« January 2004 | Main | March 2004 »
February 29, 2004
But I'm ENTITLED, dammit!
Need more proof that this country is being run by politically opportunistic socialists? http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/26/business/26FED.html
Greenspan says what has to be said (though not nearly forcefully enough) and he instantly becomes a political pariah. Duh.
Posted by Patrick Yancey at 09:53 PM | Comments (165) | TrackBack
Get Ready to Ask the White House (And Be Ignored)!
As promised, here's an "Ask the White House" alert! Either I didn't frighten them enough last time, or they figure I've given up looking for more opportunities to sock it to them since they've not had any sessions for a couple of weeks.
Coming up this week, the following officials will be available to answer your questions (although the chances that they'll answer any Root Striker's questions are about 2 trillion-to-1):
Monday: John P. Walters, Director of Office of National Drug Control Policy
Thursday: Gale A. Norton, Secretary of the Interior
Friday: Jim Connaugton, Director of Council of Environmental Quality
Question submission for Monday's session is already open. Here are the questions I submitted:
As you know, the Constitution had to be amended in order to give the federal government the authority to prohibit the manufacture, sale, purchase, possession, and consumption of alcoholic beverages (and then amended again to revoke this authority). Where, then, does the federal government obtain its authority to ban other psychoactive substances in the absence of a constitutional amendment?
The United States once attempted to ban alcohol and found that the cost in additional crime was not worth the benefits to be derived from lower alcohol consumption; thus, Prohibition was repealed. Given that drug prohibition has resulted in similarly vast increases in crime, along with the militarization of our police forces and our military's futile attempts to stop production of paying crops in foreign countries, might it not be time to repeal drug prohibition, in whole or in part?
The administration has made much of the fact that purchases of illegal drugs are a prime funding source for terrorists. However, as any basic economics course demonstrates, it is precisely the prohibition of certain drugs that has caused them to be such lucrative products. Therefore, if the administration wishes to reduce the amount of money terrorists can derive from selling drugs in the United States, wouldn't decriminalization of drugs, thereby greatly reducing their profitability, be a good first step?
So go ahead, Root Strikers! Hit 'em with your best RoundUp!
Posted by Mike Tennant at 07:15 PM | Comments (222)
An Alternative Viewpoint
Since, apparently, there is no room on STR’s front page for positive reviews of Mel Gibson’s "The Passion," check out these two commentaries from the eloquent Joe Sobran:
“Gibson and His Psyche” answers the director’s critics. “The Words and Deeds of Christ,” though a few years old, helps counter the reasonable skepticism of Roderick Long.
Thanks to John deLaubenfels and LewRockwell.com, respectively, for bringing these works to my attention.
Posted by Roger Young at 12:02 PM | Comments (365) | TrackBack
February 28, 2004
No Free Trade for Joe or José
Free trade would benefit the vast majority of people by raising their standard of living. But government officials, owned and operated by special interests, see to it that we get "fair trade" or a "level playing field" instead. A key element of the mercantilism Adam Smith urged countries to abolish, protectionism is one of the many ways government makes us worse off.
What happens when free trade is adopted? As Carlos A. Ball writes, Pinochet's much vilified socialist government in Chile has lowered tariffs and repealed import quotas, giving their countrymen the highest standard of living in Latin America. If "capitalism" imposes trade restrictions, is it any wonder "the Third World prefers socialism?"
Posted by George F. Smith at 09:56 AM | Comments (212) | TrackBack
February 26, 2004
Ahh, the convenience of it all...
The county has been kind enough to send me a bill with a detachable coupon, just like the phone bill, just in case I want to pay my $233.00 fine for passing over double yellow lines (which I didn't), passing within 100' of an intersection (wha?), and not having my license (truer than they know). Well, they will be getting exactly zip.
Isn't it wonderful, though, that they give me the opportunity to not clutter up their busy docket this way? The depradations of the State are so painless, I am astounded that so many resent their enforcement of stupid laws about victimless crimes. Whom did I injure by my acts? Exactly no one. I am going to transfer the vehicle in question out of my name, ignore the citation (I had thought of fighting it out, as I said in my last post, but this is too much; screw the State), and say license be damned. I will keep my (perfectly legal) photo ID from another state, just so I can buy booze with no hassle, and otherwise divorce myself from the whole enchilada.
At least if they jail me, the hunger strike will help get rid of this pesky spare tire!
Posted by Patrick Yancey at 12:38 PM | Comments (0)
The Rich are the Real Welfare Queens
John Stossel confesses his addiction to the dole.
Posted by Lee McCracken at 10:53 AM | Comments (178) | TrackBack
Ask, and You Shall Receive (Nothing)
I discovered the "Ask the White House" page (linked on the STR home page today) on February 11. That day I asked two questions of Jim Wilkinson, Deputy National Security Advisor for Communications, on the subject of the missing WMDs, the president's continued insistence on their existence, and the president's constitutional authority to start a war. The next day I asked Margaret Spellings, Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, about the federal government's constitutional authority to intervene in the education system and about the fact that new federal regulations are contrary to the president's professed conservatism. Needless to say, they didn't deign to answer any of my questions.
Since the Waltrip session on February 13, there haven't been any more "Ask the White House" sessions. I don't mean to brag, but it is certainly a coincidence that two days after I started hitting them with real questions (not the softballs they chose to take) they stopped doing these "chats." Makes you wonder, anyway.
I'm keeping my eyes open for more opportunities to "Ask the White House." I'll try to let y'all know when (if?) more are coming. (Right now the site just says "we look forward to hosting more Ask the White House online discussions soon.") Perhaps if a bunch of us start asking them tough questions they'll feel obliged to respond to a few of them. Or perhaps the FBI will come knocking on our doors (if they even bother to knock).
Posted by Mike Tennant at 09:24 AM | Comments (91)
February 25, 2004
Clinton's Fibs on Iraq
It didn't begin with Bush. Good article from the Mother Jones website.
Posted by Lee McCracken at 10:38 AM | Comments (123) | TrackBack
More on Marriage
Obviously, in an ideal libertarian world, government would have nothing to do with marriage whatsoever, and the validity of any marriage would certainly not be contingent on government recognition.
That being said, it seems to me that the status quo is actually superior to anything we’re likely to get as a result of the current brouhaha. I’ve long thought that, absent privatization, good libertarian policy is to respect federalism and subsidiarity by decentralizing and devolving power to the most local unit feasible.
As things stand currently, each state decides its own marriage policy, with the proviso that other states are not obliged to recognize things like same-sex unions (this was what the so-called Defense of Marriage Act established; it essentially provided an exception to the Constitution’s “Full Faith and Credit” clause). This compromise leaves individual states free to experiment with different arrangements, such as Vermont’s civil unions.
To anyone who doesn’t insist on foisting a one-size-fits-all policy on the entire country, this system should be more or less acceptable. But the most vocal activists on both sides don’t seem content to let sleeping dogs lie.
(By the way, a lot of conservatives, and the general public at large, seem ok with the idea of “civil unions” but not “gay marriage.” But what, pray tell, is the substantive difference between these two things? What else is legal marriage but a civil union? Conservatives need to recall the distinction between civil marriage and religious marriage. Or is the State supposed to be in the business of enforcing the sacraments of the Church now?)
Posted by Lee McCracken at 09:19 AM | Comments (362) | TrackBack
The Central Tenet of Permanent War
According to the London Telegraph, "America's assault on al-Qa'eda has scattered its terrorist expertise across the globe, meaning that the United States will be menaced by Islamic extremism 'for the foreseeable future', the CIA director, George Tenet, said yesterday."
The article continues: "He offered the Senate intelligence committee a bleak vision of a war on terrorism without end, in which even the destruction of al-Qa'eda would not make America safe."
Well, who woulda thunk it? Really? The war on terror is never going to end? We can never be completely free from the threat of terrorism?
But . . . but . . . but I thought the takeover of Iraq and the capture of Saddam had made us safer! I thought we were more secure now than we had ever been! What happened?
What this really means, of course, is that all those "temporary" measures (such as the PATRIOT Act, indefinite detentions of "suspected terrorists," and expanded federal surveillance) by which we were supposed to give up a little freedom in order to obtain security will now become permanent. In addition, since it's wartime, the neocons will continue to be able to assault those who criticize the president as traitors who are undermining the war effort. (One wonders, however, how their attitudes would change should John Kerry assume office next January. Perhaps criticism of the president would suddenly come back in vogue.)
Remember: War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 09:11 AM | Comments (217)
February 24, 2004
Making Amends With Spouses
The impulse to try to preserve traditional marriage as it has been known for centuries is completely understandable, whether or not one agrees with the methods being employed to do so. Also, trying to amend the Constitution to define it demonstrates a modicum of understanding that the Constitution as written doesn't give the federal government the power to define marriage for the whole country and that, therefore, an amendment is necessary. (Would that these same folks would realize that it also doesn't give the feds the authority to prosecute the War on Drugs, for example.)
However, this raises an important question: If, as the president noted, there are already laws on the books at both the federal level and the state level to accomplish this, and these laws are already being routinely ignored by judges and local officials, what makes anyone think that a constitutional amendment will be obeyed? Won't the same people who ignore existing laws also ignore an amendment or at least find some loopholes in there to accomplish what they want anyway?
As to Bush's sincerity in stumping for an amendment, well, that's hard to tell. He's waffled and wavered on the idea for a long time. Regardless of his sincerity, it will help to rally his base to support him in an election year even though he has betrayed them in practically every other imaginable way.
(On a personal note, I think it's a pretty sad state of affairs and shows how far our culture has descended that the definition of marriage is even in question.)
Posted by Mike Tennant at 01:40 PM | Comments (100)
Farah and (Getting) Warmer
WorldNetDaily may have been one of the biggest warmongering sites on the Web, but its editor, Joseph Farah, has been moving significantly in the direction of libertarianism in recent months. Today he does a great job with a column on "The Immorality of Taxes."
"Let's face it," says Farah. "Taxation is a form of legalized theft. Legalizing stealing doesn't make it any more moral. It just makes it legal."
He rips into the GOP pretty well, too.
Now if only he'd bring his foreign policy in line with his increasingly libertarian domestic policy ...
Posted by Mike Tennant at 09:49 AM | Comments (151)
February 23, 2004
Supreme Secrecy
What a surprise! The government's court rules (by refusing to hear the appeal) that the government can detain people indefinitely and with complete secrecy.
Who would have expected the feds to stick together like this? Aren't the branches of government great "checks and balances" for each other?
Posted by Mike Tennant at 04:37 PM | Comments (220)
Gandhi on War
Courtesy of Antiwar.com, here's a great quote from Mahatma Gandhi, the master of nonviolence:
"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?"
Posted by Mike Tennant at 11:12 AM | Comments (196)
It's P.C., Junior
Ah, the wonderful world of political correctness!
1. A college student caught skulking about in blackface would rather admit to a burglary than suffer the depredations of the campus P.C. police.
2. A garage owner in England is ordered to take down topless pin-ups before he can take on an apprentice from a nearby college, even though his apprentice isn't offended by them and could find the same things on page three of the Sun every day.
George Orwell may be the greatest prophet of the modern era.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 11:07 AM | Comments (211)
More on Ralph
I certainly don’t support many of the positions Ralph Nader espouses. But it seems to me he is the only person who stands a chance of injecting an alternative viewpoint into the public debate this fall. If nothing else, Nader opposes our current bipartisan interventionist foreign policy, the crackdown on civil liberties, the war on drugs, and the corporate-welfare policies so zealously pursued by the Bush administration. I can get behind all those things.
Plus, anything that the New York Times and the yuppie-liberal Salon.com hate can’t be all bad.
Posted by Lee McCracken at 10:45 AM | Comments (146) | TrackBack
Schwarzenegger Argues for Foreign-Born Presidents
"Look at the kind of contribution that people like Henry Kissinger have made, Madeleine Albright," he said, referring to two former secretaries of state who were born in Europe.
Yes, look at their "contributions."
Posted by Rob at 12:47 AM | Comments (129) | TrackBack
February 22, 2004
The Lost American Spirit
Do we help those trying to escape from tyranny? Not since we've played welfare state at home. The latest column from Paul Jacobs.
Posted by George F. Smith at 09:49 PM | Comments (170) | TrackBack
February 20, 2004
Rendering Far Too Much Unto Caesar
I have nothing of substance to add to the “gay marriage” debate that hasn’t been said better by others (here, here and here, for example). I just have to note how ridiculous it seems to me to be arguing about whether the State should “recognize” certain relationships or not. And I say this as someone with a robust view of the divinely instituted nature of marriage. To say that my marriage is somehow contingent upon the State’s “recognition” seems the height of folly to me. It gives far too much credit and grants far too much power to the State.
Posted by Lee McCracken at 04:57 PM | Comments (211) | TrackBack
Duped by the INC
Ahmed Chalabi, the leader of the Iraqi National Congress (and go-to Iraqi for neocon saber rattlers) has shrugged off any concerns about feeding faulty intelligence to U.S. officials, according to this story in the Washington Times:
Ahmed Chalabi and his London-based exile group, the Iraqi National Congress, for years provided a conduit for Iraqi defectors who were debriefed by U.S. intelligence agents.
But many American officials now blame Mr. Chalabi for providing what turned out to be false or wildly exaggerated intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
During an interview, Mr. Chalabi, by far the most effective anti-Saddam lobbyist in Washington, shrugged off charges that he had deliberately misled U.S. intelligence.
"We are heroes in error," he said in Baghdad on Wednesday. "As far as we're concerned, we've been entirely successful."
"Our objective has been achieved. That tyrant Saddam is gone, and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important."
In a sense, you really can’t blame the guy. If your country was being run by a horrible mass-murdering dictator like Saddam, you might pursue any means you thought necessary to get rid of him.
It makes perfect sense, though, to blame our so-called leaders who fell for this stuff.
Posted by Lee McCracken at 03:37 PM | Comments (155) | TrackBack
Kantian Konundrums
Conservative philosopher Roger Scruton argues that Immanuel Kant would have approved of the Iraq war. Or, to be more precise, that the war could be morally justified on Kantian principles.
He may be right for all I know, but that still leaves a bunch of unanswered questions:
a. Is it really the job of the U.S. government to engage in random acts of do-goodery, even if a bigshot philosopher would’ve approved?
b. As it is becoming increasingly clear that Iraq posed no serious threat to U.S. security, hasn’t the administration been derelict in its duty by diverting all those resources away from the hunt for al-Qaeda?
c. Is there any evidence that the administration pressed for war because of Kantian-style moral concerns?
By the way, Gene Callahan has an excellent article at LewRockwell.com today about whether a commitment to liberty requires supporting so-called wars of liberation.
Posted by Lee McCracken at 12:26 PM | Comments (87) | TrackBack
What?! You Don't Want to Be Mugged?
Oops! The City of Pittsburgh increased its parking tax from 31 percent (bad enough already) to 50 percent, the highest in the country, and now business at the downtown parking garages has fallen by 10 to 20 percent.
Typical of central planners the world over, the thugs in charge of the city government never even considered that people might change their behavior as a result of the tax hike. They just assumed that a 61 percent increase in the tax would result in a 61 percent increase in revenue. No doubt they will blame the greedy taxpayers for the loss of revenue, too.
The city's practically bankrupt as it is because of high taxes; but instead of reducing taxes to attract business, the city just hikes the taxes more, expecting to bleed the few hardy businesses that have stuck it out this far. Trouble is, the suburbs--and lower taxes--are just a hop, skip, and jump away; and as the parking garage example demonstrates, human beings don't just sit idly by and let themselves be plundered. Of course, when the next wave of businesses high-tails it out of Dodge, the city will just raise taxes again in yet another futile attempt to recover the lost revenue.
"Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it." -- George Santayana
Posted by Mike Tennant at 11:44 AM | Comments (205)
Debating Liberty and Government
STR readers might be interested in this debate between U of Chicago economist Richard Epstein, constitutional law expert Randy Barnett, anarcho-capitalist David Friedman (son of Milton), and columnist James Pinkerton featured over at Reason's website. The debate focuses on when, if ever, government coercion is justified.
Posted by Lee McCracken at 11:44 AM | Comments (124) | TrackBack
Conservatives for Nader?
Ralph Nader responds to an "open letter" in the left-liberal Nation magazine urging him not to run for president as an independent (Nader has apparently ruled out running as a Green again). Nader blasts the Nation for buying into the two-party "duopoly" as one would expect, but what I found interesting is this passage where Nader explicitly says he will reach out to conservatives disaffected by Bush's corporatist big-government shenanigans:
"The Nation's open letter does not go far enough in predicting where my votes would come from, beyond correctly inferring that there would be few liberal Democratic supporters. The out-of-power party always returns to the fold, while the in-power party sees its edges looking for alternatives. Much more than New Hampshire in 2000, where I received more Republican than Democratic votes, any candidacy would be directed toward Independents, Greens, third-party supporters, true progressives, and conservative and liberal Republicans, who are becoming furious with George W. Bush's policies, such as massive deficits, publicized corporate crimes, subsidies and pornography, civil liberties encroachments, sovereignty-suppressing trade agreements and outsourcing. "
Obviously there's much to criticize, from a small-government conservative or libertarian point of view, in Nader's platform. Yet, I'm intrigued by the prospects of uniting those--whatever political label they go by--who oppose the limitless expansion of the welfare/warfare state.
If nothing else, a Nader candidacy could make things more interesting than they would otherwise be.
Posted by Lee McCracken at 11:40 AM | Comments (223) | TrackBack
February 19, 2004
US Far Safer Now
The FBI's honcho, Mueller, says the US is far safer now since 9-11 because Bush has eliminated the al-Qaida sanctuary in Afghanistan and arrested at least two-thirds of their leaders worldwide.
Meanwhile, another intelligence official named Hutchings claims Al-Qaida has deployed operatives to hijack planes and fly them into tall buildings, and also wants to derail trains, possibly carrying hazardous material.
Apparently, the FBI doesn't count blowback in assessing our safety.
Posted by George F. Smith at 07:30 PM | Comments (195) | TrackBack
To Liberate or Not to Liberate?
Let me get this straight:
On the one hand, even if Iraq was no threat (which it clearly wasn't), the U.S. was justified in overthrowing its evil dictator who oppressed and killed many of his people.
On the other hand, even though Haiti is no threat but is much closer to the U.S. than Iraq, our government is trying to find a peaceful way of getting communist and (by extension) oppressor and murderer Jean-Bertrand Aristide to leave the presidency of Haiti. Colin Powell says that the U.S. is "opposed to any solution that violates democratic or constitutional norms" and that the U.S. plan "does not contemplate Aristide's stepping down before his term ends in 2006."
So one dictator who was propped up by the U.S. government for years has to be eliminated immediately in order to liberate his people, regardless of the cost in blood and treasure, while another dictator who was blatantly installed by the U.S. government can remain in office until the end of his term, thus keeping his people un-liberated, so that a solution that does not violate "democratic or constitutional norms" can be applied. Mind you, I'm not arguing for intervention in Haiti by any means; I'm just pointing out the contradictions.
(There's a real gut-buster in the CNN piece to which I linked above. "Even the Rev. Jesse Jackson, a driving force on Aristide's behalf in 1994, focused his appeals to the Bush administration on preserving democracy itself in Haiti, just as it has sought to do in Afghanistan and Iraq." First of all, there's really no democracy per se in Haiti; and second of all there was no democracy to "preserve" in Afghanistan and Iraq, and neither is our government interested in introducing such a system in those countries, as evidenced by Bremer's statement this week that the Iraqis will not be allowed to choose to live under Islamic law.)
If anyone thinks the U.S. can come up with a good solution to this and can pick a winner who will govern Haiti well, he needs to read this article by Thomas Fleming of Chronicles. Fleming shows how U.S. intervention in Haiti has routinely screwed up life on that section of Hispaniola (although he suggests that the current situation is one case in which U.S. intervention might be a good idea, which in turn suggests that he hasn't learned much from his own writing).
All dictators are equal, but some dictators are more equal than others.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 01:35 PM | Comments (194)
February 18, 2004
End of Evil, Neocon Style
In reviewing Frum and Perle's End of Evil: How to Win the War on Terror, James Bovard writes:
This book is impossible to understand without recognizing the neoconservative concept of government. The key to ending evil, from Frum’s and Perle’s perspective, is to greatly increase the power of the federal government both at home and abroad. Government becomes the ultimate force for the good — and distrust of government is the ultimate proof of a lack of sophistication.
To any student of history, the path to ending evil leads to ending government.
Posted by George F. Smith at 01:05 PM | Comments (206) | TrackBack
Hollow Hope for a Dead Document
A bill has been introduced in both houses of the U.S. Congress titled, “The Constitution Restoration Act Of 2004.” It’s quoted aim is to, “limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.” Chuck Baldwin considers the legislation to be the most important in the last fifty years.
The question that immediately arises is- if the U.S. Federal Government refuses to obey the restraints placed on it by the Constitution (which it has been doing for decades) why would it suddenly obey an edict demanding it comply with the limits on power contained in this abused document? The rule of law, as pertains to the U.S. Federal Government, has been non-existent for some time. This organization will do whatever it pleases, whenever, it pleases with no consequences suffered by the guilty.
I’m afraid this is another example of fine people being led by the nose to nowhere. This proposed legislation does nothing but temporarily quiet dissent among the ranks, giving them false hope that SOMETHING is being done to turn the tide of tyranny. Unfortunately, more disappointment looms on the horizon when more people finally come to the realization that The State exists to promote its own agenda, not the agenda of free, sovereign individuals.
Posted by Roger Young at 12:26 PM | Comments (246) | TrackBack
February 16, 2004
Coercive government killed Jesus
The debate about who killed Jesus has been renewed by Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of Christ".
Yet we all know the answer: Government soliders wielded the whips and hammered in the nails. A government bureaucrat passed sentence.
Coercive government was, at the very least, the TOOL with which Jesus was murdered. The same Roman government crucified thousands, perhaps millions, who merely dissented or opposed the Empire. It murdered thousand or millions of others whose crimes were far too minor to make any death penalty -- even a "humane" death penalty such as lethal injection -- a reasonable and just punishment.
What is shocking to people about Gibson's film is the savagery of Jesus' torture and murder. But in the twentieth century, almost 200 million innocents were murdered (and often tortured first) by governments around the world. [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/welcome.html] Many were treated every bit as cruelly as was Christ.
That is in addition to the many millions who died in government wars, of course.
GOVERNMENT murdered Jesus, and the murder of innocents by government has never stopped. Let's quit pretending otherwise.
Posted by Glen Allport at 02:34 AM | Comments (224) | TrackBack
February 15, 2004
Bush/Cheney re-election slogans
Bush/Cheney '04: Four More Wars!
Bush/Cheney '04: Because the truth just isn't good enough.
Bush/Cheney '04: Compassionate Colonialism
Bush/Cheney '04: Get used to it!
Bush/Cheney '04: Lies and videotape but no sex!
Bush/Cheney '04: Or else.
Bush/Cheney '04: Over a billion Whoppers served.
Bush/Cheney '04: We put the "con" in conservatism.
Bush/Cheney '04: Thanks for not paying attention.
Bush/Cheney '04: The last vote you'll ever have to cast.
Bush/Cheney '04: This time, elect us!
Posted by Rob at 10:56 AM | Comments (213) | TrackBack
February 12, 2004
"Almost" Counts in Horseshoes, Hand Grenades, and Headlines
It's easy to see where our "free" press's sympathies lie with this AP story. If you actually read the story, you'll find out that while no Americans were hurt in this attack, "two people [Iraqis] were killed when the Americans sprayed the area with automatic fire."
The headline? U.S. Commander Escapes Attack Uninjured. (Better yet, take the headline of the link to this story that I found on CNSNews.com: U.S. Commander Almost Injured in Iraqi Attack. At least CNSNews don't make any pretense of being unbiased, though.)
Near misses on Americans warrant headlines, while actual Iraqi deaths in the same attack get buried in the middle of the story. Our de facto state-run media knows on which side its bread is buttered.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 03:19 PM | Comments (214)
Another blow struck for public safety...
Well, the State has once again shown that it is vigorous and unsleeping in its pursuit of those who would threaten American freedom and menace the stupor of the populace. That's right: I got a speeding ticket today. Not just a speed ing ticket, but also a ticket for passing on the wrong side of a broken yellow line, and for passing within 100 feet of an intersection! Good heavens, what mischief I could have caused! Oh, and I didn't have my license on me, either. Needless to say, I didn't mention that it was under suspension in two other states because I refused to obey their coercive and unnecessary liability insurance laws. If I hadn't had my grandmother with me (who, by the way, really came through with a sudden attack of chest pains; way to go, Granny!), I would likely be down at the county hotel rather than tapping out these lines. I plan to fight this one out, and I will pass along any good methods of beating this thing that I happen to think of, though only if they work, of course.
Posted by Patrick Yancey at 02:40 PM | Comments (4)
February 11, 2004
Taking Medicare Into Their Own Hands
"An elderly man" in Gainesville, Florida, "told police he robbed a bank to pay his wife's medical bills." He robbed the bank just half an hour before his wife's doctor's appointment. The couple is being charged with "armed bank robbery."
Now I ask you: Why are these people being charged with a crime? After all, every day in America millions of senior citizens hold up the rest of us to pay for their medical bills under the euphemism of Medicare. The "conservative" GOP has even expanded that program so that seniors can now hold us up for their prescription drugs, too, and everyone is cheering about that.
I say we give these folks medals and make them high-ranking officials in the federal government. They've proven they have the right--er, left--stuff for the job!
Posted by Mike Tennant at 10:38 AM | Comments (176)
February 10, 2004
Skull & Bones
From Progressive Review: "There are approximately 800 Skull & Bones members alive today, of whom approximately 600 are old enough to be president of the United States. There are approximately 146 million Americans old enough to be president of the United States. What are the chances that two members of Skull & Bones would be running against each other to be president of the United States?"
The answer I came up with was 0.00000000002.
Posted by Rob at 11:52 PM | Comments (121) | TrackBack
We Are Winning
From my friend Lawrence Reed, president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy:
As Senior Advisor--International Freedom Corps for the Atlas Economic
Research Foundation in Fairfax, Virginia, I will be visiting existing free
market think tanks in Korea and China this month. They are actually far
along, very active and prolific. They've arranged several speaking
engagements for me to provide a libertarian perspective and to assist in the
further development of their organizations. After Korea and China, I go to
Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam. Though there is not yet a free
market think tank there, political developments are now quite favorable
toward the creation of one and I am in touch with two prominent libertarians
in Hanoi who are poised to get one going. One of them cites Mises and Hayek
in his e-mails to me. I'm thrilled to be in on the ground floor of some
truly historic developments in these countries that ought to bring joy to
the hearts of freedom-lovers everywhere.
Posted by Rob at 06:46 PM | Comments (229) | TrackBack
No Evidence? No Problem!
The whole "Did Bush go AWOL during his National Guard years?" controversy really doesn't excite me too much. At this point I think it's fairly irrelevant and wouldn't even be an issue if John Kerry weren't trying to portray himself as a great war hero taking on the chickenhawk president. Kerry, after all, voted for the unconstitutional war resolution and thus can't exactly claim purity on that issue, so he has to find some other route to tear down Bush (who richly deserves it, but for far more significant things than Guard service, or lack thereof, from thirty years ago).
In any event, in his Meet the Press interview on Sunday, Bush did have some interesting remarks on the subject.
Russert: The Boston Globe and the Associated Press have gone through some of the records and said there’s no evidence that you reported to duty in Alabama during the summer and fall of 1972.
Bush: Yeah, they’re — they're just wrong. There may be no evidence, but I did report; otherwise, I wouldn't have been honorably discharged. In other words, you don't just say "I did something" without there being verification.
Did y'all follow that? It sounds just like his story on the nonexistent Iraqi WMDs. Sure, there's no evidence of them, but they exist. Similarly, there's no evidence that I reported for duty for a year, but I did.
At least he's consistent.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 03:31 PM | Comments (219)
February 09, 2004
The State's Killer Priorities
One of my coworkers today pointed out the sick irony of the following situation:
A consultant with whom we are both acquainted is currently serving his third year of a 12-year sentence for failing to pay income taxes (in part because the judge in his case threatened to remove a juror who would have voted Not Guilty). He is, of course, no threat to anyone; and while I wouldn't advocate punishing him for tax evasion, surely there are better ways of handling the punishment (payroll deduction of back taxes, since he worked for a consulting company, would work) than throwing him in jail for 12 years.
Meanwhile, Joseph P. Smith, who has a rap sheet a mile long, was running around freely, giving him the opportunity to abduct and kill an 11-year-old girl.
Why was this guy on the loose, while the guy who just wanted to keep what he'd earned was locked up?
The State knows where its priorities lie.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 10:04 PM | Comments (202)
February 06, 2004
An Olympian Bill for Taxpayers
Among the many wonderful uses of taxpayers' money in the "rebuilding" of Iraq, we are now subsidizing the Iraqi Olympic wrestling team (which may or may not even be allowed to participate in the games) to fly to Colorado Springs for training. Yes, there are still Iraqis without electricity or running water, but for the glory of our new colony we must make sure that their wrestlers are ready for the Olympics!
Paul Bremer says that the wrestlers were "invited by the American people" to train here. Funny, but I don't recall sending out any invitations.
(Thanks to Antiwar.com for the link.)
Posted by Mike Tennant at 11:30 AM | Comments (205)
February 05, 2004
Bush Gets a Message From Above
Let's see now . . .
Bush is at the National Prayer Breakfast, almost certainly being fawned over by the Falwells and Robertsons, precisely because of his war on Iraq (since even they are surely a little disturbed by his liberal domestic agenda, despite Falwell's recent description of Bush as the "ideal conservative"). As he's describing the U. S. military's great accomplishments of rebuilding schools and repairing hospitals (which they destroyed in the first place), a sound "like a burst of machine-gun fire" interrupts him.
Do you suppose someone is trying to tell him something about his Iraq policy?
Posted by Mike Tennant at 04:46 PM | Comments (235)
February 04, 2004
Dumping the Problem into Others' Laps
Yes, folks, poor military discipline is the fault of neither the enlisted men nor their leaders. It's the fault of nightclubs and lap dancers! (I guess they're taking a cue from their recent commanders-in-chief. Nothing is the fault of the president, either; it's all brought on by the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy or "faulty intelligence" from the CIA.)
Thus, the Imperial Forces are now demanding that "the South Korean Special Tourist Association and local mayors . . . 'prohibit any physical contact between dancers and (U.S.) customers.'" Considering that the clubs "are not allowed to take local clients," what do you suppose are the odds that they'll comply with this order?
Is there any situation in any country in which our government will not meddle? Apparently not.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 02:03 PM | Comments (138)
February 03, 2004
An Amazon in Politics? No, I'm Not Talking About Hillary
Have money to burn in hopes of robbing your neighbor? In other words, do you want to contribute to a presidential candidate? Just go to Amazon.com, where you can read about the candidates' positions and then select the one to whom you wish to contribute.
Here are some of the main points of Candidate A's platform:
1. Win the war against terrorism without losing our values and our allies.
2. Work with the private sector to create 10 million new jobs.
3. Provide access to affordable health insurance to every American.
4. Revitalize education by providing preschool for all four-year-olds and giving K-12 educators the resources they need to teach.
5. Preserve our environment for future generations.
6. Safeguard Social Security and Medicare for when the baby boomers retire.
7. Eliminate the need for foreign oil within 20 years.
And here are some of the main points of Candidate B's platform:
1. Implement a national security strategy to fight terrorism and meet the challenges of our time.
2. Continue to grow the economy and create jobs.
3. Make health care more affordable for all Americans.
4. Ensure that every child in America receives a quality education.
5. Preserve the beauty and quality of our environment.
6. Strengthen retirement security for all Americans.
7. Enact a comprehensive national energy policy.
Now, tell me which candidate is the Democrat and which is the Republican. Better yet, tell me why it will make a difference which of these guys wins.
(By the way, Candidate B is George W. Bush and Candidate A is a combination of Joe Lieberman and Wesley Clark.)
Posted by Mike Tennant at 04:14 PM | Comments (263)
February 02, 2004
Prisoner of the Post Office
The other day I put the following items in my mailbox: a large package (containing one of the new STR T-shirts), 3 DVDs and a letter. Together, they filled the mailbox. When I went to get my mail that afternoon, I discovered that the mailman had shoved my outgoing mail into the back of my mailbox in order to make room for my incoming mail. This was the third or fourth time that this has happened in recent months. I complained a couple of times before by calling the post office, but nothing seemed to happen as a result. So this time, I left a note in my mailbox the next day asking my mailman how it was possible to not see the outgoing mail when she had to physically shove it into the back of the box to make room for the new mail? She replied, "Sorry, I was off yesterday. I'll tell my sub. I have the same problem at my house. I guess good help is hard to find."
What's really frustrating about this is that I can't fire the Post Office and hire another company to deliver my letters. It has a legal monopoly for that service, so they have no competitors and thus no incentive to provide good service and keep costs down. I recently heard that it appears that Congress is going to have to bail out the Post Office to the tune of billions of dollars even though it has a monopoly!
Why can't people be free to contract with whoever they want to deliver their mail? Why is it necessary to use force in this area?
Posted by Rob at 06:34 PM | Comments (238) | TrackBack