« June 2003 | Main | August 2003 »

July 31, 2003

Bruce Gagnon's Trip Home

[Bruce Gagnon is coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space]

On July 28 I was returning home after two days of speaking in Louisville, KY. While in the Louisville airport, after having just received my boarding pass, I got a call on my cell phone from a reporter with the Columbus Post-Dispatch (Ohio) who wanted my comments about the Global Network's position on NASA's "Project Prometheus" - the nuclear rocket to Mars. (For the rest of the story, see below.)

The interview lasted 10 minutes at the most and in it I outlined these three key points:

1) The exponential escalation of launches of nuclear power into space dramatically escalates the chance of an accident

2) DoE has a long and sad track record of local contamination of workers and communities building bombs. Can we expect anything else as they now ramp up the labs to produce more plutonium for nuclear space missions?

3) NASA has announced that from now on all space missions will be "dual use", meaning that each NASA mission will be both military and civilian. Thus the development of nuclear reactor technology for space missions will also become a military technology.

Immediately after finishing the interview I bought a newspaper and headed for the airport security screening line and my boarding gate. Just as I entered the line two policemen asked if I was Bruce Gagnon. They then directed me to follow them to the other end of the airport and would only say that I had been overhead making dangerous statements. Amazingly they knew my name and had a copy of my boarding pass. All of this within 12 minutes after checking in at the airport. As we walked to their office I racked my brain to understand what I might have said and to whom!

Once inside the police inner sanctum I was questioned by three cops who wanted my name, my ID, my reason for being in Louisville, where I had spoken, to whom I had spoken. Then they informed me that I had been overheard talking about bombs and contamination. They then searched my bag and one officer found my copy of the constitution and asked if I always carried it with me. I told him "Yes, you never know when you might need it."

It took me a moment to realize that someone must have heard my statements to the reporter about the nuclear rocket. So I explained the situation to them. Luckily I had remembered the name of the reporter and I gave that to them as well. One of the cops then called information for the number at the Columbus newspaper and called the reporter. He verified that I had just spoken to him about bombs and contamination and suggested they let me go. But the cops first ran a national ID check on me to make sure I was not on some terrorist wanted list.

Then they let me go and I headed for my gate. I still made my plane but as I was boarding, one of the cops stood by the door to the gate to make sure I got on the plane. (Must have thought I'd slip out the back way or something.)

The remarkable thing to me is just how paranoid everyone has become that people are now reporting anyone that says any "key" word in airports, or probably anywhere else. I told the cops that I thought potential terrorists were not likely to stand in the middle of an airport and talk on the phone about bombs and contamination.

Posted by Rob at 11:41 PM | Comments (163) | TrackBack

Repeal Legal Tender Laws

Ron Paul may be the only member of Congress who is not a politician. He consistenly works to oppose unconstitutional and otherwise liberty-harming legislation. He also introduces measures intended to restore our lost freedoms, such as the Honest Money Act, which repeals legal tender laws.

"Salmon Chase, who served as Secretary of the Treasury in President Lincoln’s administration, when he was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, dissenting in Knox vs. Lee, summed up the argument against legal tender laws in twelve words: 'The legal tender quality [of money] is only valuable for the purposes of dishonesty.' [emphasis added.]"

Paul's bill would allow the market, not the government, to determine what is to be used as money.

Posted by George F. Smith at 08:21 AM | Comments (518) | TrackBack

July 30, 2003

Reality is what the The State says it is

Bush War poster-girl Jessica Lynch owes her fame to a mix of state incompetence and deception. While she gets the glory, the real fighter, Sgt. Donald Walters, died while performing many of the heroics attributed to Lynch, according to Telegraph writer Julian Conan. Walters "was killed after mounting a lone stand against the Iraqis who ambushed their convoy of maintenance vehicles near Nasiriyah," he writes in a July 27 article.

The army acknowledges the possibility that it could have been Walters who "fought his way south of Highway 16 towards a canal and was killed in action." But why ruin a good propaganda story with facts? "The army says the investigation into the incident is now closed."

Posted by George F. Smith at 10:15 AM | Comments (223) | TrackBack

July 29, 2003

Ugly America

Sometimes unpleasant truths are most clearly revealed in small details. In this case, the truth about what our nation is becoming. First it was the assassination of Saddam's sons and the subsequent display of their corpses. Now we have this story from the Washington Post about new counterinsurgency tactics in Iraq:

"Col. David Hogg, commander of the 2nd Brigade of the 4th Infantry Division, said tougher methods are being used to gather the intelligence. On Wednesday night, he said, his troops picked up the wife and daughter of an Iraqi lieutenant general. They left a note: 'If you want your family released, turn yourself in.' Such tactics are justified, he said, because, 'It's an intelligence operation with detainees, and these people have info.' They would have been released in due course, he added later.

"The tactic worked. On Friday, Hogg said, the lieutenant general appeared at the front gate of the U.S. base and surrendered."

Do we really want to be the kind of country that puts corpses on display and kidnaps women and children to extort information? What does it profit a man--or a country--to gain the whole world and lose his soul?

Posted by Lee McCracken at 02:35 PM | Comments (397) | TrackBack

Davis was armed

We know that deceased New York City Councilmember James Davis contributed to his own demise by escorting his murderer around the various security devices designed to prevent such an occurrence.

But why? There’s a clue.

Not too widely reported was the fact that Davis himself, like other Councilmembers, was armed.

Now, can you imagine an armed member of the political ruling class stopping at the metal detector and pulling out his sidearm in full view of the proletariat, themselves prohibited by the likes of Davis from bearing the means of self-protection?

Too embarrassing. Too likely to call attention to himself. Too likely to point out the fact that there are rules for the rulers and rules for the ruled and never the twain shall overlap.

Well, Mr. Davis surely spared himself the embarrassment of the spotlight.

R.I.P.

Posted by at 12:44 PM | Comments (336) | TrackBack

July 28, 2003

Boortz commencement speech

Neal Boortz wrote a commencement speech he's never given. And considering the class mentality of most colleges today, he probably never will. A few excerpts:

"The key to accepting responsibility for your life is to accept the fact that your choices, every one of them, are leading you inexorably to either success or failure, however you define those terms."

"If you make the right choices, or if you make more right choices than wrong ones, something absolutely terrible may happen to you. Something unthinkable.  You, my friend, could become one of the hated, the evil, the ugly, the feared, the filthy,, the successful, the rich."

"I'll tell you what your rights are!  You have a right to live free, and to whatever wealth you are able to produce with your labor.  I'll also tell you have no right to any portion of the life or labor of another."

The mystery to me is, why does this man don his lawyer's hat and support Bush and the neocons? Given the popularity of his radio show, I can only imagine someone in high places gave Neal a call he didn't air.

Posted by George F. Smith at 07:56 PM | Comments (215) | TrackBack

July 27, 2003

Happy Anniversary, Korea

Yu Bin has written a nice piece in the Asia Times called Korean War: the problem of memory.

When the guns finally fell silent across the Korean Peninsula on July 27, 1953, about 2 million people were dead, many more wounded, and countless dislocated and separated from their families. Ironically, all this occurred in a three-year "police action". Now, 50 years later, North Korea and the United States are "drifting toward war, perhaps as early as this year", as former US secretary of defense William Perry was quoted in the Washington Post on July 15.

Lots of good stuff here about willed amnesia and the interplay of US, Chinese, and Japanese policies toward Korea.

In East Asia, Korea has been a place where major powers reciprocate their resolves, power, and prudence. Historical lessons serve as a reliable guide for the present and future, however, only for those who respect and are honest with it.

Posted by at 08:25 PM | Comments (200) | TrackBack

re: Phone Taxes

Out where I live, there are a decent number of tax resisters. This article describes some of their strategies. A relevant excerpt:

One of the first federal taxes to spark opposition is the Federal Phone Tax. This tax has been in existence since 1914, and has been specifically created to raise money for the various major wars since then. Originally introduced as a "temporary" tax, after 76 years the Congress finally made it permanent, and set its level at 3 percent of your phone bill.

Resistance to the telephone tax has a long and established history, and most phone companies will put up no fight to resisters who will not pay it, since they're just as happy to not collect taxes for the government. Simply include a note saying that you refuse to pay your federal excise tax for conscientious purposes, and pay the rest.

I know a few people who say this strategy has worked fine for them--no problems at all from the phone company.

Posted by at 04:41 PM | Comments (132) | TrackBack

Phone Taxes

The Feds just increased a couple of their taxes on phone service. 28% of my phone bill is now comprised of taxes and other government charges. Of course, I have to pay these taxes and fees with earned income that has already been hit with FICA tax and federal and state income taxes.

Federal Universal Service Charge Increase

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently announced an icrease in the factor that determines how much BellSouth contributes to the federal universal service funds. These funds are designed to help keep telephone rates affordable and to expand telephone services to schools and rural areas. You will see a corresponding increase in the Federal Universal Service monthly charge that recovers this increased payment by BellSouth. The increase will be effective July 1, 2003 and will be reflected on July or August 2003 bills. This charge will not be applied to Lifeline accounts.

Federal Subscriber Line Charge Increase

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has authorized BellSouth to increase federal Subscriber Line Charges for Residential Primary and Single Line Business customers.

Posted by Rob at 04:26 PM | Comments (139) | TrackBack

July 26, 2003

Yale

I read that the following people have a degree from Yale: Gerald Ford, Bill Clinton, Bush I and II, Howard Dean, John Kerry and Joe Lieberman. So one third of the Democratic candidates for president are Yale alumni.

Posted by Rob at 11:19 AM | Comments (138) | TrackBack

July 25, 2003

Critical of the Government? You might not be allowed to fly

Salon.com reports (link requires subscription or viewing an ad to get a free day pass) that the Transportation Security Administration has admitted to having a list of "selectees" who are subject to extra scrutiny at airport check-ins. And it appears that many of the people on this list are not terrorists or would-be terrorists, but peaceful, law-abiding activists who question the federal government's agenda.

"It appears, however, that the list may contain thousands of names. Officials at the ACLU of Northern California, which is pressing the Freedom of Information Act case filed by two leftist newspaper editors, says it learned from authorities at Oakland Airport that there is an 88-page typed list of names. Between Sept. 11, 2001, and April 8, 2003, the ACLU says, more than 363 passengers were stopped at San Francisco and Oakland airports, either because their names appeared on that list or because their names were similar to names on a separate 'no-fly' list made up of criminals and people with suspected terrorist ties.

"Evidence compiled in a series of interviews suggests that activists on the left and right have been affected, as have many Arab Americans. That has civil liberties experts warning that the airport security checks have a chilling effect on routine political activity that is unprecedented in recent times."

What is that we're always hearing about how if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to fear from new government restrictions?

Posted by Lee McCracken at 07:26 PM | Comments (147) | TrackBack

Fighting for big government

Jon Dougherty at WND cites Robert Higgs' Crisis and Leviathan in explaining how the federal government has taken over our lives.

"Special interest groups, Higgs says, use [crisis] management to their advantage. They essentially shame self-serving lawmakers – most of whom are always eager to trade portions of the Treasury for votes – into expanding benefits or rights, always at the expense of our productive, liberty-minded citizens."

Doughtery's article, Fighting our way to big government, is refreshingly libertarian.

Posted by George F. Smith at 12:11 PM | Comments (156) | TrackBack

Rules for the ruled, no rules for the rulers

New York City Hall has a security system designed to exclude from entry any gun-toting members of the constituency, which, I might add, is largely prohibited from handgun ownership and from the concealed carrying thereof anyway.

As a matter of course, the Mayor and Councilmembers can avoid the system, and do so regularly. The ruling class has its privileges, doncha know?

In this manner, late Councilmember James Davis escorted his new friend and soon-to-be murderer, Othniel Askew, past the security system, after which the afore-mentioned murder took place.

Can you spell "irony?"

Look for a liberal spin on this, perhaps another lawsuit against gunmakers, increased calls for "assault" weapons bans, whatever their fevered little minds can come up with. No blame will accrue to the shooter nor to the shootee.

Posted by at 11:44 AM | Comments (236) | TrackBack

July 24, 2003

Camp Cropper

Interesting juxtaposition: Bush's latest proclamation as to how the Hussein sons were responsible for torture, maiming, and murder....vs Robert Fisk's new piece on the US prison camp in Iraq.

"Now here's a story to shame us all. It's about America's shameful prison camps in Iraq. It's about the beating of prisoners during interrogation.

'Sources' may be a dubious word in journalism right now, but the sources for the beatings in Iraq are impeccable and any US military intelligence officers who want to call me a liar can explain how three of their prisoners in the Bagram camp in Afghanistan were murdered during interrogation.

This story is also about the gunning down of three prisoners in Baghdad, two of them 'while trying to escape'. But most of all, it's about Qais Mohamed al Salman."

But as Mr. Cheney will tell us, it's all about "show[ing] that killers loyal to the previous regime are being 'systematically dealt with.'"

Posted by at 03:12 PM | Comments (145) | TrackBack

Clinton Leaps to W's Defense

Our former groper-in-chief says that the uranium boo-boo was understandable and that he was never satisfied that Iraq divested itself of all its WMD.

You see, these guys ultimately have to stick together. Otherwise, us poor slobs might start questioning the whole system that produces people like these two charmers.

Posted by Lee McCracken at 01:36 PM | Comments (171) | TrackBack

Iraq is like Vietnam

Under cover of pseudonym "Deep Throat Returns," former Pentagon insider Karen Kwiatkowski wrote (October 3, 2002):

Kennedy advisor McGeorge Bundy believed "that in the final analysis, the United States was the locomotive at the head of mankind, and the rest of the world the caboose" and this widely shared view helped justified Vietnam. In complete contrast, the Bush strategy is "based on a distinctly American internationalism that reflects the union of our values and our national interests. The aim of this strategy is to help make the world not just safer but better." There is a major difference here and if you can't see it, you are probably a pinko.

More "Deep Throat Returns" essays are listed here.

Can you see a Constitutional amendment authorizing the U.S. to pursue a foreign policy as a "locomotive at the head of mankind"? That's a joke, of course. Government no longer needs Constitutional amendments to do what it wants.

Posted by George F. Smith at 08:52 AM | Comments (326) | TrackBack

July 23, 2003

The Problem of the Loyal Henchmen

This one is funny...a New Yorker review of three books on totalitarianism, autocracy, and obedience to authority. The thing purports to answer this question: "Why does authority command obedience? A man who tells you to pick your gum wrapper up off the sidewalk is generally ignored; a man in a uniform who makes the same request, even if it’s the uniform of a bus driver, is instinctively obeyed." So I'm thinking....(stupidly, because this is the New Yorker) that our fellow Americans might have a role in this play? Nope. It's all about Nazis and commies and poor deluded Iraqis. But still, an interesting--though somewhat long--read.

Posted by at 11:17 PM | Comments (208) | TrackBack

Is Religion Hostile to Freedom?

All this talk recently about “Brights” has reminded me of the argument made by some libertarians (Ayn Rand is the preeminent example) that religion in general, and Christianity in particular, is intrinsically hostile to political liberty.

Christianity (to speak of the tradition I’m most familiar with) teaches that each individual human being is made by God and is precious in His sight. We are commanded to love others as we love ourselves and, indeed, even to love our enemies. When we fail to do this—as we inevitably do—we should repent and ask forgiveness.

How is any of this supposed to be inimical to freedom? Quite to the contrary, it laid the foundation in Western culture of a belief in the value of the individual and his or her right to self-determination. As Thomas Aquinas, arguably the greatest theologian of the Western church, put it: “The highest manifestation of life consists in this: that a being governs its own actions.”

For Aquinas (and Christians generally) human beings are created in the image of God and are therefore endowed with a certain dignity, the highest manifestation of which is the use of reason and free will in choosing between right and wrong. This belief in the dignity of each human being is the necessary foundation, it seems to me, for any lasting regime of liberty.

Posted by Lee McCracken at 05:59 PM | Comments (367) | TrackBack

Profiteers

Before the recent tax cut, a C corporation in the 34% tax bracket had to earn $2.51 to provide a shareholder in the top tax bracket (39.6%) with $1.00 of dividends after tax. Now it has to earn only $1.78 to provide $1.00 of dividends after tax.

It's incredible that government could confiscate 60.2% of a company's earnings ("only" 43.8% after the latest tax cut) without having to do any work or put any capital at risk. Amazing!

Posted by Rob at 05:33 PM | Comments (145) | TrackBack

The Undead in Iraq

Matthew Riemer offers a nice dissection of the media spin on U.S. casualties in Iraq:

"Instead of regularly updating viewers and listeners concerning the number of killed and injured U.S. servicemen and women since the beginning of the war in Iraq, an insidious and disingenuous distinction is being emphasized more than ever: that of the 'combat deaths' and the 'non-combat deaths.' Phrases like 'hostile fire,' 'friendly fire,' and 'in-action deaths' are now commonplace in Washington's and the media's handbook of propaganda and euphemisms....As of July 21st, 233 U.S. soldiers have died and over 1200 have been injured since Operation Iraqi Freedom began. Yet the media focuses only on those killed by 'hostile fire' as if those killed in other ways or those simply injured are less important. "

Catch the whole story here.

Posted by at 05:01 PM | Comments (241) | TrackBack

Conservatives Embracing Leviathan

Here's an interesting comparison of federal spending during the first terms of Ronald Reagan and W. Federal discretionary spending actually decreased during Reagan's first term in several areas. Under Bush it has gone up across the board.

The era of big government is far from over.

Posted by Lee McCracken at 03:55 PM | Comments (138) | TrackBack

Weapons of Mass Stupidity

Hal Crowther rips Fox News. The "scariest thing about Fox and Rupert Murdoch, the thing that renders them all fear and no fun in a time of national crisis, is that they channel for the Bush administration as faithfully as if they were on the White House payroll. . . To watch its war coverage for even a minute was to grind your teeth convulsively at each Orwellian repetition of the Newspeak mantra, 'Operation Iraqi Freedom.' . . . if Joseph Goebbels had run his own cable channel, it would have been indistinguishable from Fox News."

Posted by George F. Smith at 02:53 PM | Comments (143) | TrackBack

July 22, 2003

John Whitehead on the Electronic Concentration Camp

The Christian-libertarian(ish) website Razormouth has a good article by constitutional scholar John W. Whitehead on the growing electronic surveillance state.

The rationale for increased surveillance of law-abiding citizens is, of course, vague fears about terrorism. This, combined with the seemingly benign methods seduces us into surrendering liberty and privacy:

"If the ends justify the means, then the proffered rationale for this super-surveillance—this use of technology to create an electronic concentration camp—is to anticipate and forestall crime. However, unlike the torturous methods of the Nazi regime, there will be no overt suffering associated with this national/international concentration camp in the world of the near-future. In this world, the police exist only to protect 'good' citizens."

Read more at: http://www.razormouth.com/archives/00000114.htm

Posted by Lee McCracken at 06:54 PM | Comments (190) | TrackBack

Saddam's sons

As I write this, CNN and Fox newsbreakers are going on and on about the probable deaths of Saddam's sons in a raid conducted by 200 soldiers.

The general consensus is that if these two bodies are indeed who the Army thinks they are, then Dubya has earned a reprieve in his search for "weapons of mass destruction," which was the ostensible reason for the pre-emptive war to begin with.

Somehow, the existence of two dead guys relieves the increasing pressure regarding the missing and still not found WMD's.

Posted by at 01:13 PM | Comments (206) | TrackBack

Killer regulations

Big Brother issued about 300 new regulations per business day last year. None of them were voted on by your watchful representatives - Congress doesn't have time to pass all the laws it wants to, so they delegate lawmaking to federal agencies, per some little-known section of the Constitution. Compliance costs, if you take OMB's figures, are between $500 - $600 billion a year. Cato Institute's Wayne Crews puts compliance at closer to $860 billion.

Who benefits from regulation, besides government? Find out here.

Posted by George F. Smith at 10:37 AM | Comments (209) | TrackBack

July 21, 2003

FBI informant had lived with two hijackers

According to WorldNetDaily, a congressional report condemns the FBI for its 9-11 failures. But the FBI says the hijackers weren't acting suspicious, so blame lies elsewhere - or nowhere. Ultimately, no matter what happens to the FBI, this will lead to more government power.

Posted by George F. Smith at 04:00 PM | Comments (174) | TrackBack

July 20, 2003

The Dank Smell of Suicide

I’m all for politically inconvenient characters mysteriously offing themselves. But this one is taking on a certain odor. Apparently, just hours before British weapons expert David Kelly did the deed, he rattled off some “combative” emails to a couple journalists. Complaints about “many dark actors playing mind games” ring feisty to me from someone digging deep in despair.

Posted by at 12:33 AM | Comments (178) | TrackBack

July 18, 2003

The War Inside the Revolution

The sounds of war almost always include the humming of government printing presses. It was no different during the American Revolution. "Next to the persecution of Loyalists," writes Scott Trask, "the financing of the American War of Independence was the darkest blot on the history of that otherwise noble struggle."

Posted by George F. Smith at 05:17 PM | Comments (293) | TrackBack

Uranium, Shmuranium

I would be among the last to defend President Bush with respect to the Iraq war, but "Uraniumgate" has all the marks of a media-created scandal. Such scandals turn on technicalities and trivia rather than addressing real issues. Did Bush "technically" lie about Iraq trying to buy Uranium? I don't know and don't much care.

Making this into the main point allows Democrats to simultaneously pose as radical critics of the administration ("BUSH LIED!!!!") while studiously avoiding any discussion of first principles. A truly radical critique (as in getting to the root) would question the entire bipartisan consensus about world-wide U.S. interventionism. This consensus is something both establishment liberals and conservatives want to perpetuate. ("We're all colonialists now" according to National Review's Rich Lowry.)

Even the supposedly "antiwar" Howard Dean appears to be just another liberal interventionist, as Antiwar.com's Anthony Gancarski recently pointed out. There is scarcely anyone on the national political scene interested in a return to the founding principles of this country so eloquently enunciated by George Washington.

Posted by Lee McCracken at 03:28 PM | Comments (198) | TrackBack

July 17, 2003

Why not end all taxes?

Thomas Paine observed that government "watches prosperity as its prey, and permits none to escape without a tribute." This brings to mind one of Al Gore's inventions. For years, states and feds alike have been drooling over the prospects of lucrative internet commerce.

But a House committee wants to permanently bar states from taxing the internet, because it "would promote innovation and make internet access more affordable." What a novel economic viewpoint. The parasites in Washington want the goose to fatten a little more before slaughtering it, and then, apparently, they will decide whether to share the kill with the lowly states. The only thing "permanent" in Washington is their unabated appetite for power.

Posted by George F. Smith at 08:59 AM | Comments (198) | TrackBack

July 16, 2003

Clothes Make the Man

A few weeks ago, Root Striker Craig Russell explained why we should dress well.

Today at LewRockwell.com Jeff Tucker tells us how to do it.

Posted by Lee McCracken at 05:36 PM | Comments (322) | TrackBack

"Government is not God"

The Christian right has discovered--to its apparent astonishment--that having friends in high places doesn't necessarily translate into success for your agenda. Despite the fact that such high-placed government officials as President Bush, John Ashcroft and Bill First are professed "religious conservatives" their supporters have found that "most Americans don't stand with what is commonly referred to as the Christian Right. Its big agenda items have fizzled."

They seem to be reconsidering the wisdom of trying to use the mechanism of coercive government to institute a cultural renewal:

"The Leadership Institute, along with groups such as Concerned Women for America, Robertson School of Government at Regent University, American Renewal, and the Free Congress Foundation, recently gave Weyrich a 'Patriot's Award' for his service to the cause. The scene—an annual summer gathering in suburban Washington sponsored by more than 20 conservative organizations—was festive, with red, white and blue banners and balloons. Activists carried paper plates piled with fried chicken, pork sandwiches and baked beans under a large banner saying 'Government is not God.'"

You don't say.

Posted by Lee McCracken at 12:31 PM | Comments (254) | TrackBack

July 15, 2003

Diversity Is Uniformity

Intolerance will not be tolerated unless you're intolerant of straight white Anglo males. Gail Jarvis describes a diversity workshop.

Posted by George F. Smith at 10:16 AM | Comments (193) | TrackBack

July 14, 2003

"Christian Court" bypasses State "justice" system

One of the common criticisms levelled at those of us who would like to drastically reduce the size and scope of political authority takes the form of "Without government, who would provide x?" Where x is whatever service currently provided by government that the objector fears would disappear if the government stopped providing it.

High on this list, of course, are the institutions of law and order such as courts. However, as state "justice" has become increasingly expensive and arbitrary, many people have turned to various forms of private arbitration.

Now churches are getting into the act. Reuters reports of a church-sponsored court in New York where Christians can settle their differences rather than slugging it out in the state courts. Of course, the church court rests on its moral authority rather than compulsion, and if either of the parties refuses to abide by the judgment they can always refer the matter to civil courts. Still, the creation of alternative institutions can be a crucial step in undermining the state monopoly on so many crucial goods and services.

Posted by Lee McCracken at 07:10 PM | Comments (336) | TrackBack

Paper Criminals

On June 20, Dr. Joseph Gingrich, a Saskatchewan dentist, sent a sworn affidavit to the Prime Minister of Canada, admitting that he owns a 303 rifle, that he does "NOT have a firearms license," that this "firearm is NOT registered," that he " did NOT send a Letter of Intent to Register . . . before 31 December2002," and that he has "NO intention of ever registering this firearm and/or acquiring [a] firearms license." Read the rest here.

Posted by George F. Smith at 03:40 PM | Comments (172) | TrackBack

A Dissent on Bastille Day

Here's the reactionary-monarchist-anarchist-classical liberal Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn on the French Revolution:

"The storming of the Bastille on July 14 and its immediate consequences showed what the French Revolution was all about, namely, the consequence of a moral collapse that had been prepared by the left-wing, radical chic, literati of its day."

For more see: http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/Fidelity_archives/parricide.html

Posted by Lee McCracken at 02:19 PM | Comments (220) | TrackBack

July 13, 2003

The War Pigs Are on the Run

I remember how immediately after the war, the anti-war coalition felt like a member of the Libertarian Party after Election Day: depressed, defeated, despondent. The warmongers had prevailed, thousands of innocents had been killed, the neocons were triumphant and there was talk of invading Syria or Iran next. But since then, the truth has started to leak out. We now know that there never were any WMD--that was all a lie, based on phony documents, plagiarism and cooked intelligence. Over 6,000 Iraqi civilians were killed, thousands more wounded. Over 200 American troops have been killed, many of them after Bush declared the war over. The country was effectively looted after the war, and its oil continues to be looted. The war is costing the U.S. $3.9 billion per month (not including reconstruction costs)--double what the Pentagon said it would. There are about 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, which Rumsfeld said would be way too many. There are no prospects for any kind of elections or self-government. Now CBS is saying that Bush lied in order to go to war.

What a difference a few months makes.

Posted by Rob at 02:27 AM | Comments (303) | TrackBack

July 12, 2003

Not a Federal case...

I heard "Libertarian" Neal Boortz the other day ranting on the fact that OB/Gyns were moving out of New Jersey at a high rate due to soaring medical malpractice insurance premiums. Toll booth personnel are being trained to deliver babies. Seems that mothers on their way to other states to deliver frequently go into labor on the turnpikes.

Boortz was complaining that a bill passed by the U.S. House putting a cap on pain and suffering awards over actual damages had stalled out in the Senate. I wanted to reach through my radio speaker, grab Boortz by the lapels, and say,

"Neal, it’s not FedGov’s business to be regulating insurance payments, anyway. When NJ loses all its baby-catchers to other states and pregnant women descend on the state capitol, something will be done. It’s the free market, Neal. And it’s state powers, Neal. Not a job for SuperGov."

Posted by at 05:29 PM | Comments (202) | TrackBack

July 11, 2003

New Evidence of Possible Saddam-OBL Connection

This is interesting. It indicates that Saddam's son Uday may have published--in his own newspaper!--evidence that the Iraqi government was working with al-Qaeda.

Still, even if true, this leaves many questions unanswered: Was Saddam conspiring with OBL to attack the US? Was war on Iraq the best way to deal with such a threat? Did Saddam have WMD and would he have given them to al-Qaeda? etc.

But another question, likely to be overlooked, is this: Even if post-facto evidence of WMD and/or al-Qaeda links is found in Iraq, doesn't it still matter what the administration knew and based its decisions on before the war? In other words, it could be true that there were WMD (or terrorists) in Iraq, but that the administration still didn't have sufficient evidence to believe that there were WMD (or terrorists) in Iraq. In which case, we still have an administration that bases momentous decisions of war and peace on slipshod evidence. It's like the cops busting into someone's house on a hunch and then finding evidence to implicate that person in a crime. There's a difference between making reasonable decisions and getting lucky.

Posted by Lee McCracken at 04:53 PM | Comments (172) | TrackBack

Ron Paul condemns neocons

Read the text of Paul's 1-hour speech in Congress exposing the neocons as glorified thugs.

Posted by George F. Smith at 04:05 PM | Comments (335) | TrackBack

Patriotic to an idea

The United States was the first country in history to be founded on an idea -- the idea that the individual should be left alone to run his own life. There was no flaw in that idea, just the manner in which it was implemented: it should have included every adult, in accordance with the Declaration: all men are endowed with certain unalienable rights, "men" meaning people. A patriotic American is someone who is loyal to that idea. What else could patriotism possibly mean? The founders, specifically Jefferson, rejected the state as an object of loyalty.

By various means the founding principles have been turned on their head. Government is all over our lives, to defend us from any possible source of harm. Meanwhile, our freedom isn't disappearing, it's being redefined. This is age-old state legerdemain.

The government is almost always working to advance its own power at our expense. If we want to be true patriots, we should oppose the state whenever it does this. Otherwise, we're supporting our own destruction.

Posted by George F. Smith at 10:49 AM | Comments (214) | TrackBack

July 10, 2003

You Evil Tax Cheaters You

Very rarely does anyone come right out and praise the IRS, but John Balzar has the courage to take this unpopular stance. In an article in the LA Times (link requires registration) he lambasts "tax cheats" and "anti tax anti government zealots." He also commends the IRS's new strategy of beefing up its criminal investigations (accompanied, no doubt, by more intrusions into people's private lives that the IRS is notorious for).

Balzar worries that rampant tax cheating might encourage--gasp!--disrespect for our hallowed system of government:

"Perhaps worst of all for the integrity of the tax system, the traditional law-and-order message of conservatives has faded, replaced by strident attacks on government. The IRS thus became an easy target for those who hammered wedges between citizens and their country, as if government was a 'they' and not an 'us.'"

Note the identification he makes between the country and the government, as though the two were identical. Heaven forfend people might start to regard the government as a "them" and not an "us." They might then wonder why they're forking over 40% of their income to "them" and what they're getting in exchange.

Posted by Lee McCracken at 07:40 PM | Comments (318) | TrackBack

20% Growth in 3 years.

Lee is absolutely right with his last entry about the recent Republican spending spree. I read the article he refers to and they sited 20% growth of the Federocracy since Bush came into office. It is rather depressing. GWB refuses to use his veto power to get these giant spending bills off the table. Democrats say lets spend 160 billion, Republicans say lets spend 151 billion and I say spend zero!

Posted by Bernard Chapin at 04:15 PM | Comments (357) | TrackBack

There is No Party of Smaller Government

Conventional wisdom is that the Republicans are, at least in principle, committed to the ideas of reducing the size and scope of government. And yet, as an article in this week's National Review points out, Federal spending has increased more during Bush's presidency than during any other presidency except for two of FDR's terms! Yep, more than Clinton, Carter or LBJ.

In addition to war spending, Bush has signed into law a massive new education bill and appears eager to sign any prescription drug benefit that Congress is willing to send him.

Reagan at least paid lip-service to the ideas of limited government, federalism and devolution, but if Bush's popularity is any indication, the GOP no longer feels the need to even pretend it stands for those ideas.

Posted by Lee McCracken at 02:55 PM | Comments (433) | TrackBack

To control thought...

To control thought, control language.

Philosopher Martin Heidegger wrote, "It is language that tells us about the nature of a thing, provided that we respect language's own nature."

In a recent article in The Writer's Chronicle, Natasha Saje writes: "Language represents ideology, a web of assumptions about how the world is...."

Oh yeah.

According to an article by Glenn Garvin of Knight Ridder Newspapers, the current most popular purveyor of language, and by extension, idealogy, is Bill O'Reilly, averaging 3.1 million television viewers and about the same number of radio listeners (without adjusting for those who have the stamina to do both).

O'Reilly has apparently convinced upwards of three million people that his showtime really is a "no spin zone," as he spins his populist viewpoint, calling it "news analysis." Picking a hot-button story and spinning a viewpoint, not to mention calling for action by the masses, passes as analysis according to O'Reilly. And the masses believe it.

Analysis must also include calling those with whom one disagrees "pinheads," "morons," and "viscious son of a bitch." No spin here. Nuh-uh.

Analysis apparently includes degrading the economy of a foreign country, as O'Reilly claims to have done. During my sampling of talk radio shows, I heard him chortling earlier this week as he linked the 20 percent decline in French wine sales in the U.S. to his own mass appeal to boycot France and its products.

He either can have a massive impact on the economy of nations or he has a massively impacted ego. You decide.

Posted by at 11:12 AM | Comments (277) | TrackBack

Evil Male Bashing.

Hello Brothers, I have declined to mention that I have been writing pieces on the New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd called "The Maureen Dowd Two Minute Rant." The reason I never blogged it before was that I often, due to the need for clash, defend ideological positions of which many of you may not agree. However, yesterday she produced a truly malevolent piece on men and a massive response had to be undertaken. I believe that many of you might enjoy this piece (although I grant you might not like future ones).

Posted by Bernard Chapin at 10:41 AM | Comments (304) | TrackBack

July 09, 2003

A Raise, Courtesy of Uncle Sam

From a reader:

The message below is from my company's accounting person. I can't decide which is more off-putting: the fact that she thinks getting more of the money we all earn---which is taken before we get our greedy paws on it---is somehow a "raise," or that I'm the only person in the company who sees anything wrong with this announcement.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 10:33 AM
Subject: Tax Table Update

To All,

Most of you probably noticed a change in the amount of federal income tax withheld from your last paycheck. The change is due to an update we made to the tax tables to reflect President Bush’s new tax bill. Consider it a raise…courtesy of Uncle Sam. :-)

Posted by Rob at 07:26 PM | Comments (304) | TrackBack

Technology & its effects

I've been enjoying Craig Russell's STR columns, in which he often discusses modern technology and the world it has built. Russell has an unusual perspective: he invites the reader to, in essence, question if the modern world is worth it. He suggests that State power derives, perhaps necessarily, from various aspects of our technology. Today's (Wednesday's) column, John D. Rockefeller and the Magnificent Bribe, asserts that "[we fail] to see the dangers and consequences of our eager, unquestioning acceptance of the technology that, in return for material comforts, gives the State such control and authority over us."

As one who sees technology very differently, I find Russell's views stimulating; they shake things up. I am not sure to what extent I agree with his thesis -- I believe technology may be a liberating force more than a controlling one, and that other factors (miseducation and widespread emotional damage, for examples) are more the problem in maintaining coercive State power -- but his thoughtful approach is fresh, well-presented, and contains, at the very least, many nuggets of truth.

I recently read Adventure Capitalist by Jim Rogers, and it reminded me of Russell's viewpoint frequently. Rogers describes a three-year trip around the world -- most of which has far less access to technology than we in America are used to.

The author is clear-minded enough about politics and economics to make it an enjoyable read on that level also, but it's the description of Rogers' on-the-ground encounters with people and situations, in places I'll never visit -- ranging from Siberia to South Korea -- that made it a standout for me. I was frequently surprised by Rogers assessment of a particular country; often, his views (and the experiences those views are based upon) differ radically from what one hears in the media (and isn't THAT a shock?). Highly recommended.

And the effects of technology? I'm still thinking about that. Centuries of repression by low-tech governments (which continues, of course -- Rogers encountered plenty of it in a variety of guises) argues against Russell's thesis, as do the many decentralizing, individual-empowering effects of high-tech. But governments' Orwellian use of modern technology, along with factors I'd never have thought about without reading Russell's columns, argue that on net, tech is anti-freedom. I don't have an answer on the topic, but tech isn't going away, in any case, and we'd do well to think about its effects at the level Russell suggests.

Posted by Glen Allport at 06:27 AM | Comments (226) | TrackBack

July 08, 2003

From STR's correspondent in Iraq

"The news services have not carried this story, but you might find it interesting. In Kirkuk, there are two hotels that house KBR (Kellog Brown & Root) personnel. One is the Palace hotel, the other is the Dar Al-Salaam.
Yesterday the Dar Al Salaam, also the location of KBR operations in Kirkuk,
was hit by rocket-propelled grenades."

Posted by Rob at 09:15 PM | Comments (452) | TrackBack

Standing Up and Fighting

Willie Nelson has endorsed Dennis Kucinich for president: "I am endorsing Dennis Kucinich for President because he stands up for heartland Americans who are too often overlooked and unheard. He has done that his whole political career. Big corporations are well-represented in Washington, but Dennis Kucinich is a rare Congressman of conscience and bravery who fights for the unrepresented, much like the late Senator Paul Wellstone. Dennis champions individual privacy, safe food laws and family farmers. A Kucinich Administration will put the interests of America's family farmers, consumers and environment above the greed of industrial agribusiness. I normally do not get too heavily involved in politics, but this is more about getting involved with America than with politics."

Standing up for? Fights for? Champions? Put the interests of X above those of Y? What do these words mean? What Willie is saying is that he likes Kucinich because Kucinich will commit armed robbery against groups of people that Willie doesn't like and give most of the money to groups of people that Willie does like, and he will require groups of people that Willie doesn't like to behave in ways that Willie wants, under penalty of death. But Willie is not intellectually honest enough to come right out and say exactly what it is that he wants Kucinich to do for him. Kucinich doesn't loot, plunder and murder, he "champions."

Posted by Rob at 12:44 PM | Comments (453) | TrackBack

July 05, 2003

Government Information Awareness

Now this is worth a party.

“Annoyed by the prospect of a massive new federal surveillance system, two researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are celebrating the Fourth of July with a new Internet service that will let citizens create dossiers on government officials.

The system will start by offering standard background information on politicians, but then go one bold step further, by asking Internet users to submit their own intelligence reports on government officials -- reports that will be published with no effort to verify their accuracy.”

Check out the GIA (rhymes with TIA) website. (Warning--the link has been shaky this morning. Give it some time and it might pop up.)

Politicians just HATE it when they are treated like the rest of us. I look forward to seeing where this project goes.

Posted by at 12:43 PM | Comments (555) | TrackBack

July 03, 2003

Fly The Colors On The 4th

No, not the red, white and blue. I am talking about the black and white of Strike The Root. My STR t-shirt will be my uniform tomorrow. What better way to celebrate Thoreau's move to Walden than to put the King of All Root Strikers face on your chest? If you are an owner of an STR shirt, wear it on Friday!!!!!

Posted by Duke Heberlein at 01:30 PM | Comments (1398) | TrackBack

Hope Springs Eternal

One small glimmer of hope lies in the fact that FedGov is getting just too big and is beginning to collapse under it's own weight.

Look at the consistent failures of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to enforce its own rules or to even process its own paperwork. The U. S. Postal Service contracts work out to UPS. The Eternal Revenue Service wants to hire private bill collectors to collect back taxes. The FBI doesn't know whether it's shot, f---ed, powder burnt, or snake bit. The huge, new Homeland Security Department was born broken. The more it tries to do, the less effectively it does anything.

Every quarterly Government Accounting Office summary report that I got for the last ten years that I worked detailed case after case of FedGov's inability to perform the functions it was supposed to, not to mention the functions it wanted to.

For the past 30 years that I have been following such news, FedGov has been in increasing disarray. While collapse may not be imminent, the holes in the roof are getting leakier, the cracks in the walls are getting larger, and the foundations are beginning to crumble.

There is Hope.

Posted by at 11:02 AM | Comments (361) | TrackBack

July 02, 2003

Government Do Not Call Registry

Someone just sent me the URL for the federal government's new Do Not Call Registry. I'm sure that millions of people will reflexively sign up for this without thinking about what they are doing. When you sign up, you provide personal information, including your e-mail address, to the federal government. So congratulations, you are on another government list. I predict that this list will be added to the TIA database and will be available to "law enforcement" any time they want to search it, with or without a warrant. What makes people think that this government program will be any more successful than other government programs? I'm sure this won't stop calls from political campaigns before an election. If you want to stop telemarketers, get something like Privacy Director, a service that BellSouth offers to its customers. It works great, and my personal information is not on some government list.

Posted by Rob at 03:28 PM | Comments (367) | TrackBack

Private Marriage and the Deconstruction of the State

In the wake of the Supreme Court sodomy decision liberal columnist Michael Kinsley comes out today for the privatization of marriage:

"It's going to get ugly. And then it's going to get boring. So, we have two options here. We can add gay marriage to the short list of controversies—abortion, affirmative action, the death penalty—that are so frozen and ritualistic that debates about them are more like Kabuki performances than intellectual exercises. Or we can think outside the box. There is a solution that ought to satisfy both camps and may not be a bad idea even apart from the gay-marriage controversy.

"That solution is to end the institution of marriage. Or rather (he hastens to clarify, Dear) the solution is to end the institution of government-sanctioned marriage. Or, framed to appeal to conservatives: End the government monopoly on marriage. Wait, I've got it: Privatize marriage. These slogans all mean the same thing. Let churches and other religious institutions continue to offer marriage ceremonies. Let department stores and casinos get into the act if they want. Let each organization decide for itself what kinds of couples it wants to offer marriage to. Let couples celebrate their union in any way they choose and consider themselves married whenever they want. Let others be free to consider them not married, under rules these others may prefer. And, yes, if three people want to get married, or one person wants to marry herself, and someone else wants to conduct a ceremony and declare them married, let 'em. If you and your government aren't implicated, what do you care?"

I've long thought that the increasing moral and cultural pluralism of America strengthens the libertarian case for scaling back and decentralizing political authority. As our sacred melting pot becomes more and more of a mosaic (gorgeous or otherwise) we can slug it out over who gets to use the Federal Gummint to impose their values on whom, or we can let a thousand flowers bloom in a world of voluntary polycentric law. Privatization and peaceful separation seem eminently preferable to a giant Federal Leviathan imposing a one-size-fits-all set of cultural and social values.

Posted by Lee McCracken at 02:59 PM | Comments (416) | TrackBack

Bush Agitates for Attacks Against US Troops

""There are some who feel like that conditions are such that they can attack us there," Bush told reporters at the White House. "My answer is bring them on. "

I wonder if Dubya consulted the troops who will be getting wounded and killed before initiating such trash talk? This is the type of language we expect from an immature, cocky, teen bully. I am amazed at this so-called leader's callous disregard for the welfare of his troops. Would it have not been better to encourage the enemy not to attack US troops for various reasons including the safety of both sides? Even if US troops would have been attacked either way, it cannot but make them wonder if their commander-in-chief has just wrecklessly placed them in increased danger.

I never thought I would see the day when I considered the President to truly be a war criminal. Yes, the term is over-used and this leads one to not take the charges too seriously. Today, I have come to the conclusion that given the lies used to initiate this aggression and the continued disrespect for civilians, prisoners, and soldiers manifested by Dubya's actions, I would consider George W Bush and certain members of his administration to be bona-fide war criminals by any objective standard.

The only reason that Dubya is not on trial as a war criminal is because he controls the military might to prevent this. I want to go on record right now as saying that if that situation were to change, and Dubya ended up on trial for war crimes, I would fully support that action and any punishment that may result.

Posted by David Wiggins at 02:24 PM | Comments (416) | TrackBack

Terrorism in Iraq

Lately we have heard Donald Rumsfeld talk repeatedly about terrorism in Iraq.

"Attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq are more like terrorist attacks being carried out by criminals, foreign terrorists and officials from the ousted government of Saddam Hussein, he said. "

This latest usage of the term "terrorist" reduces the meaning of the expression to nothing more than "enemy" (as defined by the Bush administration) and turns the traditional idea of terrorism on it's head.

The definition of the term terrorist has always been vague, but in the past the term did imply a few basic assumptions.

Terrorists are generally considered to be foreign as noted here by the US State Department, but according to Rumsfeld, the terrorists in Iraq are the local population and the US "freedom fighters" are foreigners.

Terrorism has been universally regarded as an act against civilians. In Iraq, the US military is killing civilians by the thousands while the "terrorists" are killing soldiers almost exclusively.

Terrorists are generally considered to be politically motivated. Paul Bremer is the US administrator in Iraq. "Mr Bremer reaffirmed that the administration would by mid-July announce a political council of 25-30 people "representative of the broad strata of Iraqi society", which would exercise "political responsibility . . . [including] responsibility for appointing ministers and making recommendations on how they spend money". The Iraqi resistance shares only one clear objective which is not political, but military, namely to expel US forces from the country.

Who are the terrorists in Iraq? Are they the foreigners who kill civilians for political reasons or the citizens who use force against occupying soldiers in an attempt to get them to leave?

George W Bush claims he intends to rid the world of terrorists and states that sponsor terrorism. Judging by the effects of his policies on the lives of American soldiers and the economic and political underpinnings of the United States of America, perhaps he is doing just that.

Posted by David Wiggins at 01:32 AM | Comments (269) | TrackBack

July 01, 2003

Bush Lied: It's Official?

According to this report from The Nation, the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committe has concluded, after a preliminary review of the available information, that President Bush "misled" the country into war.

Posted by Lee McCracken at 06:16 PM | Comments (266) | TrackBack

Lesser of Two Evils Redux

Last week I suggested that the concept of the "lesser of two evils" in a contest between George Bush (the devil we know) and whoever ends up being the Democrats' nominee (the devil we don't know) might be inapplicable, since any of the Democrats likely to win could very well be just as bad, if not worse, than Bush.

Today at LewRockwell.com Clinton Greene argues that a welfarist Dem might very well be preferable to the warfarist Bush:

"So here are the choices. A President who will restore civil liberties, A President who will pull back the State's police powers to pre 9-11 conditions. A President who will commit US troops only with long, honest and public deliberations. And once committed a President who might even see the job through and will generously support any veterans who come home with permanent wounds. A President hostile to the tendency of every state to become a police-state. But a President who also will support Federal environmental initiatives. A President who may even have ambitions for socialized medicine and strengthened Social Security, and a willingness to raise taxes.

"We are back to the classic choice of evils. A President who strengthens the police-state and pursues war or even empire without any humility. A President who sees destruction as creative, whether through war or unsustainable deficits. Or a President who strengthens the welfare state while dismantling the police- and war-state. And who happens to be a Democrat."

Even if Greene is right and a welfare-state-expanding Democrat would be preferable under the circumstances, is this really the choice we face?

That is, what Democrat is actually going to reverse the policies inagurated by Bush? Have any of the candidates campaigned on the idea of repealing the PATRIOT act? On bringing the troops home? Signs of a willingness to undo some of the damage would be welcome, but I have yet to see anything too promising. Rarely does anyone object to expanded government power when he's going to be the one wielding it.

Posted by Lee McCracken at 02:24 PM | Comments (586) | TrackBack

US Admits Underreported Iraq Casualty Figures

This from the New York Times:

"Since President Bush declared an end to major combat operations two months ago, at least 728 members of coalition forces in Iraq have been wounded, Sergeant Compton said. At least 154 of them have died in hostile actions and 75 have died in non-hostile actions, he said."

The military PR apparatus also appears to be denying today's casualties or using the old delayed reporting method to take the sting out.

We have seen Comical Ali, now we are beginning to see Donald Duck as in ducking the tough questions

Posted by David Wiggins at 02:15 PM | Comments (234) | TrackBack