds fast, swarms the land, and likes to dine on tasty humans.

Socioeconomic – Some sort of food shortage, running out of oil (say, are we after the peak oil curve now?), some political wing in power decides to engage in brutal suppression of the earth’s population, massive and coordinated civil uprising.

The first three, I’m not worried about so much because there isn’t a heck of a lot I could do about them. They’d just happen and we’d have to deal with it (or not because we won’t be around). And they could pretty much happen at any time with or without warning. Kinda random like that. Well, except maybe some of the man-made incidents which I would hope we’d have some restraint in.

The Socioeconomic possibilities are where I struggle with a general lack of faith in people. These are items that the human race could likely anticipate and work to prevent or deal with after it happens (work on fuel alternatives, kick up food production, etc.). But would people, on a large scale, do that? I tend to doubt it. Look at the looting and general mayhem where people just went and got theirs in the aftermath of Katrina or the LA riots. Also, the socioeconomic possibilities seem the most likely to me in the short term.

The AP:

Gov. Mike Rounds signed legislation Monday banning nearly all abortions in South Dakota, setting up a court fight aimed at challenging the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless the procedure was necessary to save the woman’s life. It would make no exception for cases of rape or incest.

I think abortion is a disgusting, hideous and deplorable practice. But the only way to make it worse is to criminalize it. But the law isn’t really a law:

Rounds issued a written statement saying he expects the law will be tied up in court for years and will not take effect unless the U.S. Supreme Court upholds it.

So, can you really pass laws pending approval? Or is this merely a ploy to challenge Roe?

The epic battle of Tom v. Kevin discussing the impacts of culture, poverty, guns and welfare on crime has kicked up a notch. Tom responded to Kevin’s bit here. Kevin has responded to that response here. Behind on my reading so I’ve not read Kevin’s response yet. These two should get a room.

Remember your audience. But Uncle, you’re preaching to the converted.

In the comments section at Crooked Timber, Doctor Slack takes me to task (and perhaps rightfully) for using rhetoric that is, uhm, over the top:

Now, it’s entirely possible that Nick is making unfair assumptions about you on that score. It’s very easy to misread ommon (sic) forms of hyperbole in people’s everyday discourse and come to mistaken conclusions about them as a result. Maybe you’re usage of that hyperbole comes tagged in your mind with all the necessary implied caveats about gun safety and moral rectitude and not actually blowing someone away for the hell of it.

Specifically, he took issue with this quote:

If you’re in my home uninvited rummaging through my belongings, I will lawfully assume that you mean me and my loved ones harm. You will be considered a hostile target. The only warning you will receive will be the 230 grain, jacketed hollow point piercing your flesh.

Yes, it is a bit heavy on the rhetoric. I write for me and for my audience who tend to share my views and knowledge of the gun issue, with some exceptions, of course. But he is correct that my language may overshadow my point in terms of preaching to the non-converted. In other words, a reference to popping a cap in someone’s ass isn’t going to convince a soccer mom that I’m correct. Sure, I could have flowered it up with a few ‘if, then’ statements or reference to ensuring the safety of loved ones or how if you’re in my home I would feel absolutely no obligation to allow you to justify your reason for being there or whatever else to make it more palatable to a more squeamish audience or passers-by from a comment thread elsewhere.

But we all engage in over the top or unfair rhetoric on some issues. For example, anti-choice, selected not elected, why do they hate America, stay out of my uterus, or [insert your convenient political catchphrase that fits on a bumper sticker] here. The power of language, and more specifically, rhetorical choices has an impact on the debate. It can lead to thought-provoking exchanges or complete disregard for someone who may otherwise make a decent point. After all, Doctor Slack probably would not have responded if I used less-offensive language. As a for instance (warning: foul, foul, potty mouthed language follows – click more at your own risk and expense):
Read the rest of this entry »

It might read something like this:

There are 10 primary values at BB&T…

1. Reality (Fact-Based)
What is, is. If we want to be better, we must act within the context of reality (the facts). Businesses and individuals often make serious mistakes by making decisions based on what they “wish was so,” or based on theories which are disconnected from reality. The foundation for quality decision making is a careful understanding of the facts.
…
2. Reason (Objectivity)
Mankind has a specific means of survival, which is his ability to think, i.e., his capacity to reason logically from the facts of reality as presented to his five senses. A lion has claws to hunt. A deer has swiftness to avoid the hunter. Man has his ability to think. There is only one “natural resource” – the human mind.

Via Uncommon Sense.

Bob Krumm details a heart-wrenching interview of a child who lived in a meth house by a counselor. Read it all. Then come back. He ends with:

So let’s talk about drug legalization . . .

To which I said:

Ok, let’s. Did prohibition work?

Obviously, drugs are problematic. No one with any sense about it would claim otherwise. But is this supposed war on drugs worth it?

The drug war costs billions and billions and billions of dollars. Many innocent, peaceable citizens have been needlessly killed by a police force that has been essentially militarized and happens to no-knock on the wrong door. People are not secure in their homes because of no knock warrants and search warrants issued based on the frequently false testimony of criminals. Property is taken and lives are destroyed over a few minuscule amounts of drugs. Is it worth that price to confiscate an infinitesimally small fraction of a percent of the drug supply in this country?

People’s homes, cash, vehicles, etc. are taken without due process of law because someone might have a little weed. Seriously, that is frightening.

And yes, I’ve said that before.

In the spirit of oddball thought experiments (like this one that got a lot of play in the blogosphere), here’s a new one I’ve been pondering:

Yesterday, a volcano erupted a few hundred miles off the east coast. It created an island roughly the size of Virginia. Through some bizarre set of circumstances, today said island has cooled, has plenty of foliage, fresh water, critters and is generally a hospitable place to live. I charter a boat, get there and decide I’ll start my own country, which I’ll call Uncle Land. I’m the first one there. You guys show up and we agree that Uncle Land is the coolest name for a country ever. Now, our task is to write a Constitution for our new country. What would it include?

To make it easy, our new country would consist of a national government and some (less than 50) city governments.

I think I’d start with establishing branches of government identical to the ones in the US in terms of function but with a few changes (to prevent career politicians and to ensure the people and the cities have a voice):

Executive: Popularly elected. Limited to two terms of four years. For gits and shiggles, we’ll call him God Emperor of the Multiverse.

Legislative: Two houses:

Judicial: Still up in the air on this one.

Update: Other ideas:

For a bill to become law, it has to pass both houses by a vote of 60% and signed by the GEM. The GEM can veto. The houses can override the veto by a vote of 75%.

To preface this, I’m against the death penalty. Not for any touchy-feely, hippie tree hugging reason like most folks. I oppose it because it’s disproportionately applied to poor minorities. And, as AC Kleinheider says:

A society that uses capital punishment must be comfortable with one fact: You are going to kill innocent people. I don’t care how many appeals you exhaust or how much science you bring to it. Human error or human malice will result in the death of an innocent or two.

All that said, here’s a question I’ve proposed at other blogs but I’ll ask again:

Why do they schedule executions of the condemned at such God-awful hours?

During all the hooey about the 1,000th execution, number 999 or maybe 1,000 was executed at 2 in the morning. Tookie was executed after midnight.

Seems to me the real punishment when the death penalty is used is waiting around and knowing it’s going to happen. That’s compounded by the fact it’s going to happen at some odd hour.

Nothing ever is. It’s the fault of society, my parents, somebody else or any various addictions I may have. At least, that’s the message we in America hear every day.

Whitney Houston honestly believes that she is a victim of drug addiction. No Whitney, you’re a crack head with too much money.

Hillary Clinton honestly believes she’s the victim of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. No Hillary, you’ve done some questionable things in the past. And when you stepped into the limelight some of that stuff reared its ugly head. And your husband isn’t a saint.

Some old granny thought it was McDonald’s fault that she spilled coffee in her lap. No, you shouldn’t have spilled it on yourself.

And a burglar in New York City broke into a woman’s home and cut himself on the glass. And guess what! A jury said it was the woman’s fault. No, you shouldn’t have been breaking into people’s houses.

What has happened to our country? We’re too litigious, nobody is responsible for anything, and we actually sit idly by and absorb this crap. Who’s at fault? I have some ideas:

The media: They pipe this stuff into our homes and (quite often) take the side of the imbecile that thinks the bad things that they’ve done were the result of them ‘not being happy.’ Hey moron, none of us are happy all the time. Happiness comes in little tiny bursts, it’s not a perpetual state of bliss. Contentment, however, is attainable.

Lawyers: Well, someone’s gotta get rich off this lack of personal responsibility nonsense. Since lawyers and their clients make big bucks off this crap, it perpetuates.

The medical/psychiatric/therapy/self-help crowd: By far the biggest enabler of this trend. Psychology (from the Greek Psych meaning ‘to make’ and –ology meaning ‘stuff up’) has given us several new tools to avoid being responsible for ourselves. We get Chronic Fatigue Disorder to justify why we’re tired all the time, it has nothing to do with not sleeping, taking care of ourselves, or anything like that. We get Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder to explain why we can’t control our kids and must drug them into compliance (by the way, the US is the only country that actually recognizes this as a disease). We get Obsessive Compulsive Disorder to explain those little quirky things about ourselves that we don’t like. And we get Manic Depression to explain why we feel different ways at different times. And the catchall: Depression. If you’re not happy all the time, you must be depressed. None of us are happy all the time. Deal with it.

A story about me: Several years ago, there was about a two month period in which I lost (while not dieting) about 20 pounds. This is a big deal when you only weighed about 160 pounds at the time and are six feet one inch tall. So, concerned, I go to my doctor. They poke, prod, and take samples. All the tests come back and I am the pillar of good health apparently. So, my doc says he’s going to prescribe mood elevators for me. I get a nifty prescription to Zoloft. Which I took for exactly three days and threw away. It made me non-reactive to my surroundings, apathetic, and, of course, I had a problem with the erection that I had for three days straight (ordinarily, that wouldn’t be a problem but I wasn’t dating then). I called up the doctor and asked what Zoloft did. He told me it elevated my mood. I asked how. He couldn’t answer. I did some research and found out Zoloft slowed the production of serotonin, which is what makes your body regulate various processes. I stopped taking the stuff after reading the side effects and realized I was having some of them. I finally concluded I was stressed and just wasn’t eating right and all returned to normal shortly thereafter because I started eating a big breakfast. The moral: they had no idea what was wrong so they doped me up. And this behavior continues today.

Parents are willing to administer drugs to kids that are possibly addictive and could lead to kidney failure because they can’t control their kids. Since the can’t control them, the kids must have ADHD, so your local psychobabbleist will prescribe you anything you want. It has nothing to do with poor parenting skills. Doctors are willing to administer drugs to people and really don’t know what the drugs do.

Now, obviously, I’ve gone to the extreme on this. I do realize some people are legitimately depressed or legitimately have ADHD or these other ‘disorders.’ But these are definitely over-diagnosed and are used as excuses for bad behavior. Like when the woman killed her five kids because she was depressed. I really wish the medical/psychiatric/therapy/self-help crowd would take a bit more care in diagnosing this stuff. But not every single one of us who does something stupid has a psychological disorder.

I’m off to write my own self-help book. It will be entitled I’m Okay, You’re Fucked Up.

Ed Note: Not feeling it today, so this is a reprint.

The Gun Guy links to and tends to agree with this notion that there is a pending social and infrastructure collapse coming. Go read then come back.

I have heard this mentioned quite a bit by otherwise reasonable people (i.e., not the end of the world or black helicopter people). I wonder why people think this? Then I wonder if it’s really a possibility. Sure, the US is probably one terror attack or natural disaster away from a regional collapse but I don’t see a national collapse unless there is just a failure of gigantic proportions at fed .gov level. Then what?

I was on a flight last month and the guy next to me struck up a conversation. Turns out, he was a pilot for the airline we were flying on. The conversation basically turned into him telling that he thought there would be a huge social/governmental collapse in our lifetime. He was serious and reasoned that it was only a matter of time before some terror attack did a profound amount of damage on US soil.

Then, another guy I know in a professional capacity told me he wasn’t too concerned about social security because he planned on being raptured in the next few years anyway. I asked if he had a date because we’ve got some cash tied up in investments for Junior’s college fun and wedding.

Is this end of the world type stuff cyclical or does everyone know something I don’t? And, more importantly, if such an even occurred (well, except the rapture, I suppose), what happens next? We Americans can’t live without our Coca Cola and MTV.

What do you think?

There was a discussion a while back at the Knoxblab about socialism and how it is the best (or at least most viable) solution to some issues. In other words, governmental ownership or control of an industry or process by pooling tax payer dollars is a more efficient or, at least, less problematic means of addressing issues. Some items listed were education, the military, roads, transportation, and, of course, someone had to mention healthcare. I think with the exception of healthcare, I don’t disagree.

Obviously, governmental control leads to some issues of spending and efficiency (for example, our bloated military industrial complex, the declining quality of education, highway dollars are prized by everyone, and Canada’s free healthcare for everyone). I don’t think most people would think it’s a good idea to have privately owned roads that you’d have to pay to use every time. I really hate when I’m on travel and have to pay a toll on a highway. It’s inconvenient and time consuming. Additionally, I think a privately owned military industrial complex would be very scary, like Tank Girl kind of scary.

What other issues are best handled this way? What issues currently handled this way should be abandoned? What criteria should there be for such a decision?

It seems to me that the two sides of the political spectrum interpret the Constitution thus:

The left side sees some things in it that aren’t there (right to abortion, right to education) and doesn’t see things in it that are there (second and tenth amendments).

The right side pays attention to what is there but figures that anything the government isn’t forbidden to do by the Constitution is OK (such as ban sexual things they’re not fond of).

Discuss.

A few folks (like these guys) are taking issue with the claim that there is no right to privacy. I think it’s a trick question. There is no right to privacy specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Some folks seem to think that the ninth amendment (say, are we using that one . . . I think we’re only using the third at the moment) enumerates that right, which acknowledges unenumerated rights, is applicable. Or that the fourth amendment confers such a right. The ninth says:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

If we assume that the ninth means what it says (our courts have consistently ruled that most amendments don’t actually mean what they say), how do we identify those rights? Is there really a right that journalists have that allows them to break laws? I tend to think not. There could some danger in recognizing rights not enumerated in the Constitution (ownership of slaves was thought to be a right once).

So, gentle reader, where do unenumerated rights come from? Are they what the people say they are? Are they what the .gov tells us they are?

Beats me. Your turn.

Update: Jon says in comments:

Simply put, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States are documents that define what the government limitations are. Confused People tend to believe those documents are intended to limit the citizens.

The Right to Privacy of the Citizens is property of the Citizens because it has not been explicitly given to the government by these documents.

Sounds like a start. I’ve read where some of the founders actually opposed a Bill of Rights because they figured a list would mean other rights didn’t exist. It is important to clarify that the Constitution typically limits or grants powers to the .gov.

Update 2: Blake has a whole lot more than I expected anyone to write about the subject.

Radley Balko:

Imagine for a moment that you’re a parent with a teenage son. He doesn’t drink, but you know his friends do. You’re also not naive. You’ve read the government’s statistics: 47 percent of high school students tell researchers they’ve had a drink of alcohol in the previous 30 days. Thirty percent have had at least five drinks in a row in the past month. Thirteen percent admitted to having driven in the previous month after drinking alcohol.

So, what do you do with regard to your son’s social life? Many parents have decided to take a realist’s approach. They’re throwing parties for their kids and their friends. They serve alcohol at these parties, but they also collect car keys to make sure no one drives home until the next morning. Their logic makes sense: The kids are going to drink; it’s better that they do it in a controlled, supervised environment.

I concur. My parents let me drink when I was young. Their theory was that if I was home then I wasn’t out driving, which could lead to my own or others’ death. Plus, it’s like the forbidden fruit in that if you aren’t forbidden from doing it, it becomes slightly less appealing.

I’m all for it. There are so many stupid laws that need to be struck down. The fact remains that juries are often mislead, lied to, and bullied by the powers that be. Radley Balko addresses jury nullification in this FoxNews piece:

The doctrine of jury nullification (search) rests on two truths about the American criminal justice system: (1) Jurors can never be punished for the verdict they return, and (2) Defendants cannot be retried once a jury has found them not guilty, regardless of the jury’s reasoning. So the juries in both the Rosenthal and Paey cases could have returned a “not guilty” verdict, even though Paey and Rosenthal were undoubtedly guilty of the charges against them.

This may sound radical, perhaps even subversive, but jury nullification serves as an important safeguard against unjust laws, as well as against the unfair application of well-intended laws. It’s also steeped in American and British legal tradition.

Patterico dissents from Balko’s endorsement of jury nullification, noting:

In a competent judge’s courtroom, all jurors are asked if they are willing to follow the law, regardless of whether they agree with it. They must answer this question in the affirmative or they cannot sit as jurors. And they must answer this question under oath.

Rendering a verdict is following the law, though I’m certain he means a juror states they are willing to convict based on the law. I disagree with his conclusion because, at some point, someone has to stand up and state that something is unjust, unfair, or just fucking stupid. And, given that jurors are often kept in the dark regarding lots of things, it’s not like jury nullification is really an issue. Though I do wish it was. I also wish we had Congressional nullification.

Update: Good debate going on in the comments at Patterico’s, if you’re into that sort of thing. Apparently, California lawyers don’t like it.

Brutal Hugs tells us about Gay Camp:

Apparently gay camp is more like fat camp. In fat camp, kids are shamed into eating less. In gay camp, they’re shamed into eating less cock. It’s where you send your kids to have the queer beaten out of them.

Here’s one of the Gay Camp kid’s blogs.

Also, the Republic of T rounds up the issue.

On this whole gay camp thing, at first I thought it was sad but found it to be mildly humorous that parents think this gay thing can be treated like obesity (note to my gay readers: this week, is being a gay a lifestyle choice or biological? I always forget). Anyway, I don’t think you can scare the faggotiness out of gays and why you would try to, I don’t know. The kids are confused enough at that age anyway without going to a manly, man re-education center (do they spend their days chugging beers, watching football and hitting women? Or participate in activities aimed at strengthening wrists?). Try, say, talking to your kids. If the kid has no problem with being a homo, then the problem is with you, I would think.

Then again, I do often meet people who claim that they like gay people and have no problem with them. However, if they found out their kid was gay, they’d probably throw a full-fledge manly, man hissy-fit. And there’s also the people who have no problem with gays other than the fact that gay people give them the willies. And, of course, there are raging homophobes who think the gay mafia is trying to turn all their kids into pillow-biters.

You’re not going to scare the gay out of your kids. Either man-up and talk to your kids about it or shut up.

Update: Just realized this is occurring in Tennessee. Another embarassment for the state.

I am a science fiction junky. I can read it with the absolute ability to believe it is real and submerge myself totally into the story. SciFi is simply a foretelling of what will happen in my eyes.

Today that foretelling is rather bothersome.

One of the many themes that runs through a lot of stories involve the future development of industry and their individual powers. Not just financial power but basic physical power. Armed raw power backed by guns and cuffs. I’m not talking about the mall ninjas that sit at the entrance to the mall and threatens you with the standard “stop, or I’ll say stop again”. No. I’m talking about police with the ability to dress up like the shock troop outfits that the ATFE, FBI, and other alphabet soup agencies enjoy.

In the stories the company police have the support and total backing of the government. These private police, while having to answer to the law in their actions, know that they work for, and serve, the company. Serving a company and enforcing the law creates a conflict in my eyes. You can only serve one master is the phrase that comes to mind.

So today I was reading about the FedEx and how they are bending over to help the police. This article also mentioned other companies that are also falling in line to help the state. The victim is our privacy. But that does not seem to be a large issue with the government today.

Before Sept. 11, 2001, when federal law-enforcement officials asked FedEx Corp. for help, the company had its limits. It wouldn’t provide access to its databases. It often refused to lend uniforms or delivery trucks to agents for undercover operations, citing fears of retribution against employees as well as concerns about customer privacy.
…..
Federal agents privately praise Western Union for sharing information with Treasury and Homeland Security investigators about overseas money transfers. Time Warner Inc.’s America Online has set up a dedicated hotline to help police officers seeking AOL subscriber information and also proffers advice about wording subpoenas. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., which has a sophisticated supply-chain security system, has been helping U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents figure out how to better track international shipping, say Homeland Security officials.

Now you may feel that helping to fight terrorism is the highest act that you can do today, But at what price. The FedEx may be a prime example of what happens when a company goes to far into serving the state while the cost of privacy is suffered by you and me.

In December 2001, according to court records in Illinois, a FedEx driver became suspicious after making a series of deliveries of boxes to an apartment complex in suburban Chicago. The cartons were always the same size and shape and came from the same address in Los Angeles. Worried there was something sinister afoot, the driver informed his bosses and FedEx called the police.

Suspecting narcotics or explosives, the police showed up at the FedEx depot with bomb- and drug-sniffing dogs. The dogs didn’t signal there was anything illicit in the boxes. FedEx then invoked the authority granted to it by every customer, which the police don’t automatically have, permitting it to inspect any package without a warrant.

With a police officer looking on, FedEx popped the carton. Instead of anything dangerous, the boxes contained several hundred pre-recorded compact discs. Local police launched an investigation that eventually uncovered a CD-bootlegging operation.

Their is something called due process that is a strict ruling that defines what a police officer has to do before he searches you, or a package. So because the company decided something was wrong they did an old run around your rights. The company can open your package, and a cop was there who could not. They both win and your rights lose. This is a super example of why a overly friendly police company relationship can be a dangerous thing.

It was while reading up on the issues of company efforts that I came across something that raised my eye brows. FedEx has its own police force, small yet a lot of influence.

FedEx Corp. has come up with a novel way to battle terrorist threats and other crimes: start its own 10-man police force.

The FedEx cops dress in plain clothes, detective-style, and are accredited by the Tennessee government. They can investigate all types of crimes, request search warrants and make arrests anywhere in the state, although they haven’t busted anyone yet, and likely won’t.
…………
Tim Edgar, general counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, questions whether corporate cops can be trusted to act in the public interest, and argues that a watchdog agency should oversee the company’s performance. “You’re given all the powers of someone accountable to the public, but you’re driven by the profit incentives of a private company,” he says.
…………
The company wouldn’t make the corporate cops available for interviews.

As for questions of inside information, Krause says the company’s police can’t give other firms a heads-up because they can’t share sensitive law-enforcement data. During industry forums, though, FedEx may talk generally about security issues with competitors, she adds.

The bold type in the last paragraph offers me a lot of worry. If they are police then they have the duty to inform other firms if there is an issue they need to know of, but they can’t.

But don’t worry. FedEx is not the only with its own private forces running around. The RIAA has a few of their own uniformed security.

Though no guns were brandished, the bust from a distance looked like classic LAPD, DEA or FBI work, right down to the black “raid” vests the unit members wore. The fact that their yellow stenciled lettering read “RIAA” instead of something from an official law-enforcement agency was lost on 55-year-old parking-lot attendant Ceasar Borrayo.

The Recording Industry Association of America is taking it to the streets.
…….
With all the trappings of a police team, including pink incident reports that, among other things, record a vendor’s height, weight, hair and eye color, the RIAA squad can give those busted the distinct impression they’re tangling with minions of Johnny Law instead of David Geffen. And that raises some potential legal questions.

Some just make themselves look like cops. Gives a whole new meaning to hands on customer service

Private firms should not have the legal powers that the police have. Most police should not have the powers that police have. A very dangerous line has been crossed people in the name of fighting terrorism. I don’t like it and neither should you.

The article quoted one specific line from the law. “substantially equivalent”. I’m glad because after spending 20 minutes looking on the Tn LexisNexis site I realized they buried this law deep. Luckily there were only 18 hits on “substantially equivalent” and only one in 2004 when the law was passed. Turns out they are more then police. They are Homeland security officers in all of their glory.

Here is the law that does not mention FedEx.

38-3-114. Acting as peace officers for the office of homeland security.
(a) The office of homeland security may apply to the commissioner of the Tennessee department of safety, to commission such number of its officers who directly support state, federal, and local law enforcement activities involved in countering or responding to acts of terrorism, as the office shall designate, to act as peace officers for the office of homeland security.
(b) The commissioner, upon such application, may appoint such person as the office of homeland security designates, or as many people as the governor deems proper to be such peace officers, and shall give commissions to those appointed.
(c) Each such officer, throughout every county in the state, shall have and exercise, for the sole purpose of carrying out the scope of assigned duties as specified or limited within the exclusive judgment of the office of homeland security, all the powers of a peace officer, including the power to make arrests for public offenses anywhere in the state. Further, such officers may serve process in criminal and penal prosecutions for such offenses, and shall have authority to carry weapons for the reasonable purposes of their offices and while in the performance of their assigned duties.
(d) The keepers of jails in any county or municipality where a violation occurs, for which any such arrest is made by an officer of the homeland security office, shall receive all persons arrested by such officers to be dealt with according to law, and persons so arrested shall be received by keepers of jails on the same basis and shall have the same status as prisoners arrested by any other law enforcement officer.
(e) Every officer so appointed shall, when on duty, have in the officer’s possession a badge and identification card identifying such officer as an officer of the office of homeland security, and such officer shall exhibit such badge and identification card on demand and before making an arrest within a reasonable time.
(f) When the office of homeland security no longer requires the services of such peace officer so appointed, it shall file a notice to that effect with the commissioner’s office. Thereupon, the powers of such peace officer shall cease and terminate.
(g) Homeland security officers appointed under this section must complete appropriate initial training and recurrent law enforcement training substantially equivalent to the requirements of the Tennessee peace officers standards and training commission.

There is just something not right about a private police force like this. You may rightly feel I am seeing to much in the shadows, but it feels wrong on a lot of levels.

So you better return those videos on time. Or else.

This is a mammoth trio of posts limning my politics, my beliefs and my view of the American experiment from late 2003. Reposted here in part because Say Uncle sparked them and because I think this is a sympathetic audience whose opinions and thoughts I’d like to hear.

=== === === === ===

Two posts that caught my eye, one from Say Uncle, who writes about his differentiation of Libertarian and libertarian, and this one from Rich, of Shots Across The Bow, who runs down his political beliefs, got me thinking that maybe I should do something similar. So, here we go.

I am something of a contrarian by nature. If everyone is going this way, I will automatically look for the other way. I think it’s a leftover from the days of ego-definition during childhood. I had strong-willed parents and had to fight hard to create a “me” that wasn’t them. I also went my own way a lot, which led to a lot of parental fights. So, I’m stubborn and contrarian.

I think that’s a small part of why I am Libertarian. That is, politically a member of the party. The herd is Democatic or Republican; not me. But I’m also deeply impressed by the incredible experiment that is the American Revolution. The men who launched it were all largely self-educated and quite knowledgeable about their political history. We are their beneficiaries. I take quite seriously what they set out, and hew closely especially to the Jeffersonian ideals. We stayed, as a country, within their shadow for longer than the Founders expected, until Jacksonian democracy (or Hamiltonian anti-federalists, take your pick) began the long, slow slide to corruption.

I believe “that which governs least, governs best” at the Federal level. National government is a powerful and dangerous tool. It’s too far removed from the people themselves to be given more than the most fundamental and broad duties: protection of our borders, defense from our enemies; regulation of commerce across the States, collecting and publishing information from and about the Nation, ensuring equality of access and opportunity in our basic liberties.

Social engineering was never in the plan and never should be. It is the right of the people to create the society they want, free from the government telling them how it “ought” to look. We launched out into that experiment in the late 19th century with the Progressives and it’s warped our society and nation in all kinds of ways. I firmly believe people should have the freedom to associate as they wish, and then be given the consequences of those choices. If people want to do stupid things, we should try to talk them out of it, but if that’s their choice we are then beholden to leave them free.

It’s not the job of government to stop someone from doing something repugnant to me. It’s my job to educate them, or if they choose not to listen, to educate everyone else. Together, the rest of us can go on. The better ideas will win out, as they always do.

When I went from blindly following what I was taught to thinking for myself is when I went from Catholicism to atheism. It’s also when I went from Republicanism to Libertarianism. Even despite his criminality and venalism, Nixon was a disaster; China may be his lone, true accomplishment. I think that’s when I started to turn. Reagan was a great President, but he never got to put Republicanism into government; Democrats still controlled the mechanisms. Seeing G.W. Bush’s Republican Party today, finally given the reins and squandering their chance, has only confirmed my beliefs. Both parties are only separate wings of the same over-class; men and women concerned only with their own power and privilege, to the exclusion of true principle.

The Libertarian Party is the closest to my own political stripe. I acknowledge that the Party has a lot of problems. I’ve heard allegations about the national office and how it’s run. Look up the stories for yourself; I don’t know enough to comment more than this.

The Party is also afflicted by True Believers, those who want it all now. Far too many who run the Party at the important levels brag about overturning drug and sexcrime laws, tearing down public education and the social safety net, stripping out a vast body of law, etc., the day after the election. It’s the whole thing, right now, deal with it. Best of luck to the winners; good riddance to the losers. Theirs is a smug and condescending view that doesn’t sell well at all, as we’ve seen.

Well, any idiot knows that won’t happen. And expecting people to embrace a radical change with welcome is naive. Progressives/Socialists/Communists/Democrats have trumpeted their own agenda for a century, sometimes by letting the most honest voices be cast to the fringes so that the agenda won’t be stopped. They never turn away a small victory because it isn’t the whole victory they sought. They never stop, and have worked hard to get their hands on the levers that control our society.

This isn’t to label most Democrats/Socialists as evil conspiracists. (Some are, and I would encourage you to learn much, much more about Antonio Gramsci, who laid down a blueprint that should be frighteningly familiar.) But most are honestly motivated by a misguided compassion and desire to do good that has been coopted into a view of government that is paternalistic and smothering. It’s the Mommy State; and we know what Momma’s Boys and Girls end up like.

True adults must be made through tough love, education, instruction, discipline and facing adversity. Most grown-ups today (I have to include myself if I’m going to be honest here.) aren’t true adults: strong people with strong moral codes, a willingness to do what must be done to defend their family and property and society, and littler tolerance for those who fritter away what has been given them or endanger those around them. Not everyone will become a true adult, but it’s not the job of government to assure that, nor to pick up the pieces of the messes they’ll make. When I know someone else will clean up the mess, I’m not encouraged to be careful, skeptical and thrifty. But if I’m the only person who is looking out for me, then I’m very, very careful indeed.

That’s not to say we shouldn’t have help for those who need it. But it should come from the people directly, through the agencies they themselves create and operate, not through a third agency of the government. A society is only as moral as the people must be. When my moral duties are taken over by another, I become less of a moral person. I don’t have to help you because there is a nebulous “someone else” to do it for me.

But if I know there’s not going to be help unless I provide it, then suddenly it’s my personal morality and ethics at stake. For example, I spent a year in alcohol and drug treatment, by my own choice. But I later spent almost eight more years working in the field, because I wanted to be sure that I paid back for what I’d taken for so long, and to be sure that the same help I got was there for the next man or woman. Doing so derailed the life I had intended to live, and the money I might have made, but I don’t dislike the life I live today, and I’m very grateful to have given what I did to someone else.

Government can’t do that for me. It’s an impersonal and overarching manacle to the soul. Federal government should only be given, as it was in the Constitution, those duties that cannot be performed adequately on the local level. We shouldn’t have a national drug treatment system; one size fits all wouldn’t work. But treatment options that arise from the needs of the local community will effectively deal with the local problem. To keep itself going, it will inform and educate the local citizens of the problems in their own community, motivating local action.

For example, Memphis Mayor Herenton at one time advocated the City buying a local hospital that was closing to turn it into an adjunct of the jail. People arrested on alcohol and drug charges that didn’t involve other crimes, like public intoxication or reckless behavior, would be sent to this facility overnight instead of the jail. The next day, they would be given a chance at treatment, which would also occur at the facility. If they decline, they go to the judge; if they accept, they immediately go into treatment. Following treatment, they’d go back to the judge for dispensation. That’s a great idea, as it relieves a lot of the crowding at the jail that alcohol- and drug-related behavior brings. It keeps the dangerous folks locked up and keeps the non-criminal from getting a free introduction. I supported this kind of government program because it is local in origin, intent, operation and action. I can go down there and see for myself what’s going on. I can meet with my City Council representative to talk about it. I can show up at government meetings to voice my opinions. I can protest outside the appropriate agency if there’s something wrong.

That’s the difference. With a Federal program, it’s all far, far beyond anything I can do. Everything becomes vast, faceless. Bureaucrats can shift me around forever.

Well, I certainly didn’t intend an essay here. And I still haven’t explicated my own philosophy. I guess that’ll be Part Two.

So, what do I believe?

I’m against abortion, but recognise that it’s a necessary evil. I think a woman should have access to an abortion, but the government has, in the interests of protecting the unborn life, a right to impede (but not block) her. There simply are times, agonising horrible times, when an abortion is the only solution. That’s rare though. Most abortions today, something upward of ninety percent, are for the woman’s “convenience.” We should work to make abortion be seen as the evil it is, and something shameful. We should also work to make adoption noble again; something to be hallowed and applauded. The folks who work so piously and feverishly on the poles of the abortion debate should focus their energies there, and be productive.

Marriage should be a social contract, not a government one. It should be a religious and civil institution. Marriage laws came about to insure that inheritance would work, plain and simple. They ensured that the children of marriages really were the rightful descendants of their putative parents. We can do that far more accurately today with science. We don’t need a fear of King and jail to ensure fidelity. Let churches handle marriage and then anyone can marry anyone they want. This will not result in an aberrant society. The numbers of oddball marriages will be low, of course. Very few people really want to make a polygamous or homosexual marriage; it’s no threat to anything.

We need a more public awareness of, and recognition of, the fact that government is based on the individual by necessity. That is democracy, a polity of ones for the good of the ones. It can’t be a democratic republic any other way. But society is based on the family. It has to be. That’s the best way to transmit values, to create healthy children, to build future societies. Trying to make society work on the individual, and having government pick up the slack whenever the shortcomings occur, is leading us to the society we now live in, and the worse place we are heading toward.

Capitalism is the best method of allocating resources. There simply isn’t enough brain power to run a centrally planned economy, no matter how mildly done. Remember, any time you create a position of power, no matter how noble the intentions or the initiators, it will attract those who crave power and position. They will take it, and then deform the thing created to serve their power and position. History is so clear on this matter, I can’t believe it’s not an article of faith in the average man, as it once was. That’s why power should stay as close to home as possible, to keep it from getting out of hand.

Our Federal government should be a fraction of its present size. We should have a strong military corps that can be expanded when needed by a Reserve force, not unlike what we have now. Our borders should be patrolled by this military. We shouldn’t be in the business of income redistribution and social engineering. Get rid of the Departments of Energy, Health and Human Services, Transportation, Housing, Agriculture, Education, etc. Beef up the Department of Commerce.

Laws against what we do privately, and to ourselves, should be abolished. Suicide, prostitution, gambling, drugs, etc. should go. What people choose to do privately is their business, period. If people choose to do something stupid, let them. Try to get involved and talk them out of it, of course, but it’s their choice. Get to know your neighbors, get involved, so that you’ll know who to watch out for and why. Be smart, armed and vigilant. Be pro-active. Be unapologetic.

America should learn the difference between Republic and Empire. We should be a beacon of freedom to the rest of the world, generous with our friends and deadly to our enemies. We should only intervene if America is in direct danger. Then, we need to do the job, clean up, set things back up to ensure democracy and freedom, then go home.

No UN. National sovereignty is nothing to be ashamed of. Great Britain birthed the American Experiment. Our original setup was the best in the history of the world, and has irrevocably altered its destiny. We have been the model the rest of the world wants to adopt. Diluting ourselves under a supranational world government is a sure path to enslavement under a totalitarian regime. We must stand for ourselves, help others, fend off those who would harm us. For over two hundred years that’s worked just fine. Slowly, through adopting our example, more and more nations on Earth become democratic republics. Not one has adopted the UN model.

I’m opposed to capital punishment. It’s the only punishment that cannot be undone. Mistakes will always be made. We can free a jailed man, even give him money in recompense though we cannot restore his time. How can we correct a wrongful death? Besides, if capital punishment was done properly, that is quickly, then which would be worse: to spend a year or so in fear of death, or to spend decades in a concrete box?

Prisons should be as minimal as possible. Concrete boxes. It should be an awful place, one no sane person would want. We should segregate jail/prison: the mentally ill go one place, the non-violent (i.e. property crimes) in another, and the violent in a third. The non-violent should be oriented toward restitution and restoration and rehabilitation.

Courts need to be realigned. It is the jury that is the power in a courtroom, not a judge. The judge is more like the ref, keeping all sides honest and riding herd. We need to restart teaching Americans that principle. Juries can rule as they please, not be constrained by agenda-driven judges. Dishonest prosecutions can and should be thrown out of court via juries refusing to find guilt, when proper.

I think most matters of law should be given to civil courts, which should be expanded. That way, as society changes so do the courts reflect that change by altering precedents. In other words, a law stays on the book forever, but judges come and go. New judges reflect the new society they arise from. They should be elected, not appointed, and subjected to up/down retaining votes from time to time to keep them attached to the society they sit over. This way, those judges who stray too far from the mainstream can be gotten rid of, rather than live on and on until they die.

Laws which attempt to reshape society should be struck down. This includes affirmative action, of course, but also laws which prohibit people from doing with their property and businesses as they please. If someone doesn’t want to serve me, fine. He should have that right. But I have the right not to shop there and to let others know what kind of person he is; we can drive him out of business, which is the strongest punishment. Someone can refuse to rent to whomever they choose, for whatever reason, but will have to suffer when business is slack, until he learns to loosen up. Insurers shouldn’t be forced to take everyone. Let the virtuous have the best rates, and the less-safe pay for their choices.

I’m stuck, though, between my idealist belief that people should be free and the realisation that most folks will squander that freedom, even in a libertarian society that will make them bear the burden. Most folks today falsely believe that theyl share the “costs” of problems because of decades of miseducation and social engineering by Progressives, Communists, Socialists, Democrats, etc. If we have a government that takes up those costs, then yes, that’s true. But if we let people rise and fall on their own merits, and bear the responsibility of their choices, then no. Part of me truly believes that given the motivation, most folks will rise up. But I’m still torn.

Freedom is, as John Adams put it, the “great animating contest.” That’s the source of national and societal vigor. Stifle the freedoms and the nation is stifled too. Constrain the people and you will strangle their souls. We have seen it time and again: liberate and educate a people who are secure in their persons and property and they will soar.

This is a continuation of what started here and wandered some more over here. This post is just a few odd items I didn’t work in somewhere down below.

While doing my usual Saturday morning idle surfing of the Web, I ran across this explanation of American Classical Liberalism, by Lew Rockwell. It says a lot that I said down below, but in far more elegant language and better composed thoughts. Lew is a lot farther along the spectrum than I am in his belief in limited government, and his article tellingly makes no mention of police and courts, but its still good stuff. Maybe I am a Classical Liberal? We’ll see….

I really believe the most important struggle going on in America today is the misunderstanding of what government and society mean to each other. As I note below, government must be founded in the individual; society must be founded in the family. Many of our problems are in the disconnect between these two fundamentals. A society based on individuals is lost. It cannot transmit its values nor properly educate and train its young. Government cannot fill that gap, as it must continue to teach the primacy of the one. You get Big Brother, where the government is the society. Nor can government be based, as it once was in this country, on the family. You subordinate the females and adult children to the head of the household. This is anti-democratic.

But finding the balance is tough. This is where the Democratic Party is destroying America. In allowing itself to be dominated by identity-politics groups, which worship the individual, it is moving further and further into government as family, into replacing lost institutions and mechanisms of the family with government substitutes. This cannot work. We see this every day in modern America. Put brutally, no one can be paid or compelled to care as much about your family and children as you will.

Next, I guess the best label for me would be conservative, traditionalist libertarian. I’m conservative in the broad, root sense of the word, one who views change skeptically. I believe change must be for a reason, it must be an improvement you must show me the benefit of. Obviously, I would support ending segregation and gender discrmination, because they enable more Americans to exercise their fullest freedom and liberty. But I’m skeptical of government funded day care — it serves to undermine the need for family, it supports bad decisions. I’m not convinced of the social good of it.

I’m traditionalist in that I don’t see anything wrong with doing things the way they’ve always been done. This comes through the conservatism above, recognising that change can be good and needed. But I recognise the importance of ritual and formality. They are the structures which deepen and make more meaningful the rites of passage in our lives. Look at marriage. It used to be an enormous family and community ritual. The incredible fuss and formality made going through it something that was deeply impressed on you. You were standing before family, friends, community, church, priest and GOD swearing to something. It became hard to ignore later on when the luster wore off. Today, marriage is something you can knock off one day, something you can get out of very easily, and so something that means little. Look what it’s bought us. Tradition brings depth and meaning to our lives; a connectedness to what has come before that transmits through us to the future.

Libertarianism is the political philosophy I’m most close to. Combined with the above, it can often be confusing. I am frequently called a conservative Republican by those who think with their prejudices. I’m not. Democrats have sold their soul to a philosophy that will destroy our culture and society. Republicans have shown they can be just as mercenary as the stereotype, but also be hypocritical enough to do it with the government’s money — my money. I reject the arguments of Republicans and Democrats that voting Libertarian hands a “victory” to the other party. They are one and the same today. I vote for whom I want, not against whom I fear.

So, there you go. More, I’m sure, to come.

Social conservatives tend to be a bit, uhm, stodgy. I find that annoying. In the first episode of why the right is losing me, it was the right’s fear of sex. What’s rather ironic to me about this is that they tend to take the nanny approach, which they abhor democrats for doing, to this sort of thing. I really don’t think it’s healthy to be so concerned about sex.

They also lose me because of their fear of dudes getting married. There’s a proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage here in Tennessee. I have not doubt that it will pass. I had a little discussion in the comments section here with Bill and Jeff, who oppose gay marriage.

First, I won’t even address the argument presented that it should be banned because the Bible says so. Using the Bible as justification for law is illegal and asinine. The basic gist of the other bullshit argument against allowing gay marriage (summarized by Rob Huddleston here and used by Bill in the comments section mentioned above) is:

gays have the same equal rights as everyone else (the right to marry someone of the opposite sex)

In my quick perusal of the constitutions of the State of Tennessee and the United States, I see no right to marry enumerated. In all honesty, I fail to see why the .gov is involved in marriage at all, other than to the extent they may provide contract remedy. After all, from the state’s perspective, a marriage is just a contract between two people. In the eyes of individuals and churches, it obviously has more meaning. Though I question how sincere Americans are about that meaning given our high divorce rate and 52 hour long Las Vegas marriages. But I digress.

The issue is not about the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. What gay person wants to do that? Framing the issue in such a pointless manner does not treat the issue seriously and is disingenuous. Married people enjoy certain benefits, such as: special tax consideration, survivorship to an estate, the legal authority to make decisions for loved ones who can’t make their own decisions, etc.

Gay people should be entitled to those same benefits. They are denied the benefits that other married people enjoy because they have matching sets of genitalia. And they’re denied those benefits because people think two dudes kissing is icky. And that is not right.

Of course, none of the gay people I know actually want to get married anyway.

Update: And as the former owner of a lesbian poodle, I don’t buy the arguments that homosexuality is not supported in nature. There are gay dolphins and lizards that are exclusively gay. They even reproduce.

Long time readers know that SayUncle often gets Google News alerts that are nothing more that VPC press releases.

Paul Graham has an essay about a related phenomenon, the “press hit.”

One of the most surprising things I discovered during my brief business career was the existence of the PR industry, lurking like a huge, quiet submarine beneath the news. Of the stories you read in traditional media that aren’t about politics, crimes, or disasters, more than half probably come from PR firms.

Pretty interesting read.

Seriously:

When Blount County schools (sic) officials asked for help Wednesday, the Sheriff’s Office provided a show of force at William Blount High School with more than 50 uniformed and plain clothes officers on the scene after threats of “bodily harm” were made against some students.

Sheriff James Berrong said he and Blount County Schools Director Alvin Hord are taking “a proactive instead of reactive approach” to the situation.

Investigators are pursuing “all leads and information regarding racially motivated threats and graffiti made by students against other students at the high school,” according to a press release.

Honestly, involving the police over threats of violence? Back when I was in school, they never called police. See, our teachers in the 1980s had something teachers today don’t have. They’re called balls. I recall one incident in high school where the assistant principal intervened in a student dispute. A student then punched the assistant principle right in the face. The assistant principle looked the student in the eye, without flinching, and said If that’s all you got, son, you better sit down now. And he sat down.

Heck, I worked in a juvenile prison for a while right out of college. We had no guns, no tear gas, nothing at all like that. All we had were padded rooms and some mechanical restraints, both of which required three days of paperwork to authorize the use of so they were no use at all. Still, we never called the police even when we had full on riots. We did it ourselves. And these were violent criminals.

Teachers are too quick to call the police these days. Kid has a knife, call the cops. Kid has a BB gun, dial 911. Call the five-0 because some kid has over the counter drugs. I guess they’re so damn scared of another Columbine that they don’t want to take chances.

Here’s a newsflash for the teachers, you are expected to maintain discipline at the school. It’s your job. Do your job or go home. Sitting down isn’t an option.

Update: Bubba notes in comments:

But according to the details starting to emerge, the problem has been brewing for several weeks. They don’t say what specific event(s) triggered the law enforcement response, but there was apparently a list with specific names, more than one case of racist grafitti, in one case mentioning a specific date.

So when you have named targets and specific threats and a date, seems like something you have to take seriously. Even if you didn’t care about the kids on the list, think of the school’s liability if it turned out to be a real threat.

I suppose, in the event that targets are that specific, the school is probably justified for involving the law.

I do it all the time and am about to do more of it. Now, this, uhm, well, you make the call:

Sen. John Cornyn said yesterday that recent examples of courthouse violence may be linked to public anger over judges who make politically charged decisions without being held accountable.

In a Senate floor speech in which he sharply criticized a recent Supreme Court ruling on the death penalty, Cornyn (R-Tex.) — a former Texas Supreme Court justice and member of the Judiciary Committee — said Americans are growing increasingly frustrated by what he describes as activist jurists.

First of all, none of the recent cases were the result of some citizen disgruntled with some issue taking it out on a judge. One case was a nutjob who didn’t want to go to jail for raping a woman. The other case didn’t even involve shooting a judge. In addition to Cornyn’s claim being irresponsible, it’s also total bullshit.

Lefty blogs are all aflutter at the asininity of the statement. They should be. Insty chimes in with:

“THERE’S BEEN SO MUCH DISREGARD FOR CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES IN CONGRESS, that I wonder if it might not lead some people to want to lynch Senators in the majority?”

An irresponsible statement. So how come Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said pretty much the same thing about violence against judges?

Gandelman has a good round up of reactions and he notes that:

Sen. Cornyn has now seemingly given a perfect mental fig leaf for every nut on the right OR ON THE LEFT who wants to physically take out a judge (or the judge’s family) with whom he or she disagrees.

Now, here’s where I out myself as a nutjob, more like a nutjob-lite. Some aspects of our government do seem to be getting out of control. The Supreme Court is utterly useless and is merely a shill for the powers that be. It doesn’t serve the people or the law. If it did, they’d stand up against abuses that go against the fourth amendment. They’d have smacked down the abysmal campaign finance reform. They’d have gone to bat for the second amendment when the assault weapons ban was challenged (or, Hell, if they’d agree to hear any gun case and make a decision one way or another). The wouldn’t have refused to hear a variety of cases that impact civil liberties. All it takes is five hands and we’re fucked.

Congress, now dominated by what was supposedly the party of smaller government, is worse. The jackpot congress and the president, who hasn’t vetoed anything ever that I can recall, go on their merry way spending our money, involving themselves in things they shouldn’t be involved in, and growing the government to the biggest it has ever been. Ever. Meanwhile, we the people are only concerned about important issues, like dudes kissing and Britney’s big ass.

Still, that doesn’t mean you go killing judges. Or congressmonkies. Or presidents. Like Claire Wolfe said:

America is at that awkward stage. It’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.

I don’t advocate shooting or killing anyone. But I do advocate kicking their asses. Ginsburg needs to be smacked repeatedly about the head and neck area. Bush needs a wedgie. Frist needs to be kicked in the nuts. Sure, I’m kidding but our civil and public servants need to be taken down a peg or two. They really do. But that doesn’t mean you kill them. I don’t really have a method for bringing them down a peg. Can we bring back tarring and feathering?

Per insty, Cornyn has clarified and stated his speech was taken out of context. Additionally, Cornyn notes:

My point was, and is, simply this: We should all be concerned that the judiciary is losing the respect that it needs to serve the American people well.

The judiciary needs to work on getting the respect back. It gets that by serving the American people well. It doesn’t need respect to start serving us well. No branch of government currently serves the people well. Something needs to be done to hold them accountable. Vote them out. Impeach them. We need to do something.

Or I’ll bring the feathers.

Walter Williams:

Saying the Constitution is a living document is the same as saying we don’t have a Constitution.

Ayup.

Everything here is my own opinion, so you know who to blame…

For me, especially lately, it’s getting to a point where I just don’t know why I bother serving in the military to protect our country. Much of it comes from liberal media, much of it from friends and co-workers who just don’t really know the truth behind the lies. Worse, I used to honestly say that I fought for freedom. Do I now?

Read the rest of this entry »

What is a right? Some folks address it:

The right in my garage

Kevin on what is a right?

Natural rights.

I’m not one to wax philosophic about, well, anything. As such, my definition of a right for all intents and purposes are those enumerated in law. I think the more important issue is the justification by the government for regulating something.

I think there would be broad public support for a National Do Not Mail Registry. I should also point out what I do with junk mail:

Each time I get a credit card application or some other variety of junk mail that has a postage paid return envelope, I take all contents of the envelope and I rip them to shreds. I then place the shreds into the postage paid return envelope (which will be paid by the company sending me the junk mail), attach a note that says Please Recycle and place it in the mail box.

Every time someone sends me junk mail with a return envelope, it costs them 26 to 37 cents. I encourage everyone to do the same. If all 300 million of us did it, we could bankrupt the junkmail (sic) industry.

Heh! I sicced myself.

Via Instapundit we have this article criticizing Michael Crichton’s latest book. The authors of the article, Profs Gregory Benford and Martin Hoffert, are physicists who study climate change, and they say that in his attempt to argue “against the reality of climate change,” Crichton misrepresented their work, and the work of others.

I’m not intending to weigh in on this matter; Profs Benford and Hoffert and Dr. Crichton are all smarter and better edumacated than I is. I won’t even roll my eyes here at B&H’s rationale for “climate skepticism”–”the reality of climate change triggered by continued fossil fuel burning – and increasingly coal – threatens entrenched energy interests”–that follows their pooh-poohing of “a vast conspiracy – involving the editors of Science, Nature, Scientific American and some dozen other peer-reviewed journals – to exclude and reject climate skeptics papers.”

No, the thing that made me do a double take was this:

The reality of climate change triggered by continued fossil fuel burning – and increasingly coal – threatens entrenched energy interests. Some of these lobby against it with the ferocity of the National Rifle Association.

Let’s even skip the question of what the antecedent of “it” is (Big Oil is lobbying against reality?). Why is it that these guys think the NRA is the epitome of ferocious lobbying? I bet if you polled the bloggers list under Say Uncle’s “Guns” blogroll, you’d find a hefty percentage think the NRA is all too willing to sell out the interests of gun owners.

Mrs. Du Toit has a piece on policing our own. Do other gun owners have a right to be ass holes, act nuts or say things that make people uncomfortable? Sure. Do us more, uhm, reasonable types have an obligation to tell them to not say things like that because it scares the white people? Sure.

Publicola (no doubt one of those people she’s referring to) responds.

Take Steve’s advice: Don’t argue with cops:

You do not find out the law by reading statutes. Never. It’s a trap. The law is not what the statutes say. The law is what judges say the statutes say.

Read the whole thing. Oh, and keep your mouth shut.

Michael Silence, who is apparently part of the problem, writes:

If you tailgate, I drive slower just to honk you off. If you are in a hurry, leave earlier!

Assuming you’re not in the left passing lane, doing less than the speed limit, and beside another car, I don’t have an issue with it. Generally, I get out of the way. And I’d expect others to be courteous and get out of my way. After all, you never now who is on their way to the hospital; who is on their way to a house fire; who generally doesn’t care about your (or their) well-being; or who is psychotic with a gun under their seat.

Staying in the way makes you the problem. It’s a passing lane for a reason: to pass other people and get out of the way. This whole tap the breaks (or as some idiots do, lock up their car) is akin to bright lighting someone who is bright lighting you. Sure, flash your lights to let the other guy know his lights are on but don’t keep your lights on when they approach because then you have two people on the road who can’t see.

And while I’m talking about driving, is it too much to ask that other drivers look more than one car length ahead? Seriously, the signs indicating that the lane you’re in is about to end started a mile ago. Get the Hell over sooner instead of waiting until the last minute.

Also, I am apparently the only person in the state of Tennessee who knows the rules for a four way stop sign. Here’s a hint: It’s not piece of shit cars go first.

Michelle attempts to set the record straight on the analogy that home improvement programs are like porn to women. This got me to thinking about porn and what it really is for men. Unlike the posts linked above, I’m actually going to write about porn. This post will use crude language and likely be offensive to some. If you’re easily offended, don’t click below (and no, I’m not posting any porn).

Read the rest of this entry »

It seems that gay people aren’t icky.

Tom quoting a piece on possible chief justice Thomas:

Although he frequently is seen as an identical vote with Justice Antonin Scalia, in fact, Thomas has gone far further in his positions than any justice, including Scalia. In a recent, little-noticed biography of Thomas by Atlanta Journal Constitution writer Ken Foskett, Scalia provides a remarkable assessment of his colleague. Thomas, Scalia says, “does not believe in stare decisis (the doctrine that courts must adhere to precedents set by previous court rulings”, period. [sic] If a Constitutional line of authority is wrong, he would say, let’s get it right. I wouldn’t do that.

Emphasis added. Assuming he’s on the right (meaning correct side), I don’t see how that is bad. There are thousands and thousands of pages of bad case law. In fact, a lot of it is total bullshit. A clean slate gets the nod from me.

Or rather does it lead to the end of libertarianism? Eric, who has been on a roll lately, writes:

I’m sure I’m just being paranoid, but it seems to me that once you have a kid, you lose independence in a major way, and I do not refer to the loss of time spent taking care of the kid or earning the extra money it takes to raise a kid. I mean that suddenly, you’re supposed to be worried about what the other kids and their parents are doing, what the damned school is doing or not doing. Whether your kid is going to be drugged with Ritalin because he can’t sit still and pay attention to a moronic (and bored) teacher who can’t spell, add, subtract or teach, but who instead wants to yell at your kid about “gun violence,” tell him his country was founded by bigots who slaughtered and enslaved the world, and make him take classes in things like “anger management.”

As a new father, I do worry about the day Junior comes home and tells me her teacher said something stupid, political, offensive, or just plain wrong. I don’t worry that I’ll suddenly become an anti-gun extremist but I’ll be even more cautious about my firearms, household cleaners, tools, cooking utensils, electrical outlets, five gallon buckets, bathtubs, and the other miscellany around my house that could do her harm.

Today is Veterans’ Day. I tried all day to think of something worthwhile to post to mark this day, but I realized that no words of mine could match what has been said in the past and said today in other places. So I will say only this:

Thank you, and may we never forget.

On the Culture War, Phelps illustrates that Chuck Schumer doesn’t get it:

That last line was dripping with sarcasm, because I think in that moment, Jon saw that Schumer still didn’t get it after he spelled it out to him. Jon is on his way to not being part of the problem, and it frustrates him that the Titanic has hit the iceberg, and Schumer is still wrenching the helm into the floe.

It isn’t that people don’t get what you are saying, Chuck, they just don’t agree with you. They have figured out that when they are having trouble stretching a paycheck, the solution isn’t to have you take more of that paycheck and spend it for them.

First, I despise Chuck Schumer for his role in trying to turn the Waco hearings into an opportunity for a gun control screed instead of dealing with the real issue, which was whether or not the government got a little out of control. Now, as it was in the past, he doesn’t get it. It’s a good thing. Chuck is an old-school, regional Democrat and I’d like nothing more than to see him go the way of Daschle but that’s not going to happen anytime soon. Additionally, Phelps writes:

Here’s the deal. You can take someone from Sugerland, Texas, and plop him down at the airport in NYC, or Chicago, or Atlanta or Dallas or any big city, and he’ll do fine. I wonder sometimes if you could do the same with a New Yorker. We get New York culture, even if we don’t accept it. I don’t think that the average New Yorker even gets any culture outside New York and Hollywood.

Indeed. If you watched TV, you would think there was only New York. How many TV show story lines are based in New York? We need a Maryville sitcom, but I digress. I think Phelps nails it. We middle-Americans get the Media Elites (to use Jon Stewart’s term) we just don’t like it. However, they absofuckinglutely do not get us. At all. Period. And apparently have no desire to.

It seems that pundits, the media and bloggers are going out of their way to analyze why Kerry lost. The operative question really is why did Bush win? I do think the framing of the question in that manner denotes a bias towards Kerry as it infers an expectation that he would win. And the media expected him to win, after all everyone they know voted for him. The Democrats are going to go through a change. Some are upset. Some are strategizing. Some are insane. The big question is why and where do they go from here.

Some are crowing that it was gay marriage, even to the point where they have issued marching orders to repeat the claim even if it is false. However, Bush does seem to be pushing this federal marriage amendment thing again. Bush supports letting the states decide on civil unions. I personally can’t quite figure out why it’s important whether you call it marriage or civil union or Reginald for that matter. The majority seems to support civil unions.

Some are crowing that it was God, or evangelicals, or the radical Christian right. I’m sure there is some truth to this because the red states tended to be protestant. Blue states were predominantly Catholic.

Some crow about the youth vote. First, it didn’t show up. Then we find out it did. Now, it seems that it did but other demographics showed up to. I should point out that some under 30 voters, you know, vote Republican. My wife did.

And, of course, the dreaded South, illustrated in excruciating detail here by someone who doesn’t understand adjective modifier rules. People like this guy, who want to paint red America with such a broad brush, are why liberals would lose again. And his guy has essentially affirmed the belief commonly held that the rest of the country doesn’t care what we southerners think.

Kurtz on let the explaining begin:

“Bush did a very good job of creating some wedge issues on the moral values front,” says CBS correspondent John Roberts. “That was a real surprise, something we didn’t catch on to until late in the game. We all kind of missed the boat on that.”

So, did Bush win because he created wedge issues? I can’t say. However, he did have a message and stuck to it.

Journalists “don’t understand red-state America,” says Newsweek’s Howard Fineman. “I’m an indicted co-conspirator. . . . Most people in what is left of the big media live and work in blue-state America, and that shaped our view of the election.”

There it is. The allusion to the media elite. The culture war. Middle America vs. the fringes (fringes of America, not political fringes). Us good ol’ boy, beer drinkin’, gun totin’, pick up truck drivin’ inbreds vs. the snooty, Hollywood loving, pseudo-intellectual and probably Jewish upper crust.

All the talking heads seem obsessed with this red America v. blue America when most states are actually shades of purple. There is a divide and it is regional. However, it’s not absolute and it seems to be only a few issues in number but pretty major issues. Democrats seem to be becoming a regional party due to these few issues.

The Republican party (at least this administration) seems to have given up on a few of its ideals (namely small government and fiscal conservatism). And for some reason it worked for them, which I find amazing. I suppose if given the choice between big spending liberals or big spending conservatives, America picks conservatives.

The fact is that if you asked 100 people why they voted for who they voted for, you’d get dozens of answers. There is no one thing. And that’s what scares the Democrats. They have to change several things, not just one, to get back in the game.

The question now is does the machine keep wallowing in the past or does it try to move forward? How long will the Democrat blogs, for example, lick their wounds? Are they retooling their message? Beats me. Manish has some advice for them and I think he’s right. If the Dems became the party of fiscal responsibility and realized that gun control is a political loser at the national level (that damn South!), they could probably turn a few libertarian leaning Republicans.

After all, the post is called Uncle Bait. One of the Brutal Huggers (I can’t tell them apart) writes:

Asset forfeiture is a way for the government to take your property. Regardless of whether you’ve committed a crime, they can (and have!) seize cash, cars, houses, computers, and anything else whether they can carry it away or sell it on the spot. They can do this without convicting you of any crime. They can do this without even charging you with a crime!

If you want your property back, you have to sue the government to get it. And you’ll lose. It’s extremely difficult to win because you have the impossible burden of proving a negative– i.e. that your property hasn’t been even remotely involved in any criminal activity.

While you’re hopelessly suing the government to get your stuff back, your local police will be auctioning it off and pocketing the money. Law enforcement agencies make money from seizing your property. Talk about perverse incentives! It’s a recipe for corruption and just another way the drug war pits common citizens against the authoritarian police state.

First, the government needs to be reminded of this little thing called the Fourth Amendment. Secondly, BH states that Kerry is the same as Bush on the issue.

Pardon me while I put on my Libertarian hat for a minute:

A problem with government officials and politicians (almost all of them) is their desire for the government to have control over people. They want to control you or the system is set up for control. It allows them to rule. They want a government that is huge as it guarantees power, a livelihood, or some other benefit to them and other civil servants. The fact is, no prominent politician would take a stand on this issue because of the political fallout (loss of police support, viewed as soft on crime, makes you sound crazy, etc.). Yet this issue is important and results in government oppression. This is also the case with many other issues.

You’ll never rarely hear a politician talk seriously and legitimately about eminent domain abuse; no-knock warrants; asset seizure (it’s not a forfeiture); the drug war; egregious zoning practices; bogus racketeering charges; the legal system bullying juries; subsidies and other hideous practices by the USDA; the legal system getting innocent people to plead down because they can’t afford to fight the system and it’s easier to do jail time; or taxing to destroy something or someone. And there is no difference between nearly any political candidate or his opponent nor is there a difference among the two parties on these issues.

The courts have, time and again, let things slide as well. They didn’t take a stand for the first amendment on campaign finance reform, nor the second amendment in a variety of cases. Heck, they ruled that indoor plumbing makes no-knock warrants acceptable because you might flush something down the toilet. And, my personal favorite, random roadblock searches are legal as long as they stop everybody. I guess they really need to read the fourth amendment.

Think about it. They can take your car for a sack of fucking weed or some pills that you don’t have a doctor’s note for. Or they’ll take your house because they want to put a strip mall there. Martha Stewart is going to jail for lying about a crime the government couldn’t prove she committed. They can confiscate large amounts of cash merely because someone thinks it’s unusual for people to carry large amounts of cash. They even take your damn toenail clippers at the airport.

Addressing these issues in the political arena would not be popular. It would scare the little people. And it would make the the big ol’ government look corrupt (rather, look more corrupt). They need you stupid. They need you compliant. They need you poor so you must rely on them. They have to feed the beast somehow.

Do you really want this same bureaucracy handling your health care?

I’ll quote myself (bad form, I know, but it will illustrate what I mean):

Kevin, who thinks that we are on the downward spiral to a total loss of freedom, asks:

Believing what we believe, is it moral for us to let it happen without standing up and pledging our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor to fight it? I have grandchildren. What do I owe them?

Despite my efforts at:

Putting up a sign in my yard that says the court system is a joke;

Making machine guns;

Refusal to give authorities ID;

Buying up property that may some day benefit the public good;

Starting my own un-licensed business;

Setting my water heater to 130 degrees;

Writing a book that tells people not to pay taxes;

Importing lobster tails of less than 5.5 inches;

Growing orchids;

Buying, with a personal check, significant quantities of indoor gardening lights to care for my begonias;

Carrying large amounts of cash;

Missing the occasional tax payment;

Using unusually high amounts of electricity (for the begonias);

Building model rockets;

Doing home improvements without getting government permission;

Being a smart ass to TSA employees and wearing a Hi, I’m a terrorist button on planes;

Taking pictures of my nephews bathing to get developed;

I have yet to encounter any targets of opportunity. They must be raiding the wrong houses. All kidding aside, I don’t do most of those things but those very actions have been cause for our government to trample liberties. And no one (but me and a few bloggers, apparently) gets angry about it.

I think our apathetic public is just unwilling to rise up about injustice. Not many people take to the streets in protest of our lost civil liberties. Not many practice civil disobedience.

Nevermind, Janet Jackson just showed her other boob.

Could you imagine the look on the face of a George Bush or a John Kerry if you asked them in a debate which won’t happen because it may make them think and they don’t have a prepared statement):

So, the drug war costs billions and billions and billions of dollars. Many innocent, peaceable citizens have been needlessly killed by a police force that has been essentially militarized. People are not secure in their homes because of no knock warrants and search warrants issued based on the frequently false testimony of criminals. Property is taken and lives are destroyed over a few minuscule amounts of drugs. Is it worth that price to confiscate an infinitesimally small fraction of a percent of the drug supply in this country?

Their responses would be:

Look over there, terrorists.

And fags.

So make noise about these issues, if they’re important to you.

I have noted several times in the past that the election was Bush’s unless he did something really stupid. I wonder if his poor showing at the first debate could be the start of it. Polls the race is now close, and intimate the debate affected that. I have no reason to disagree.

Additionally, for some fun facts on the debate, this piece (HT: Michael) tells us some things we’d rather not have known about the debate. My favorite is:

(2.) Important issues are locked out by the CPD debate rules and party control.

“Really important but sticky or tough issues get axed, because the parties control the questions and topics,” Rice says. “For example, in 2000, Gore and Bush mentioned the following issues zero times: Child poverty, the drug war, homelessness, working-class families, NAFTA, prisons, corporate crime and corporate welfare.”

Our candidates will not (or can not) address complex issues. Why? No doubt, fear of losing some of the base or because they don’t know enough about the issue. There will, for example, never be a serious public discussion on the benefits and costs of the drug war because the issue is too complex.

The question I really have is: Complex for whom?

Is it complex for me, a simple Joe-voter? Or too complex for our candidates? Do they think I’m not sophisticated enough to understand these complex issues or is it because they can’t form good, concise sound bytes since these issues are so complex?

“You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.”
— Albert Einstein

“If you wish for peace, prepare for war.”
— Roman Proverb

I recently saw the Einstein quote on a bumper sticker (along with, I think, a Phish sticker and maybe a Dean sticker). Now, according to the quotations page I have linked up there, this is “attribtued” to Einstein, so I guess maybe he didn’t actually say it. Remember also another Roman quote:

“They made a wasteland and called it peace.”
— Publius Cornelius Tacitus

So, maybe the Romans had a different brand of peace in mind than did Prof. Einstein. As an informal poll of our audience, who do you side with here? One of the greatest minds of the 20th Century, or some dead Romans? Both? Neither? Discuss!

So…where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government has been granted permission to pay for “health care” and education?

And if you say “general welfare,” please turn in your voter registration card; you obviously don’t understand the Constitution and are a danger to our Republic.

Bruce Bartlett:

A new report from the Congressional Budget Office explains that the deficit is a virtually meaningless measure of the government’s indebtedness. The main reason for this is that the federal government uses cash accounting rather than accrual accounting. What this means is that the government can acquire massive debts far into the future with virtual impunity. The government can also, in effect, cosign for loans and provide insurance that could potentially cost taxpayers hundreds of billion of dollars without it ever showing up in the budget until a check has to be written.

Yeah, another smart guy said almost the same thing a while back.

When I first heard about this, I dismissed it as some insane babblings by some idiots and thought it would never happen. I was wrong. I’m talking about this:

Election monitors that normally would be expected to observe elections in fledgling democracies like Azerbaijan and Moldova are scheduled to watch the vote in a more established democratic nation — the United States.

Responding to a request from 13 Democratic congressmen and the State Department, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe will be sending a group to make sure the United States holds a fair election in November.

Lawmakers who requested the OSCE presence said problems in the 2000 election spurred them to ask the international organization to participate. They say that the monitors will help ensure that the United States should have nothing to hide, but the observers will be there to make sure the election does not suffer any civil rights violations or other irregularities.

Who the Hell allowed this to happen? This is America. Aside from the issues of sovereignty, that it’s an insult to US citizens, and the appearance of kowtowing to international bureaucrats is the fact it’s embarrassing. Sure, Florida was an embarrassment but this is abysmal.

The fact that our government is allowing this crap is horrendous and should not stand. Who is the OSCE?

The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is the largest regional security organization in the world with 55 participating States from Europe, Central Asia and North America. It is active in early warning, conflict prevention, crisis management and post-conflict rehabilitation.

The OSCE approach to security is comprehensive and co-operative: comprehensive in dealing with a wide range of security-related issues including arms control, preventive diplomacy, confidence- and security-building measures, human rights, democratization, election monitoring and economic and environmental security; co-operative in the sense that all OSCE participating States have equal status, and decisions are based on consensus.

So, if I understand that correctly, it sounds like a group with military capabilities. A peacekeeping force. Here. In the US. Monitoring our elections. That should scare the Hell out of us all. It does me. If it doesn’t scare you, I don’t know what to tell you.

As Jeff said: Didn’t we once fight a war over something like this…? Rest assured, any armed, foreign soldiers seen at SayUncle’s friendly neighborhood voting establishment will be confronted and told to leave.

This is my neighborhood, who the fuck let you in?

Folks are astounded that in a BBC poll, 6% of 16-to-24-year-old Britons thought Gandalf defeated the Spanish Armada. 15% thought that on July 12, Orangemen in Ireland celebrate the victory at Helm’s Deep (silly wankers; we all know they’re celebrating Syracuse’s victory over…some other sports team).

“This is extremely shocking,” said Nick Seaton, a chairman of some education-booster-organization. Not to worry, Mr. Seaton. I suspect the lads have had a nice joke at the Beeb’s expense here. I can just imagine some teenage yob snickering to his mate, “Oy, Gaz, I marked ‘Gandalf’ for #12!”

Mild-mannered SayUncle is actually a CPA by day. However, this stuff bores even me. Hence, accounting blogging is rare.

It is good to see the bill requiring stock options to be expensed getting blocked:

The House voted Tuesday to block a rule that would require companies to count stock options against their profits, after a party-splitting debate over corporate accountability, economic growth and jobs.

The vote was 312-111 for a bill overriding a proposal by the rule-setting board for accounting. The board wanted to force publicly traded companies to record as an expense all forms of share-based payments to employees, including stock options.

(snip)

The rule change proposed in March by the Financial Accounting Standards Board could dramatically reduce the reported earnings of many big companies, particularly in the high-tech industry where stock options have been popular.

Equity is always equity. Such a change would have a dramatic impact on profits for companies and would artificially decrease earnings. The result on the markets would probably be bad as collectively companies would be doing worse on paper. This is up for consideration due to corporate abuses (*cough* Enron *cough*).

It is not surprising to me that the Big Four accounting firms support it. After all, it gives them more work to do.

By now, you’ve probably already read this story by Annie Jacobsen about what looked like a “dry run” by possible terrorists. If not, give it a read.

Now suppose you found yourself in a similar situation. What do you do about it? I’ve been mulling this one over myself, and I’m still not sure.

There’s a good discussion of the question I posed here about the criteria for restricting rights to convicted criminals. Here’s a link to the comments.

All felons are black? Me neither.

Lame.

The article he linked brings up a question I often ponder:

When it comes to rights, we restrict certain rights if someone commits a crime. For example, the state revokes their right to arms (do we want criminals packing heat?) and (in some cases) their right to vote. Exactly what criteria are involved in deciding which rights to restrict? Do we want convicted felons assembling peaceably or free from unwarranted searches?

The knee jerk libertarian in me thinks that, since the Bill of Rights doesn’t grant rights but limits governmental infringement of rights, it’s a no-no! But if I concede I don’t want criminals packing heat (after all, who wants that?) then should I concede that they also shouldn’t have a right to freedom from self incrimination?

Thoughts? Or am I a space cadet on this one?

A while back, I opined that carrying non-lethal weapons could make someone be more inclined to resort to the use of those weapons even though doing so was unnecessary. I got a lot of flack for that. I should point out that the police in Oklahoma have doubled the use of tasers in the last year.

Update: Phelps may be correct in the comments that I should refer to them as less-than-lethal. Actually, I’m thinking the correct term should probably be generally-not-lethal.

No, they don’t. It’s far from free. When I was there, sales tax was 15% set aside for their system. That’s not free. The Canadian socialized healthcare system has some issues:

But more and more Canadians are awakening — not from a dream — but from a nightmare. The results are coming in. After years of government-controlled health care, the ordinary Canadian patient is noticing his health care system is ailing badly. Plus it’s bleeding money — his hard-earned tax dollars.

Comparing Canada with other industrialized countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that provide universal access to health care, a study released by The Fraser Institute in May revealed that Canada spends more on its system than other nations while ranking among the lowest in several key indicators, such as access to physicians, quality of medical equipment, and key health outcomes.

The study identifies one of the major reasons for this discrepancy. Unlike other countries in the study that outperformed Canada — such as Sweden, Japan, Australia, and France — Canada outlaws virtually all private health care. If the government says it provides a medical service, it’s illegal for a Canadian citizen to pay for and get the service privately. In practice, this means a patient must linger in line for hospital treatment — an average of 17.7 weeks in 2003, according to an annual survey on hospital waiting list published by the Fraser Institute.

There’s more on how not good their system is.

Update: More here.

Kevin linked to this piece by Bruce Garrett on Reagan and AIDS (which contains almost no links to back up assertions). SayUncle takes issue with it. I realize fully that the right is deifying Reagan but the left’s vilification is horrendous.

These have nothing to do with Bruce’s assertion but I’ll address them in brief. One claim is that Reagan didn’t fund aids, or didn’t fund it enough, or basically that he was pressured to fund it, or he didn’t do it quickly enough. Not true. Under Reagan’s presidency, almost $6B was spent on AIDS and it started as early as 1981. The other claim is that Reagan didn’t mention it in public until 1987. He signed the funding into law in 1981 so I’d say that’s acknowledging it. And he mentioned (See below) in 1985 and he specifically mentioned funding for it in 1986.

On to Bruce who makes this most asinine assertion:

Does the name Ryan White ring any bells out there? White was a kid who got AIDS by way of the clotting factor he needed to control his hemophilia. From the Ryan White Story Website:

He was determined to continue at his school and live life normally. But in 1985, not many people knew the truth about AIDS. Not very much was known about AIDS. Ryan faced a lot of discrimination, mostly based on the unknown. His school tried to keep him from attending and the town in which he lived was not very supportive, to say the least.

After legal battles, Ryan and his mother settled with the school to have separate restrooms and disposable silverware from the cafeteria. But that didn’t stop much. Students vandalized his locker with the word “FAG” and restaurants threw his dishes away after he left. A bullet was even fired into his home.

That’s putting what happened to this innocent kid mildly. And after he passed away, his gravesite was vandalized repeatedly.

So here comes Reagan, with this opportunity to do what the goddamn leader of the free world is supposed to do, speak up for the innocent, appeal to our better nature, quell the passions of the mob …and the pusillanimous Bastard says he sympathizes with the mob instead!

“I can understand both sides of it.”

Both sides? I’m sorry…Both Sides??? Like…the side that would fire a gun into a boy’s home, because the kid had AIDS? That side?

Passionate stirring scene, eh? Too bad it’s devoid of context. What really happened was at a news conference, someone asked:

Mr. President, returning to something that Mike [Mike Putzel, Associated Press] said, if you had younger children, would you send them to a school with a child who had AIDS?

Reagan said:

I’m glad I’m not faced with that problem today. And I can well understand the plight of the parents and how they feel about it. I also have compassion, as I think we all do, for the child that has this and doesn’t know and can’t have it explained to him why somehow he is now an outcast and can no longer associate with his playmates and schoolmates. On the other hand, I can understand the problem with the parents. It is true that some medical sources had said that this cannot be communicated in any way other than the ones we already know and which would not involve a child being in the school. And yet medicine has not come forth unequivocally and said, “This we know for a fact, that it is safe.” And until they do, I think we just have to do the best we can with this problem. I can understand both sides of it.

Don’t see Reagan taking the side of the people shooting. I see Reagan admitting a lot wasn’t known at the time about AIDS and he understood the fears of parents. He was also understanding of someone being stricken with this disease and facing hideous acts as a result.

Update: And how do I know that Reagan didn’t ignore AIDS? Because Fred Phelps (that raving, homophobic lunatic) thinks he’s in Hell.

Since I hold myself out as a libertarian of the non-moonbat variety, people ask me what the hell the means. What do I think is the role of government? It’s pretty easy, really. It’s spelled out in the Constitution.

Provide for our defense: It is arguable that we go a little too far on this one some of the time. But, honestly, better to over do it than not do enough.

Regulate commerce: Remember, the government is why you don’t pay 30% interest on your mortgage. Sadly, the powers-that-be like to call everything commerce and regulate the crap out of it (abortion, anyone?). This, however, is not free reign for some USDA bureaucrat to tell some guy how many acres of soy beans he can grow and what price he can sell it at. That is, pure and simple, socialism.

Establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility: We need laws. We need those laws enforced. We need recourse for violation of contracts, for example. We need police.

Promote the general welfare: This is the one that is subject to the most disagreement. What is the general welfare? Fire department, police, roads, education, etc.?

I think certain things should never happen in a country like America:

No one in this country should starve to death.

No one in this country should go without health care (Note to John Kerry: When you say 43 million people go without health care, you’re fibbing. 43 million people go without insurance. That’s what you meant to say, right?).

No one in this country should be denied basic education. The current system is in dire need of reform but it doesn’t do too bad a job. I went to public schools and I turned out OK.

In my opinion, it is in the interest of the general welfare that people are healthy, educated and not malnourished. I’m weird like that. Unfortunately, our government would rather provide specific welfare for certain groups:

-$50,000,000 added in conference for an indoor rain forrest in Coralville, Iowa (Sic);

-$1,000,000 added by the Senate for the Alaska SeaLife Center;

-$653,000 added by the Senate to study rainbow trout at the University of Idaho’s Hagerman Fish Culture Experiment Station in Aberdeen;

Does NASA provide for the general welfare? I’d say we could build something really cool for the price of NASA, like a national rail system or, you know, a kick-ass water park. Does the Department of the Interior? Etc.

Some governmental departments do provide for the general welfare but tend to go too far. The SEC should be good check on market manipulation and financial fraud. The EPA should be a good check on keeping our air and water clean. However, wetland management is an abysmal affront to liberty. If the government wants to maintain wetlands, it should buy some. It shouldn’t tell some guy that a small, insignificant stream will result in the same guy not being able to do with his property as he chooses.

I’m not an anti-government ideologue. I recognize that the government plays an important role. However, it has gotten to the point that the role it plays is too big. It needs to be reminded of that.

A common misconception we all have (other than that we’re good drivers) is that we’re moderate. We all think we are. After all, we usually associate ourselves with similar minded folks and since those folks are all around us, we must be middle of the road.

I’ve seen this phenomenon quite a bit recently, mostly from the left. It seems that some folks who are pretty far to the left (in my book) refer to Bush as an extremist. In actuality, I’d say the people referring to Bush as the extremist are actually the extremists. I should point out that I don’t find Bush to be an extremist and I don’t think Kerry is an extremist. The two are actually more similar than different.

Now, it has the periodic crossover into mainstream (Lautenberg’s chickenhawk picture on Capitol Hill – note that referring to someone as a chickenhawk is an extremist labeling another person as an extremist in my book). And it seems to come more from the left (Bush is an abortion extremist, etc.) lately.

Why am I rambling about it? Because, it seems to me, the left is engaging in the same labeling strategy that the right engaged in starting in the 1980s and continuing more severely through the 1990s (you know, back when the L word was an insult). This heated up considerably during the Clinton presidency because the right was losing.

What is the purpose of this labeling? I suppose it energizes the base. However, it doesn’t seem to win over anyone who is on the fence. Case in point: Howard Dean. He really had the Democrats riled up for a while. Good coming out of the gate but no long haul potential.

The left is losing a lot of its hold on politics and their language shows it. It’s like the mid 1990s in reverse.

Earlier I mentioned Earl Shorris’s Clemente Course in Humanities. One of the results of the course was that the students developed “notably more appreciation for the concepts of benevolence, spirituality, universalism, and collectivism.”

Now obviously the list may not be complete, but I found it interesting that individualism wasn’t on it. IMHO, individualism is one of the crown jewels of Western Thought (and I’m not saying Western Civ has a monopoly on individualism, or anything like that). Unfortunately, I think individualism has been eclipsed by collectivism.

Ahhh, maybe I’m making too much out of this one quote. I still hope to blog about humanities and public schools someday soon.

I had hoped, when I used the phrase “too early to shoot the bastards,” that more readers would be familiar with the Claire Wolfe quote:

America is at that awkward stage. It’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.

More on this later.

What I was aiming for in my admittedly elliptical (and obviously confusing) rambling was a search for a common thread in several scenarios. Furthermore, I intended it to be speculation, not some sort of proclamation of Gospel Truth, as I thought would be obvious from my use of phrases as “seems to me,” and “assuming my formulation is more-or-less congruent with reality.” While I’m certainly willing to hear discussion and correction on these assumptions, I was hoping that wouldn’t be the main focus. Granted, the onus is on me, the blogger, to make this clear.

Item: The violence in Iraq seems to me (N.B., seems to me) to be the work of mainly two groups: those longing for the Good Old Days of Saddam, and those wishing to establish an Islamic theocracy. Since Islamic Theocracy as practiced by the Iranians and Saudis (and presumably as would be practiced in Iraq) is, from where I’m sitting, no more or less preferable than plain old secular tyranny (c.f. Communism vs. Fascism), I think it’s quibbling not to lump these groups together as preferring some sort of despotism instead of American “occupation.” This is puzzling to me, given that we’re trying our damnedest (I think) to setup a liberal system modeled somewhat on our own. Still, this preference for despotism is strong enough for some, that it’s worth killing over.

Item: Now, I may be way off, but I just can’t imagine that UK’s government is that much different from the Republic of Ireland’s. Historically, yes, I’m sure there was repression and established religions and so forth, but are these really problems today? Of course, I could be way off; maybe the two governments are as far apart on certain things as, say, the USA’s and Canada’s when it comes to gun rights. I’ll grant that, although I wonder why immigration wouldn’t be an option. At any rate, to some people, it’s worth killing over.

Item: In the American colonies, ca. 1775, were ruled by a government that, while certainly not perfect, probably wasn’t too bad as governments went in that day and age. Still, at some point, enough people decided that getting rid of said government was worth killing over.

Item: Our modern-day government (at the federal and state level) are constantly pushing the limits of their power. Sometimes we push back, with varying degrees of success. Personally, I disagree with Claire Wolfe, in that I think it’s NOT too late to work within the system, and hopefully it never will be (and therefore I DO NOT advocate either the violent overthrow of our government or acts of terrorism or violence in general). The problem is knowing when her words come true.

So…is there a common thread? A thin one, perhaps. From our point of view, as Americans, we have been on both sides. In 1776, the challenge was identifying a “cusp,” if you will, and getting a critical mass of people convinced that it was indeed time to “shoot the bastards.” Today, we’re on the other side, and our challenge—in Iraq and the War on Terror in general—is to convince them that while it may be time to for the bastards to go, we aren’t the bastards; the bastards are the despots among them. And as I said originally, I have no solution to this challenge. That’s where you, the loyal reader, comes in!

Once again I engage in the blogging equivalent of thinking out loud. It seems to me that we might state the problem we face in Iraq, and the problem that Israel has, in the following way:

There exists a certain number of Arabs who would rather live in under an Arab despot than under the tutelage of non-Arab Republics. Furthermore, said Arabs are willing to visit violence upon just about anybody, even themselves, to avoid living under said tutelage.

Now, having brilliantly posed the problem in these terms, and assuming my formulation is more-or-less congruent with reality, I still have no idea how to solve it. I can’t even explain it. Certainly I don’t think ALL members of this group desire to live under despots, although some may (thinking they can work their way up the hierarchy of enforcers that a despotism inevitably brings). Perhaps they just can’t stand the idea of their nations being subordinated to infidel nations.

Also, I certainly don’t think this formulation describes all, or even a majority, of Arabs. In fact, just thinking about it, it’s not unique to Arabs; you could apply it to other situations—say, for example, the terrorism in Northern Ireland. I mean, is the government of the UK really that much worse for Northern Ireland than the government of the Republic of Ireland would be? Yes, in the past, I’m sure His/Her Majesty’s government was pretty brutal to the Irish, but I think things have gotten a little better; surely it’s not so bad that car bombs and such are called for.

Of course, as a red-white-and-blue-blooded American Patriot, I recognize that there DOES come a time when “it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another,” and that this can require bloodshed.

So maybe the ultimate question here is: when is it not too early to shoot the bastards?

UPDATE: Phelps has a much deeper analysis of the roots of Arab suicide terrorism, as well as a modest proposal for a solution.

I saw this on Rebecca Blood’s site. It’s a rather old piece from Harper’s titled On the Uses of a Liberal Education.

It’s a long read, but I found it very interesting. It describes, as Blood puts it, how “New York journalist Earl Shorris developed the Clemente Course in the Humanities, designed to use the classical liberal arts education to bring equity to the economically disadvantaged.” Shorris describes his motivation thus:

Numerous forces–hunger, isolation, illness, landlords, police, abuse, neighbors, drugs, criminals, and racism, among many others–exert themselves on the poor at all times and enclose them, making up a “surround of force” from which, it seems, they cannot escape. I had come to understand that this was what kept the poor from being political and that the absence of politics in their lives was what kept them poor. I don’t mean “political” in the sense of voting in an election but in the way Thucydides used the word: to mean activity with other people at every level, from the family to the neighborhood to the broader community to the city-state.

His solution: teach them Humanities: “the study of human constructs and concerns, which has been the source of reflection for the secular world since the Greeks first stepped back from nature to experience wonder at what they beheld. If the political life was the way out of poverty, the humanities provided an entrance to reflection and the political life.”

He puts together a course, bringing in Real Life Professors, to teach to ex-convicts, single mothers, drug-abusers, and AIDS victims. They read Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides. They read poetry, visit museums, watch slide shows of great art works. And it works:

One Saturday morning in January, David Howell telephoned me at home [about a dispute with a co-worker].

“Mr. Shores, she made me so mad, I wanted to smack her up against the wall. I tried to talk to some friends to calm myself down a little, but nobody was around.”

“And what did you do?” I asked, fearing this was his one telephone call from the city jail.

“Mr. Shores, I asked myself, ‘What would Socrates do?’”

David Howell had reasoned that his co-worker’s envy was not his problem after all, and he had dropped his rage.
…
In the last meeting before graduation, the Clemente students answered the same set of questions they’d answered at orientation. Dr. Inclan found that the students’ self-esteem and their abilities to divine and solve problems had significantly increased; their use of verbal aggression as a tactic for resolving conflicts had significantly decreased. And they all had notably more appreciation for the concepts of benevolence, spirituality, universalism, and collectivism.

It cost about $2,000 for a student to attend the Clemente Course. Compared with unemployment, welfare, or prison, the humanities are a bargain.

Now, it’s almost a cliche to gripe about the “state of our schools,” so I won’t do that.

I know linking to something that Instapundit has linked to is a “coals to Newcastle” exercise, but I thought this op ed on National ID Cards was interesting. The author claims that not only would a National ID Card NOT make us safer, it would makes us LESS safe.

Whether he’s right or not, I have to say I’ve always been kind of fuzzy on how a National ID Card would make us safer. It’s always been kind of an “Underpants Gnomes” argument:

Step 1: Issue National ID Card
Step 2:
Step 3: Security

Can anybody fill in Step 2 for me?

A few weeks back, I went to the weekly flea market at the fairgrounds. I love books, so I pawed through every book collection there. We’re running out of shelf space, so I bought a few choice ones. This particular trip, I picked up Isaac Asimov’s New Intelligent Man’s Guide to SCIENCE: Vol II, The Biological Sciences.

Now, I’m a sucker for Asimov’s non-fiction. In fact, Asimov’s prolificness and my readitude of it won me a trip to Hawaii (but that’s another story). Anyway, just judging by the title, I knew this book was bound to be good: to hell with you Old Intelligent Men, you Non-Intelligent Men, and ALLLLLL you Women!

So I’m cruising through the first couple of chapters, right up to the part about photosynthesis. Now there’s something I haven’t thought about since high school biology. As we all know, photosynthesis is how plants take light, plus water, plus carbon dioxide, and turn it into oxygen and carbs (those evil, evil carbs!). In particular, the chlorophyll in the plant uses the light energy to break up water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen.

That’s when the light went off. As you know, there’s a meme floating around the zeitgeist that we need to stop burning fossil fuels as energy sources, and use hydrogen instead. Using pure hydrogen as a fuel has a great upside, because it’s clean burning (producing just water as a by-product) There’s just one problem: There ain’t no pure hydrogen on earth.

Oh, there’s some, but the problem with hydrogen is it tends to buddy up with other elements and form compounds. That’s why I haven’t really paid much attention to the talk about burning hydrogen as an “energy source,” because it’s NOT an energy source; you have to expend energy breaking the hydrogen loose from whatever compound it’s in. Hydrogen could be used as an energy storage and conversion medium, but producing hydrogen by, say, electrolysis of water, is still a losing proposition if you’re getting the electricity from a coal-fired power plant. OK, you could probably take advantage of some economy of scale, but the dirty coal is still being burned. Sure, we could use solar cells, but then you have to put energy into creating the cells.

But what if you could grow your hydrogen-producing system? Bio-engineer what would literally be a “power plant?” This idea struck me just now when reading Asimov’s book. And whenever I have moments like this, I think, “Either this idea is so incredibly stupid that only Dilbert’s boss could come up with it, or else somebody is already working on it.”

Well, actually, both could be true, but at any rate, somebody is already working on it.

For several decades, we have known that green algae can produce hydrogen directly from water….Scientists at the University of California, Berkeley, have found that sulfur deprivation of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, a green algae, turns off the normal photosynthesis pathways, causing cells to stop emitting oxygen and stop producing carbohydrate, protein, and fat energy reserves. Hydrogenase is induced and activated by the low oxygen tension, and the stored energy reserves are then used to produce hydrogen. Once the stores are depleted, sulfur must again be added to return the system to normal photosynthesis. By cycling between sulfur and non-sulfur metabolism, hydrogen can be cyclically produced in a two-stage process.

There’s actually quite a bit of interest in the idea of biological hydrogen production. If you, loyal readers, have any expertise in this, please leave a comment. Also, feel free to point out any pointy-haired boss (PHB) moments I might have had in this post.

Seems there’s a bill for the president to sign called the fetus protection act, which would make it a separate crime to harm a fetus during an assault on a pregnant woman. But if you read further:

The measure is limited in scope, applying only to harm to a fetus while a federal crime is being committed against the pregnant mother, such as terrorist attacks, drug-related shootings or attacks on federal lands or military bases. But proponents on both sides of the fetal rights and abortion issue saw far-reaching consequences.

Both sides of the abortion debate view this as a possible step toward outlawing abortion under the precedent that it essentially acknowledges a fetus as a person. I, personally, don’t see how congress has any authority to pass such a law but that’s never stopped them before. Nor do I see how this is a federal matter to begin with. However, the fallout will be interesting to watch.

Turns out teachers don’t do so well on tests. Another study is here. I’m starting to see why teachers oppose No Child Left Behind requirements about testing.

I love Rudyard Kipling’s writing. Some folks may not like him or his work, thinking him racist or imperialistic, and I won’t argue with them (not that I necessarily agree; I just don’t want an argument).

Fortunately for me, a lot of his work is public domain, and thus is available for free on the web. Lately I’ve been skimming over his American Notes, and I was intrigued by his impression of our “defenseless coasts”.

A man in the train said to me:–”We kin feed all the earth, jest as easily as we kin whip all the earth.”

Now the second statement is as false as the first is true. One of these days the respectable Republic will find this out.

Unfortunately we, the English, will never be the people to teach her; because she is a chartered libertine allowed to say and do anything she likes, from demanding the head of the empress in an editorial waste-basket, to chevying Canadian schooners up and down the Alaska Seas. It is perfectly impossible to go to war with these people, whatever they may do.

They are much too nice, in the first place, and in the second, it would throw out all the passenger traffic of the Atlantic, and upset the financial arrangements of the English syndicates who have invested their money in breweries, railways, and the like, and in the third, it’s not to be done. Everybody knows that, and no one better than the American.

He then goes on to discuss how the USA’s lack of a real navy leaves her vulnerable to an unscrupulous power that does have a navy: pay ransom or have the coastal cities shelled into oblivion:

When one hears so much of the nation that can whip the earth, it is, to say the least of it, surprising to find her so temptingly spankable.

The average American citizen seems to have a notion that any Power engaged in strife with the Star Spangled Banner will disembark men from flat-bottomed boats on a convenient beach for the purpose of being shot down by local militia. In his own simple phraseology:–”Not by a darned sight. No, sir.”

Ransom at long range will be about the size of it–cash or crash.

I bet Kipling never expected the day would come when the US Navy eclipsed the Royal Navy.

That’s the goal of a website I found (via Number 2 Pencil) http://endzerotolerance.com/.

The mission of endzerotolerance.com is to be a comprehensive and up-to-date national resource for those interested in learning more about the negative impact of Zero Tolerance upon students, families and society.

I don’t have any school-age kids yet, but by the time I do, I’m wondering what the government-run schools will be like. Of course, it’s easy to get the impression that Things Are Just Awful, because the good stuff isn’t newsworthy.

However, based on my own government school experience, I’d have to say that at least 75% of my time, if not more, was just wasted. Of course, this was in rural Louisiana, so I’ll admit my experience probably wasn’t typical. On the other hand, nobody freaked out over scissors. Heck, most of the boys had pocket knives, and during hunting season I’d bet there were always a couple of pickup trucks with—*gasp*—GUNS in them!

Ah well. The answer, as always, is to be vigilant. In the meantime, have any of you readers run into any “zero-tolerance” problems?

UPDATE: Say Uncle pointed me to Zero Intelligence, a blog ” dedicated to keeping an eye on, and pointing out the excesses of, bad school policies and actions.” Unfortunately, there’s plenty of stuff out there to keep them busy.