Another Citizen Against Fascism

A step backwards for gun rights in Massachusetts

2010-03-16T11:42:00.004-05:00

I don't think the ruling in Massachusetts will stand, especially given the implications of Heller. Now, granted, in Heller, the Supreme Court did not say that the 2nd Amendment directly translates to the States, but it did say that individuals have the right to bear arms (which is, of course, what the amendment states). Many citizens may think that the Bill of Rights automatically applies to the States as well through the Incorporation Doctrine (the due process clause of the 14th Amendment), but the 2nd Amendment hasn't made it through yet. Gun control activists are praising the ruling:

"We have seen in Bristol County, and I believe this is true throughout Massachusetts, that 95 percent of the gun violence is committed by those who have no lawful right to possess or carry a firearm," Bristol County District Attorney C. Samuel Sutter said.
"That is a powerfully compelling argument for the need for licensing requirements for the possession of firearms."
New Bedford Police Chief Ronald E. Teachman said he was "relieved" with the court's rulings.
"If the SJC had not ruled this way, where would we be? That anyone can have a gun, regardless of criminal background or mental health?" Teachman said.

Yes, Chief Teachman. That's where you'd be: in a State where anyone can obtain a firearm and protect himself and his property. There aren't any restrictions on the 2nd Amendment; it doesn't discriminate. Now, I understand that most of firearm "crimes" are committed by people who don't have a right to possess those firearms, either because they didn't fill out the correct forms or because they don't have the right "background." It's the same argument as drug "crimes." Most people in prison for drug crimes are there for possession, possession with intent, etc. If those offenses were no longer offenses, then people wouldn't be convicted. So, if there were fewer gun restrictions, more people would lawfully possess firearms. I'm sure gun control proponents would be upset by this. But I don't understand why they think that outlawing guns will somehow make crime decrease. All it does is inflate the black market. Has the "War on Drugs" done anything to limit the sale and consumption of illegal drugs? No? It's increased it?

Hat Tip: Free Talk Live

"It is really historic. It's transformation. It's momentous."

2009-07-17T14:49:00.010-05:00

The health care bill that will usher in Obama's own special brand of reform is gaining momentum in both houses of Congress.

At a press conference earlier today, Speaker Pelosi gushed about all the goods things that are to come with this legislation, which has been approved by both the Ways and Means and Education and Labor committees.

The Senate is already working on similar legislation, which has gotten out of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee by a narrow margin.

Obama claims that the bill will change everyone's lives for the better, giving us all access to better and cheaper medical care, but at what cost? The legislation is supposed to cost $1 trillion to enact. Where would we get that money? From taxes. Now, for the people who follow Obama religiously and agree with the statement, "because everyone deserves some of what you've worked hard for," raising taxes for the higher income earners is not a problem. But of course that's not the end of the story.

Even HuffPo has problems with ObamaCare.

"We need to evaluate the message more than the messenger. The Republicans are
currently the 'bad guys.' They may oppose the President's Plan largely on partisan grounds. Nonetheless, when they say this Plan will not work, that statement (regardless whose mouth it comes out of) is true. Whether it is CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf or Rush Limbaugh saying that ObamaCare will fail, both are right."

There is a lesson here. Don't bite off more than you can chew. Listen to the people. Leave the people alone. Don't trip acid. Pick one- they're all applicable here.

another monstrosity brought to us by the douchebag from California

2009-07-16T10:30:00.005-05:00

As if HR 2454 wasn't bad enough, Rep. Waxman is trying to socialize America's markets even further with the help of some buddies- this time the health care system. Obama hasn't made it a secret that health care reform is at the top of his list of prospective changes. In his health care section of "Issues," it says,

"President Obama is committed to working with Congress to pass comprehensive health reform in his first year in order to control rising health care costs, guarantee choice of doctor, and assure high-quality, affordable health care for all Americans."

Now, that's a nice sentiment, isn't it? It sounds nice- Obama wants to make sure that all Americans have affordable coverage, and access to competent doctors of their choosing. There's a small rub, though. Outside of the ambiguous "promote the general welfare" in the Preamble, the US Constitution says nothing about requiring the government to provide health care to its citizens. And so, like the many bills and resolutions before it, the current health care reform bill (not yet a resolution in the House) has no grounding in the Constitution.

The unnamed health care bill is getting lots of play around the blogosphere at places like TLP and United Liberty and organizations like Reason and Cato Institute. The good news about the bill is... well... the good news must be that Congress knows that something must be done about health care. And that's about it. They are horribly misguided as to how to fix it; and of course, are suffering under the misapprehension that they should be fixing it. The bad news is that this "reform" has potential to make cap and trade look like a respite from government intrusion.

Even though Obama has been touting his "public option"-speak and claiming that citizens' private insurance coverage won't change (it'll just get better!), the truth is that the bill provides a limit. After the law is passed and becomes effective, it is no longer legal for a citizen to enroll in new private insurance. That means that the citizen, in order to have coverage, must enroll in the insurance provided by the government.

Now, for those who cannot afford health care now, and for those who don't mind having decisions made for them, this plan isn't so bad. For those who don't want a lot of freedom, and are more comfortable with the government stepping in and taking care of things, this legislation will make the way smooth.

But do we want everything the same? Do we really want to give up our choices? Those who think that this country is not walking down the road to socialism are deluding themselves, and this bill is the perfect example of that. It's a dangerous bill. I hope Americans wake up and realize the ramifications before something stupid happens, like the bill is passed.

Today we declare our independence!

2009-07-03T20:54:00.001-05:00

Despite the cheesiness of the movie, Bill Pullman's speech in Independence Day (1996) gets to me.

Independence Day memories

2009-07-03T20:44:00.003-05:00

Two hundred and thirty-three years ago, fifty-six men signed a document that would change the course of history and echo far into the future. On this Independence Day, I think it's worth putting that document here, as a reminder to all those who have forgotten what it meant to rebel, to start anew, and to stand up for what is right.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Thomas Jefferson has been quoted as saying that a revolution is needed every twenty years. How long has it been since the people were revved up enough to care about something (excepting the caring about the current particular brand of "change"). Will American citizens ever rise up again and take back their country?

God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which iswrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the factsthey misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are notwarned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit ofresistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right asto the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lostin a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed fromtime to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.It is its natural manure.

-Thomas Jefferson-

Five votes

2009-06-26T18:20:00.002-05:00

We lost by 5 votes.

HR2454 passed today at 6:18 pm CST by 219-212.

Fuck Congress.

Vote NO on HR2454!

2009-06-26T10:47:00.005-05:00

My friends, family, and fellow citizens,

The United States Congress is voting on HR2454 today, and we must all do our civic duty and urge them to vote NO.

HR2454, or the Waxman-Markey Bill, is a piece of socialist horror that will not only raise gas prices and the unemployment rate, but the majority of the taxes collected under it will go to special interest groups, and not the government.

According to The Heritage Foundation,

"Analysis of the economic impact of Waxman-Markey projects that by 2035 the bill will:
-Reduce aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) by $7.4 trillion,

-Destroy 844,000 jobs on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 1,900,000 jobs,

-Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation,

-Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 74 percent,

-Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent,

-Raise an average family's annual energy bill by $1,500, and

-Increase inflation-adjusted federal debt by 29 percent, or $33,400 additional federal debt per person, again after adjusting for inflation. "

I don't think it needs to be said that this bill must be defeated. Here is a link to contact your Congressman. Call him, fax him, email him, do whatever it takes to convince him that he (or she) needs to vote NO on HR 2454.

Thanks from the bottom of my libertarian heart,
Kat

Is the nitpicking worth the effort?

2009-05-28T16:08:00.002-05:00

The fight continues. The right wing says Sotomayor doesn't understand the role of a judge; the left says that neither does Scalia. The right wing claims she's a reverse racist; the left claims so is Alito. Ok. Whatever.

I think we're going to have to accept that Sotomayor will be seated. Unless a background check turns up literal skeletons, there's not much about her that's objectionable. She's pretty lukewarm. The thing that concerns me most is that, while she seems to be competent at her job as a judge, both trial and appellate, she is by no means outstanding. She hasn't written anything groundbreaking, hasn't put forth an opinion that changed anything significantly. She hasn't written anything that would give us a clear picture of how she would decide future rulings.

What types of decisions will come to the Court in the future (or, rather, will they bring upon themselves, with their writs of certiorari)? Will she overturn Roe? Unlikely, but who knows?. What about Heller? I hope not. If Olson and Boies's suit gets to the Court, how would she decide? I don't know. I don't know how fruitful it is to speculate on any opinion she would give once she got there. Souter was nominated by Bush I, but he's consistently written more left opinions than right. Similarly, Blackmun, nominated by Nixon, was expected to be a strong conservative, but drifted more and more to the left during his tenure; he wrote the majority opinion for Roe. Her record thus far seems to be full of straight, quiet opinions, nothing brash, nothing that stands out. Who knows what'll happened when she's seated on the bench?

I must have been sick that day in law school

2009-05-27T11:36:00.004-05:00

You know, the day the professor gave that aside where he said, 'look, disregard everything I'm teaching you about the rule of law, the role of the legislature, and the Constitution. The judicial branch is the most important one- it's where the policy is made.' That's probably why I felt like everyone else knew something I didn't. Huh.

Judge Sotomayor at Duke Law School in 2005:

There's a lot of talk going around about prospective Justice Sonia Sotomayor and speculation about how she'll act if she gets approved. One comment I've seen made consistently is not concerning her views, but about the blantant manner she expresses them.

From Brad at TLP:

From our newly-named nominee to the Supreme
Court:

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

Three problems with this:
1) Who is to say that the experiences I have, as a white male, aren’t rich?
2) Why do the proper adjudication of questions on law change based on the “richness of experience” of the judge?
3) What is a “better conclusion”? According to whom?

About the only way that such a statement makes sense is if you assume that the role of a judge is more “nuanced” than simply to apply the law dispassionately and predictably, but rather to enforce “social justice”. I am, of course, not surprised by such a conclusion from one of this administration’s nominees. But I’m a little surprised that it’s stated this blatantly.

I am not sure yet what this says for the future of our judiciary. Considering the way the rest of the government is turning, it's getting pretty scary to contemplate.

But is it a good catch?

2009-05-24T20:14:00.002-05:00

As a treat for the holiday weekend, MSNBC is having a marathon of "To Catch a Predator." "To Catch a Predator" is a show that lures men into a sting operation with the help of Perverted Justice, by letting the men think that they are meeting an underage person (so far only females) for sex.

Perverted Justice workers create usernames and profiles for underage girls and attempt to catch men who are trolling for sex. These people are very good at what they do. They tout themselves as the "largest and best anti-predator organization online." They have a good track record.

Dateline sets up a house rigged with cameras and Chris Hansen lurking behind curtains, with a barely overage decoy to welcome the men into the house. When the men leave the house they are pounced on by the local LEOs. Some of them cop to it, some of them claim they don't know what's going on. But by virtue of their being there, they all get busted. And, unfortunately for them, most of them are too stupid to shut up. Only a couple get a lawyer, and only a couple invoke their 5th amendment rights.

I am no stranger to child molesters and pedophiles. I've been studying pedophilia for about 4 years. I've read psychological studies and books and criminological studies and books. Despite all of my scholastic efforts, I still have not decided for myself whether I believe pedophilia to be a mental disorder or not- maybe it's another orientation, like homosexuality? I don't know. I may ride this fence forever.

Regardless of my feelings about pedophilia, though, I'm not sure I agree with the premise of "To Catch a Predator," or with organizations like Perverted Justice, or similar units within municipal agencies. It seems like the profiles that are set up are purposefully enticing, so that men who may be struggling with temptation would go over the edge with a little encouragement. I'm not saying that men preying on vulnerable young girls online is ok, or that it's not heinous. Of course, it's heinous. But in these situations, the situations on the show, these men aren't preying on vulnerable girls. They're talking to adults who are posing as kids. Where's the victim? Where's the crime? Does intent matter? Isn't it entrapment?

I understand the desire to "clean up the internet," and I'm not naive enough to say that the only thing that needs to be done is that parents need to watch their kids better. Something needs to happen, yes. But I don't think that entrapment is the answer. If it is entrapment. If pedophilia's actually not an orientation.

What's the rule of law got to do with it?

2009-05-23T16:12:00.005-05:00

More speculation abounds concerning Obama's prospective pick to replace Justice Souter when he retires next month. I've heard names like Elena Kagan, Ruben Castillo, and even (*gasp*) Janet Napolitano. It's really sort of pointless to wonder about who specifically it will be, since there are so many from whom he could choose.

So what is he saying about the type of person he is looking for?

He told C-SPAN recently,

"I think in any given pick, my job is to just find somebody who I think is going to make a difference on the courts and look after the interest of the American people. And so, I don't feel weighed down by having to choose a Supreme Court justice based on demographics. I certainly think that ultimately we want a Supreme Court that is reflective of the incredible variety of the American people."

Well, that's nice that he doesn't feel compelled to choose a person solely based on a physical characteristic. While in the end, he may favor affirmative action anyway, he's so far claiming that it won't be his primary motivation.

He also said,

"What I want is not just ivory tower learning. I want somebody who has the intellectual fire power, but also a little bit of a common touch and has a practical sense of how the world works. Those criteria of common sense, practicality, a sense of what ordinary Americans are going through every day -- putting that in the mix, when the judges are looking at cases before them, it's very important."

Ok... Now the Constitution doesn't say much about the requirements to be Supreme Court Justice. In fact, it doesn't anything, other than they "shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." So, while there's no official specifications, there's a rather large precedent of Justices who are well-educated, knowledgeable about the legal system. And, well, they're usually hired to follow the Constitution. It's alarming to see that in all of his speeches about choosing someone of the people, judicial restraint is not among the first things out of his mouth.

How does that bode for us, with Obama choosing for us a "citizen's citizen" to sit on the bench? Conservatives are terrified that he'll nominate a liberal who will do all kinds of dastardly things, like reaffirming Roe v. Wade and legalizing same-sex marriage. Liberals wonder if he'll seat a moderate who will swing with Kennedy and overrule Roe v. Wade (because those issues are the most important for our country). Me? I'm afraid that he'll appoint someone who embodies what he means when he says "different times call for different justices."

Let me play devil's advocate: He's gay.

2009-05-19T16:25:00.003-05:00

I was admittedly less than thrilled at my choice of candidates last November. I ended up going with Bob Barr (and am now disappointed after discovering he introduced the DOMA). But there were some things that Obama was saying that I was excited about. Of course, I naively thought that he might actually follow through on his promises. Oh me of too much faith.

Despite Obama's claim to reverse the ridiculous "don't ask, don't tell" policy instigated by the Clinton administration, he's pushing it off.

From his candidate website:

Barack Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. Obama will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.

Add to that "more than 50" Lt. Dan Choi, who has been discharged for being gay. In a time where more and more people are ok with or just don't care that people in the military are gay, even openly gay, why do we still have this policy?

John Oliver has the answer.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

M - Th 11p / 10c

Dan Choi Is Gay

thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Economic Crisis

Political Humor

TSA: The natural enemy of the 4th Amendment

2009-05-19T10:48:00.004-05:00

I don't really remember how airport security was before 9/11. I know we had to go through metal detectors. I know that our carry-on bags were x-rayed. But beyond that, I don't remember much more intrusion than the annoyance of long lines. And then 9/11 happened. And in the wake of the confusion and horror, the TSA rose as the unequivocal authority on airline safety. Originally under the Department of Transportation, the TSA was sucked into the black hole of the Department of Homeland Security shortly after the DHS's creation.

I think that the TSA is a perfect example of what would happen if government standardization trumped the free market. Prior to 9/11, aiport passenger screening was handled by private companies who were contracted by the owner of the terminal (airline or other private entity). Certainly there were bound to be screw-ups and misfires; we're only human after all. Once the government took over the show, the level of competence and the standard of "care" fell rapidly.

A few examples of mismanagement and general asshat-ery by the TSA: 1) spending $500 for cheese displays during an awards banquet in 2004, 2) selling the banned items left by passengers at airport checkpoints, 3) requiring a woman to remove her nipple piercings with pliers behind a flimsy curtain, and 4) playing an April Fools joke on an asthmatic passenger.

I think it's generally accepted that the TSA is a waste of tax-payers' money, has no reason existing, and should be demolished immediately. Well, at least I think so. The latest news in airport security is the potential implementation of full body scanners. These machines will allow highly trained and certified TSA screeners to see intimate details of passengers. Think Superman's x-ray vision. The machines are strong enough to see everyone's bits and pieces. At $170K they're very affordable.

The only fly in the ointment appears to be some opposition in the name of that pesky thing, privacy. Why are these scanners necessary? In an age where we know everything that terrorists are doing thanks our friendly neighborhood waterboarders, why are we still giving airline passengers the third degree?

Whatever happened to transparency in government?

2009-05-13T12:22:00.004-05:00

The long-awaited photos depicting detainee abuse from 2001-2006 during the course of the Iraq War may not be released at the end of the month. Obama wants his lawyers to object to their release.

"Last week, the president met with his legal team and told them that he did not feel comfortable with the release of the [Defense Department] photos because he believes their release would endanger our troops, and because he believes that the national security implications of such a release have not been fully presented to the court. At the end of that meeting, the president directed his counsel to object to the immediate release of the photos on those grounds. ... [Obama] strongly believes that the release of these photos, particularly at this time, would only serve the purpose of inflaming the theaters of war, jeopardizing U.S. forces, and making our job more difficult in places like Iraq and Afghanistan."

Wait a minute- Obama thinks that pictures taken of potential prisoner abuse in the course of a war we shouldn't be involved in would be inflammatory? Really? That's some good thinking.

For a president who campaigned that he would change the cloak and dagger moves of the previous administration, he's doing a pretty good job of, well, not doing that.

Don't worry, Carrie- you're not alone

2009-05-13T11:04:00.003-05:00

Carrie Prejean's impassioned speech at her recent press conference with Donald Trump brought up a disconcerting issue into the spotlight: Americans don't understand their Constitution. Prejean claimed to have exercised her freedom of speech, and when she did that, she was punished. Keith Olbermann had some commentary on that last night:

Though it is enjoyable to poke a little fun at Prejean for the preposterous situation she's in that continues to blow up, she is not alone in her misconceptions about what rights are guaranteed by our Constitution.

Back in 2006, the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum published a study about how well Americans know the Constitution. The results were not promising. Almost 20% believed that owning a pet was constitutionally protected, and 38% thought that the right against self-incrimination was guaranteed by the First Amendment.

A recent survey by Rasmussen Reports showed that only 75% of those asked thought that the Constitution protected a right to own a gun; 14% said that gun ownership was not protected, and 11% were not sure. Another survey by Rasmussen Reports showed that when asked about how the Constitution "in terms of how it impacts life in our country today," 63% thought it was good to excellent; 21% thought fair, and 12% thought poor.

So the lesson of today is that even when people think that the Constitution is doing ok for them, they really don't know what that means. And how can we expect people to be outraged by the injustices inherent in the system when they don't understand the system?

ED ads: Begone!

2009-05-07T10:41:00.006-05:00

Once upon a time, parents were involved in their children's lives, and monitored what they watched on tv or listened to on the radio. Parents decided for themselves what was objectionable content for their own children, and limited their children's exposure to such content.

But now, in an age where the government raises our children, parents don't need to worry about objectionable content. Last month, Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) introduced H.R. 2175 to Congress and it now sits in the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Moran's inspiration for H.R. 2175, or the "Families for ED Advertising Decency Act," is his concern over his grandkids seeing commercials for ED medications like Viagra and Levitra. So, he wants to be able to limit ED ads to only airtime between 10pm and 6am.

I'm not that big of a fan of watching old guys smile and crook their fingers at their female partners who are apparently ecstatic that their men have taken a pill that makes them available for sexual activity for 36 hours at time. (Though I do admit to always being amused at the 4-hour erection disclaimers. Would you really wait 4 hours?) But when I see something on tv that I don't like, or that I don't want to see, I change the channel, or don't pay attention to it. I don't call the FCC.

Moran claims to have some perspective on his bill:

"While it’s not as important as the economy, or what’s happening militarily around the world, it is an intrusion into the quality of life that we like to experience."

I do agree that ED ads are not as important as a recession, or an unwinnable war we shouldn't be involved in. But the issue isn't really about ED ads. The Families for ED Advertising Decency Act" wants to have the FCC consider ED ads obscene and modify its existing code.

Within 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall revise the Commission's interpretations of, and enforcement policies concerning, section 73.3999 of the Commission's regulations (47 CFR 73.3999), relating to indecent material that no licensee of a radio or television broadcast station shall broadcast on any day between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., to treat as indecent for such purposes any advertisement for a medication for the treatment of erectile dysfunction or for male enhancement. This section shall not require treating as indecent any product placement or other display or mention merely of the trademarked name or generic name for such a medication.

At the heart of the issue is censorship- a group of people deciding what a larger group of people can see or hear. H.R. 2175 is going to take away citizens' rights to decide for themselves if ED ads are too obscene for viewing between 6am and 10pm. What's going to be next? Will birth control ads be restricted as well? What about STI medications? Where does it end?

Another victory for equal rights

2009-05-06T15:01:00.006-05:00

Maine has followed Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Connecticut in recognizing all citizens' rights to marry.

Earlier today, Maine's legislature approved a bill legalizing same-sex marriage, and less than an hour later, Governor Baldacci signed it.

"I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage."

New Hampshire is next in New England to vote on a bill for marriage equality today, though it no news yet. A similar bill has already been introduced in Rhode Island, but is not expected to pass this year. The DC city council has passed a preliminary measure to recognize same-sex unions performed in other states.

I am personally overjoyed at this news for a variety of reasons. But the biggest reason that it's so exciting is that finally citizens are starting to realize that equality really is for everyone. I continue to be confused by opponents of same-sex marriage who protest on the basis of religious rights.

First of all, making marriage an equal right for all does not lessen the "importance" of marriage for other people. Most of the same-sex marriage legislation does not give special dispensation for gay citizens; it just doesn't define marriage between a man and a woman. Straight married couples' rights do not disappear with the creation of equal rights for all.

Second of all, the government is not forcing churches to perform ceremonies for gay couples. There already are churches that perform committment ceremonies for couples who cannot be legally married. Nowhere in any legislation is there an attack on any church or religion.

Third of all, why do people keep contending that the government should "protect marriage?" Where in the Constitution is that obligation enumerated? It's not the government's job to protect the "sanctitity" of a religious ceremony or institution. That's sort of what the free exercise and establishment clauses in the First Amendment are about.

I have more snarky comments, like how straight couples should take a look at the divorce rate before talking about the sanctity of marriage. But the bottom line is really, same-sex legislation to me is a lot like hate crimes legislation. Do I think that the government should have any involvement? Absolutely not. But until all people really are treated equally, we need some reminders of TJ's words.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Why Arlen Specter matters

2009-05-02T15:57:00.006-05:00

Stephen Gordon did a wonderful job of summing up the reactions to Arlen Specter's defection to the Democratic Party this week. There's been a lot of talk about the Pennsylvanian Senator's change of heart, and rightfully so. He was a Republican for 43 years until April 28, when he declared that he would become a Democrat.

With most of the politicos and bloggers saying, "good riddance," one might wonder, "what's the big deal? So some old coot in Pennsylvania is switching teams- what difference does it make?"

Well, my friends, it makes a difference. It all has to do with cloture. And filibustering. And possibly other silly-sounding, but official words.

Since the average American doesn't understand much about his government, a brief explanation of Senate rules:

Occasionally, when a bill makes it onto the floor, and through committee, the Senate will vote on it. (See below.)

If a bill is particularly contentious, a Senator or group of Senators may feel the desire to stop its progress. The Constitution doesn't limit the Senate (or the House) to a specific amount of time when debating whether or not a bill should become law. (I think the idea was that the Senators and Congressmen would take their job seriously and not rush into passing laws that should never have been passed. Good idea.) Unfortunately, this means that to keep a bill from being passed, any Senator can filibuster. Filibustering is talking, sometimes about nothing, to prevent the group from voting on the prospective bill. In an effort to stop a certain piece of legislation from going through, a Senator can effectively talk about anything- what he ate that morning, the entire plotline of Lost, etc. That's good news for him, but bad news for everyone else, particularly those who are trying to pass the bill.

And then Senate Rule 22 was born: cloture. President Wilson thought it would be a good idea for there to be some limits on how long Senators could filibuster. With Rule 22 in place, a filibuster can be overruled by a supermajority of Senators. In a full chamber, that means 60.

And here we come to the crux of Specter's importance. There are currently 40 Republican Senators, and now, with Specter's defection, 59 Senators who vote Democrat. There is one contested seat in Minnesota. If Al Franken wins the seat against Norm Coleman, and it's looking as though things may go that way, then the Democrats will hold 60 seats, and maintain a supermajority over the Republicans.

What that means is that virtually any measures proposed by the Dems will go through, and the GOP will have no chance of stopping them. Ordinarily this would not be such a big problem, but with socialist measures such as the stimulus package getting passed, and Obama signing them all into law, things are looking bleaker and bleaker.

A look at Mellonomics

2009-04-30T14:30:00.004-05:00

In the wake of our recession, and the Tea Parties, and the continuing economic stimuli, supporters of Obama's policies ask, "what's your solution, then?" Fellow libertarians are undoubtedly quick to claim that we need to reduce spending, particularly deficit spending, but also to cut taxes, eradicated social security, privatize roadways and health insurance... the list goes on and on with lovely ideas that we have, but that no one else is buying.

But there once was a time when the Secretary of the Treasury followed his own rules, and proposed monumental tax cuts, and saw unemployment rates as low as 1.8%. That time was in the 20s. And that man was Andrew Mellon.

Mellon served in the Cabinet from 1921 to 1932, under three presidents. When the crash hit in 1929, and the Depression spread, his policies and ideals seemed significantly less unfavorable. Many who began to hate on Hoover thought that he shared Mellon's lassez-faire attitude (though he didn't). Mellon's proposals of liquidation rubbed the common masses the wrong way, and he was out of the Cabinet before Roosevelt took office.

The main thought behind Mellon's theories was quite simple- if the taxes are lowered, then people will object less to paying them, and they will pay them, instead of trying to find ways around them. With more people paying taxes, the revenue increases. Genius. His plan had some highlights:

Cut the top income tax rate from 73% to 24%.
Cut taxes on low incomes from 4% to 0.5%.
Reduce the Federal Estate tax.
Efficiency in government.

Some of these measures seem dramatic. The last one seems impossible. But under Mellon, the country saw economic growth. The national debt fell from $26 billion in 1921 to $16 billion in 1930. Mellon was an advocate of supply-side economics before it had a name, and was a forebear of Reagonomics (though without the increase of administrative spending).

In short, here is a model for us. Here is a potential answer. Tax cuts so the revenue can increase. Can we dig ourselves out of a projected $20 trillion debt? It may take some time. And responsibility. (Ok, a lot of responsibility.) But the very least we can do, I think, is to remember Andrew Mellon, perhaps with a bit of nostalgia.

A little dose of reality to penetrate the Obamalove

2009-04-30T10:46:00.002-05:00

Of course, we know that by now, he's already spent the money he saved, so...

h/t my friend Cindy, who helpfully posted this on facebook

RIP: Pontiac

2009-04-28T10:38:00.004-05:00

Dear General Motors,

I understand that your company is going down. I understand that in today's economy, you've got to make some cutbacks. When the government declined to give you any stimulus money, you thought it was time to start looking for a way to cut costs, reduce overhead. America today isn't what it once was. I get all this.

But why did you feel the need to kill Pontiac?

I love the Pontiac line, the GTO, the Grand Prix, even the Trans Am, and of course, my baby, the Grand Am.

(Likeness only; not my actual car.)

She's the first car I bought. It was an August day in 2005. I was on my way to a friend's wedding in southern Ohio. I'd briefly considered purchasing a car of my own. So I went to the friendly Pontiac dealership. The next day, I drove off with a beautiful 2005 iridescent slate Grand Am. I named her Clytemnestra, after my favorite Greek heroine. She's the first piece of property I actually own. And not that I'd want to get rid of her, but you discontinued the Grand Am in 2005, so I couldn't get an upgrade or new replacement, should anything happen to Clytemnestra. Now the whole brand is gone.

I'm so verklempt.

Well, GM, I hope that this helps your business. I really do.

Obama on swine flu: Don't call us, we'll call you

2009-04-27T13:02:00.006-05:00

In his speech at the National Academy of Sciences this morning, Obama talked about what the G is doing so far for the outbreak of swine flu that's killing people in Mexico. So far that includes telling people not to panic, telling people to wash their hands, and breaking into the "federal stockpile" of flu vaccines (the conspiracy theorist in me thinks, what else do they have in that stockpile?) to send to affected states.

And now, in the possibly inappropriate words of Michael from "10 Things I Hate About You," "the shit hath hitteth the fan."

The WHO has rated the outbreak at Phase 3, which is right at the end of "few human infections." The EU's Health Commissioner Androulla Vassiliou has warned Europeans against traveling to the US and Mexico, and the acting head of the CDC, Dr. Richard Besser says it's not as bad as all that. In a disconcerting turn of events, we're the ones that people are staying away from. While swine flu hasn't killed anyone in the States yet, possibly due to better standards of medical care, and possibly due to a lesser severity of the strain, there is a potential for it to get worse.

Of course, before we panic, let's remember that 63,000 died in 2005 of the flu- in America alone. And whatever happened with that avian flu "epidemic?" Only 257 people have died since it was discovered. The West Nile virus? Ok, that one's a little worse, at 1131 deaths, but that's the amount of deaths in the past 10 years. So it's good to put things into perspective before donning the haz-mat garb.

Another requisite consequence of this outbreak is the finger-pointing. The Dems are gleefully pointing out that Republicans lopped off millions of dollars from the stimulus package that would be allotted to "pandemic preparation." And while we're blaming the GOP for the downturn in the market due to investors' fear of a worldwide epidemic, let's blame them for that volcano eruption that happened after they cut out funding for "volcano monitoring." After all, that's what happens when you cut funding for something- it inevitably comes back to bite you. (That must be the entire reasoning behind Obama's stimulus package.)

On another note, I am a little curious as to why the DHS is getting so involved in the situation. While it's nice to see Janet Napolitano dealing with something actually inside US borders, shouldn't she be out violating someone's fourth amendment rights?

Update: I was meeting with a vendor today at work who plugged antibacterial spray with commenting about swine flu. Ha.

Now, what have we learned? Nothing, apparently.

2009-04-24T13:40:00.007-05:00

One of the most useful statements I remember right after 9/11 was said by my 11th grade government teacher. He said that we wouldn't know whether or not the terrorists had succeeded in their plot for years, until things had changed. I remember contemplating that, through the days of that September, and wondering what could possibly change. Of course, I was also 16, and more interested in things other than the state of the Union.

But considering today's lockdown of the White House and almost-evacuation of Capitol Hill, I got to thinking again. These extreme measures were put into effect because the GPS system inside a single-engine airplane went awry and caused the plane to accidentally veer into restricted airspace. Two F-16s and two Coast Guard helicopters intercepted and escorted the plane to an airport in Maryland.

Now, just to put things into perspective, that's two of these things:

And two of these things:

For one of these:

Yeah, that seems about right.

Apparently, this type of situation, where small planes accidentally find themselves in restricted airspace has happened before. Back in March, Rep. Vern Ehlers (MI-R)

"suggested that authorities determine evacuations based on the type of aircraft coming in. In other words, a jet will do a lot more damage than a Cessna, and should be treated more urgently."

Now, what a novel idea that is.

Back to the concept of the terrorists' effectiveness, I'd say they've done an outstanding job of promoting fear and terror. If a single-engine plane flying a little to the East can cause the lockdown of the White House and the evacuation of Capitol Hill, that sounds very effective to me.

Hate crime protection undermines equality

2009-04-23T09:06:00.004-05:00

In a landmark case, Allen Andrade has been convicted of first-degree murder for the bludgeoning death of Angie Zapata and sentenced to life without parole. The murder conviction wasn't too much of a surprise, because there was so much evidence against him, as well as the part where he confessed. The surprise was that it took the jury only two hours to reach a verdict, and to brand the killing as a hate crime. Andrade is the first in the States to be convicted and sentenced in a hate crime against a transgender person.

In 2005, Colorado added "transgender" status to its list of groups under the protection of "bias-motivated crimes," also known as hate crimes. Colorado is not alone in its thinking. While most, if not all, states who have hate crime statutes offer protection for gay and lesbian citizens, transgender citizens are usually not included. New Hampshire recently passed a discrimination law adding the language "gender identity" and "gender expression," and earlier this week, the New York Assembly passed the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act.

On the one hand, I see these changes as steps forward in our justice system. Groups of people who have been historically mistreated and harassed are now protected under the law. But the whole concept of hate crimes smacks of unconstitutionality to me. "Equal Protection" should be just that- equal. I don't agree that certain groups should have added protection simply because they're different. I realize this view is not shared by many in the GLBT community. But I can't help but feel that if gay people ever want to be equal, they've got to stop hiding behind the law. How can we claim that marriage should be equal and protected for all citizens, and at the same time claim that a person who is harmed because of his sexual orientation deserves different treatment? I don't know that a straight person killed because of his orientation would be afforded the same courtesy.

It's a sticky situation. I acknowledge that our society as a whole doesn't seem to be ready to accept the GLBT community as mainstream. I understand that there are citizens out there who feel the need to force their opinions upon those with whom they disagree. But I also think that if the GLBT community wants equality, they're going to have to give up the special protections.

He had a conscience, he just didn't feel compelled to use it

2009-04-22T11:33:00.010-05:00

On the Rachel Maddow show Tuesday night, Philip Zelikow discussed his lone memo of dissent among all the pro-torture memos that floated around in the Bush administration.

At the time he was counsel for Condoleezza Rice. When he saw the torture memos (courtesy of The Huffington Post), he was of the opinion that they represented a "distorted view of the law" (shocking), and felt compelled to do something about it. And what was his grand gesture? Another memo. Forget the fact that the operation was classified, so only a few people even knew of its existence, so that only a few people would see the memos in the first place. Zelikow was so bothered by the twisted representation of the law, that he wrote down his own version. I don't exactly picture Jerry Maguire's midnight mission statement that turns up in the mailboxes of his entire company. I picture a few sheets of paper on government letterhead, sent to a select group of people.

In all fairness, Zelikow says that the administration tried to squash his attempts to shine the light of truth into the murky Bush darkness. But when Rachel asked him if he would have done something more drastic, like resigning? No, he said. It wasn't like that, apparently. It was really just a cordial disagreement between some lawyers who interpreted the law (for which there was really no precedent) differently.

And then we have House Minority Leader John Boehner confirming that the "harsh interrogation tactics" (or insert other euphemism of choice) are really just torture techniques. Boehner disagrees with the decision to leak the documents. He thinks that those unfriendly to the US could take advantage of this information:

When it comes to what our interrogation techniques are going to be or should be, I'm not going to disclose, nor should anyone have a conversation about what those techniques ought to be. It's inappropriate. All it does is give our enemies more information about us than they need.

So... we should just not talk about the illegal things we're doing? Well, that mindset certainly works in other areas of our government, not just our defense agencies. At least we're keeping it consistent.

Our fearless leader helps us out. Sort of.

2009-04-21T22:44:00.006-05:00

In the midst of our non-recession, and even as he signs away more of our tax money to a social program, our president decides to throw us a bone. And what is that bone? He's cutting out $100 million from his budget.

Brad from The Liberty Papers illustrates for us:

Well, the Tea Partiers must have had an impact, because Barack Obama is about to go on a cost-cutting spree. With this ~~quick~~ 90-day window to identify $100B of cuts to make across his cabinet, he’s showing that he really does hear our pleas for fiscal sanity.

Oh, wait, did I read that wrong? Yep, it’s NOT $100B, it’s $100M. That’s not even enough to be a drop in a bucket!

Reason puts it in perspective:

Imagine that the head of a household with annual spending of $100,000 called everyone in the family together to deal with a $34,000 budget shortfall. How much would he or she announce that spending had to be cut? By $3 over the course of the year–approximately the cost of one latte at Starbucks. The other $33,997? We can put that on the family credit card and worry about it next year.

Expect petulant politicians, like spoiled children, when these “cuts” are identified, to scream and whine — “But we wanted our latte!”

How kind of Obama to help us out and cut some money... only to spend it again, and more, on a social program that would be better off having private funding.

Breaking News: Banks May Have Used Fraud to Get Government Handouts

2009-04-21T13:53:00.003-05:00

I'm sure that at the beginning, the Cabinet sounded like a good idea. I'm sure the colonists were keen on the idea of the President having some buddies around him to counsel him and take care of the little things like the military, the money, the people, etc. Our first President, George Washington, was aided by a cabinet of four- Jefferson, Hamilton, (Henry) Knox, and (Edmund) Randolph. It was a different animal back then. Things were a bit more awkward, far from the well-oiled machine that cranks away today. Inevitably, what began as a pretty good idea spiraled out of control and grew into the monstrous affair we now know- fifteen (many potentially superfluous) positions accountable to the citizens only through confirmation by the Senate.

Today, one member of our esteemed cabinet, Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner testified before the Congressional Oversight Panel (full video here via C-SPAN). According to panel member Damon Silvers, it is the first time a Treasury representative has testified before the panel. I suppose that's fair. Geithner's got a lot on his plate. So much, in fact, that it's perfectly understandable that he didn't have time to correctly file his tax returns. I'd like to say that our founding father, Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, would have disagreed with Geithner, or at least with the goings on of late. But alas, I don't know that that'd be the case, considering his Report on Public Credit.

Anyway, Geithner testified before the COP today, defending his policies that he's implemented to help save the economy. He attempted to explain his brilliant plan of a public-private partnership (using the Treasury, the Fed, and private investors) that could dig us out of the hole we're in. Or, at least spend $2 trillion in the process. Considering the current national debt is rapidly approaching $12 trillion dollars, that seems a bit extravagant.

Now, I don't profess to know that much about economics. Even as I decry the overbearing taxation levied against the citizens of this country, I realize that I have no supplemental plan to use instead. But I do believe in taking responsibility for my consequences. For some reason, it doesn't sound quite right to me that our federal government has taken upon itself to solve the economic woes of our country (and tacitly, the world), by handing out money to corporations, by subsidizing loans, by nationalizing banks. That seems counterproductive to me.

If only there was some type of measure by which our legislators were held accountable to the citizens and taxpayers, some way to make them answer for their actions. Oh, wait...

Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. – Ronald Reagan

another reason not to fly

2007-11-15T12:38:00.002-06:00

As the country is readying for Thanksgiving plans, the government is getting ready to deal with the swarms of holiday travelers passing through airports. And as usual, it looks like it’s going to be a sub-par job.

Back in July, a local news station discovered that for almost 5 hours, the security checkpoints at Sky Harbor airport in Phoenix, Arizona were unmanned, except for one minimum wage earner who was often caught sleeping. At the end of September, fellow libertarian Citizen X waited at the Indianapolis airport for five hours because the TSA neglected to clean up after itself following a training session and closed down the airport when “bomb-like materials” were found (which, of course, turned out to belong to the TSA). There are accusations flying around that the TSA has tipped off airport security screeners about covert testing, to warn them so that they pass the tests. It doesn’t seem to help, though, because the Government Accountability Office (GAO) says that 19 airports have failed to notice testers with bomb-making materials slipping through checkpoints.

I’m not a big fan of airplanes to begin with. Going to school in Chicago with my parents’ living in Cleveland has meant quarterly plane rides to visit. It is an hour, hour and fifteen minute flight at the most between the two cities, but it has not been uncommon to spend four to five hours on a single trip, which is almost the amount of time it takes for me to drive the distance. Further, any people who cross onto the property of Midway airport via car are subject to having their vehicle searched, just by being at the airport. It’s as though airports are a 4^th amendment-free zone. This is, of course, nothing surprising. There has been a steady decline into complacency. Travelers accept that they will be subjected to government intrusion, and feel that it is worth it, that they will be protected in case 9/11 happens to repeat itself. (I wonder how many fellow travelers share Mr. Tancredo’s sentiments.) Donald Kerr tells us that we need to forget about our old concepts of privacy, that “privacy can no longer mean anonymity.”

Back in 2001, my political science teacher told the class that we wouldn’t know whether or not the terrorists of 9/11 had succeeded for several years. It wouldn’t be until we lived in constant fear of it happening again, that we’d see their plan of terror had worked. I guess it’s worked.

[On ancient Athens]: In the end, more than freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all – security, comfort, and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again. – Edward Gibbon

commercial Christianity

2007-11-14T07:44:00.001-06:00

Every Christmas, Americans are inundated with propaganda from stores and outlets and people peddling services. Radio stations begin playing Christmas music all day starting November 1. Today, during a welcome lunch break from law school, my friends and I discussed the sudden onslaught of Christmas-themed commercials. Apparently, the real meaning, according to Hallmark and its ilk, is giving. Giving, I suppose and by default, its reciprocal, getting. Gone are the days of wishing a happy birthday to Jesus, whose name we derive the popular holiday and season. As a libertarian, I do not mind the secular take on the holiday. As a Christian, it's frustrating to see how every passing year, a sacred festival is hi-jacked further down the road to populism.

In high school, I first heard of the fight to remove nativity scenes from the lawns of government buildings. The Ten Commandments are no longer welcome in courthouses. I think Ohio's motto, based on Philippians 4:13, was ruled unconstitutional, but to my knowledge it has not been replaced.

I am not sure where I stand as regards the leaking of Christian principles into American government. Conservatives loudly claim that our country was founded on Christian men who recognized the power of the Almighty. Liberals counter that the establishment and free exercise clauses, as well as the intent of the Framers, translate to the oft-used phrase "separation of church and state." I think conservatives hold so strongly to keeping Christ in the government because they do not believe any other religion or lifestyle can beget a moral life. But atheists are quick to say that they can still act ethically.

It seems as though Christianity is only a means to an end for those who advocate its necessity. For liberals, Christ was a man who fed large crowds with only a few fish and loaves of bread, but where was He when women are free to kill their unborn children. For conservatives, Christ was a man who said that marriage was only to be between one man and one woman, but were was He when political prisoners are being tortured for the greater good?

A union of government and religion tends to destroy government and degrade religion. – Hugo Black

the good kind of bomb

2007-11-03T20:55:00.001-05:00

This Monday, November 5th, the website ThisNovember5th is sponsoring a money bomb for Ron Paul's campaign. The idea is to gain 100,000 subscribers and have those people each donate $100 on the one day, thereby giving $10 million to Ron Paul. Some have questioned the sensibility of choosing November 5th as the date for the money bomb. November 5th is a special day in England, celebrated for two reasons surrounding one event. For those who have seen V for Vendetta or are familiar with the comic book series, you understand the rhyme, "Remember, remember the 5th of November, the gunpowder treason and plot. I know of no reason why the gunpowder treason should ever be forgot."

But for those who don't, a little trip through late 16th century England.

Guy Fawkes was an explosives expert during the reign of King James I of England (and VI of Scotland). Fawkes was introduced to a group of men in late 1604, early 1605 who were plotting to overthrow James and put his nine-year-old daughter, Princess Elizabeth, on throne. Following the initial plan of blowing up Parliament, the men would then incite a rebellion to install a Catholic monarchy. They slowly burrowed under the ground toward the House of Lords, stockpiling gunpowder in various locations. By March of 1605, 36 barrels holding about 1800 pounds of gunpowder lay concealed under the House of Lords. Unfortunately, some of the gentlemen had consciences that would not let acquaintances be harmed in the explosion. They sent letters to warn several fellow Catholics, and word of the plot got out. On the night of November 4th, a search of the space under the House of Lords revealed Guy Fawkes. He was arrested and taken to the Tower of London to be tortured. The plotters, who didn't deny their actions, were found guilty at trial and sentenced to die by hanging, drawing and quartering on January 31, 1606. At the execution, Fawkes jumped off the gallows, breaking his neck.

On Guy Fawkes Night, celebrated November 5th, people in England and formerly British colonies light bonfires and watch fireworks. Some celebrate the plot's discovery and the continuance of the monarchy. Some celebrate the valiant attempt to destroy it. This is why some American commentators have debated the soundness of having the money bomb on November 5th. It wouldn't be a good idea for Ron Paul to be associated with anarchist plots to overthrow the government.

But maybe we can look on Guy Fawkes and his compatriots a little more gently. Maybe, instead of seeing that their plot was borne out of perceived religious persecution, we can think that they dared to dream of a time when life could be different, when the monarchy wasn't overbearing, when they could have the right to do as they pleased.

No man is entitled to the blessings of freedom unless he be vigilant in its preservation. – General Douglas MacArthur (1880-1964), Supreme Allied Commander, General of the U.S. Army

a little taste

2007-11-03T20:51:00.000-05:00

and... why is it controversial?

2007-10-31T15:52:00.000-05:00

Free Market News stated that Ron Paul was going to run his two commercial spots in New Hampshire, despite the criticism the ads garnered last weekend. I liked them. I thought the first one was cheesy, yes, but it tells the viewer where our candidate stands on the issue. The second one, is better, I think.

the last defense

2007-10-31T12:49:00.000-05:00

Since I was a sophomore in high school, taking Procedural Criminal Law, I have dreamed of becoming an attorney. One Saturday morning during first semester, I was laying in bed, and grabbed a book for some light reading: Constitutional Interpretation: Rights of the Individual, by Craig Ducat. A pre-lawyer was born.

Between then and now I've toyed with several ideas about where I'd find my niche. I thought about being a prosecutor, the Solicitor General for the US, a corporate lawyer, an author, a missionary (not having anything to do with law, but I did go through a weird kick for a few weeks one May), a trafficking victim advocate, a politician and finally, nothing. A few weeks ago, I hit a point in my studies when I realized that nothing appealed to me as a career. I had no idea what I wanted to do with my future.

A few days ago, I found my path again. I was having a conversation with a friend whose father is a lawyer. He told me that considered lawyers to be the people's last defense against the government. I had a eureka moment. I heard in my head the Will Smith song "Men in Black," the line where Will says that the MIBs are the first, last and only line of defense against the worst scum of the universe. I thought, yep, that sounds about right.

Our people need protection from the government. Further, the Constitution needs protection from the government as well. Places like the ACLU and the Institute for Justice work to continue that protection. Since I was raised a Republican, I was brought up disdaining the ACLU. I don't agree with all the cases they represent, but an organization that purports to preserve the civil liberties of Americans can't be all bad.

And maybe one day, our country will wake up and realize what has been given up, and realize that the only remedy is to act to bring us back to the way our country was when founded.

Politics ought to be the part-time profession of every citizen who would protect the rights and privileges of free people and who would preserve what is good and fruitful in our national heritage. – Dwight D. Eisenhower

militia maintenance

2007-10-26T14:42:00.000-05:00

I did not grow up with guns in my home. My parents never owned a gun, and I’m almost positive that neither my mother nor my father has ever even fired a weapon before. I did grow up with the mentality that guns are bad, and that I never wanted to use one, especially once I was older and went through my pacifist phase.

My views have changed recently, however. I wouldn’t say that I’m now an enthusiastic member of the NRA, and I’m not going to be donning reflective orange gear to forage around in forests anytime soon, but I do recognize the rights of others to do so.

I was in eighth grade when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold stormed Columbine High School and orchestrated the second deadliest school shooting in our history. Though there’d been other school shootings and violence, the scale of this incident immediately polarized the nation and brought out the zealots defending or denouncing the right of citizens to bear arms.

The Second Amendment guarantees this right of the citizens, but civilians and government officials alike seem determined to tell us that that’s not really what the Founders meant when they wrote:

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

There are theories about what the Founders could have meant: “the people” really means the State; “to bear arms” really means in a military sense; “militia” really means the Army. In “Right to Keep and Bear Arms,” a report to the Senate, Senator Orrin Hatch wrote,

“They argue that the Second Amendment's words ‘right of the people’ mean ‘a right of the state’ — apparently overlooking the impact of those same words when used in the First and Fourth Amendments. The ‘right of the people’ to assemble or to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is not contested as an individual guarantee. Still they ignore consistency and claim that the right to ‘bear arms’ relates only to military uses. This not only violates a consistent constitutional reading of ‘right of the people’ but also ignores that the second amendment protects a right to ‘keep’ arms.

“When our ancestors forged a land ‘conceived in liberty’, they did so with musket and rifle. When they reacted to attempts to dissolve their free institutions, and established their identity as a free nation, they did so as a nation of armed freemen. When they sought to record forever a guarantee of their rights, they devoted one full amendment out of ten to nothing but the protection of their right to keep and bear arms against governmental interference. Under my chairmanship the Subcommittee on the Constitution will concern itself with a proper recognition of, and respect for, this right most valued by free men.”

I recently began exploring the idea of purchasing a firearm of my very own (once I save up a lot of money for a really nice piece). Since I reside in Illinois, I am required to apply for and hold a valid Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) card. The card falls under the control of the Illinois State Police; before issuing the card, the applicant is run through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which in turn is run by the FBI. The NCIS determines whether the applicant can possess a firearm based on criteria enumerated by the Gun Control Act of 1968.

I cannot legally own a gun if I’m under 18, or under indictment for a crime, or am mentally defective, or am addicted to a controlled substance, or have been convicted of a federal crime (imprisonment of more than 1 year) or a state crime (imprisonment of more than 2 years). Reading the restrictions of lawfully infringing the Second Amendment, I now understand why it is so easy to buy guns on the black market, and why citizens choose to do so.

I can also understand why many citizens believe that these restrictions should be imposed. They don’t want another Columbine (even though it happened again with more fatalities at Virginia Tech almost exactly eight years later). They want to get guns out of the hands of criminals. It makes sense, in a paternalistic way. But it’s undermining the freedom bestowed by the Framers, by the men who fought for freedom and liberty from the Crown, who died so that we might do what we want and be left alone to do it.

I own a t-shirt from Random Shirts.com, showing a man holding a squirrel. The caption is “Guns don’t kill squirrels. Cars do.” It’s an obvious analogy to the argument “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” Still true.

The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, bows, spears, firearms or other types of arms. The possession of these elements makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues, and tends to permit uprising. – Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Japanese Shogun, August 29, 1558

getting schooled

2007-10-24T19:45:00.000-05:00

Children for me are a long way off. But I've been giving some thought recently concerning how I would educate my brood. I grew up in stereotypical white suburbia and received a public school education. I went on to attend a private religious university in another state and am now enrolled at an independent private graduate school. I grew up thinking that anyone who didn't go to school with me was strange somehow, like a few kids from church who were home-schooled. I equated private schools and homeschooling with bible class, like my friend who attended enigmatic P.S.R. classes at her Catholic church.

Now that I've had a chance to meet people from differing educational backgrounds, I'm not so sure that I would want my children to be victims of public education. Across the country, schools, even public schools, have varying curricula. Though there are standardized tests, some schools, especially in rural and urban areas, lack consistency and thoroughness in some subjects.

When considering public education, parents have to think about myriad decisions: Will my child be bored because he has to work at the same pace as others, though he is more advanced? Will my child be lured into a gang and killed in senseless street violence? Will my child learn about sex at the age of 10 and be given free condoms at the age of 14? I would say that a good percentage of American parents assume that a public school education is "good enough." Some don't have the money for private schooling, or the patience for home-schooling. I'm not sure I would have the patience, either, but anything but public schooling is looking attractive right now.

From all of my friends who are pursuing an education in education, the biggest complaint I hear is Public Law 107-110, popularly known as No Child Left Behind. Apparently, the No Child Left Behind Act leaves everyone behind, but at least they’re all together. The NCLB Act requires public schools in a given state to conduct standardized testing at appointed years during a child’s education, provides federal funding as an incentive to raise expectations for students, and purports to be succeeding at achieving a level field for all students, regardless of socioeconomic status or ethnicity.

Surprisingly, the Act was supported and signed by President Bush. (I say surprisingly because he is a Republican, but given the liberties he’s infringed on American citizens in other areas of life, it really shouldn’t be so much of a shock.) Though states are free to set their own standards and methods of testing, the money is still coming from the federal government, and there is a very real threat of a movement toward standardized federal schools.

Meanwhile, children who are home-schooled seem to be doing better than their standardized compatriots. In a study of more than 7,000 adults who had been home-schooled, the National Home Education Research Institute found that the majority were content, intelligent, active citizens. About 60% of home-schooled adults claimed to be “very happy,” and 70% found life to be “exciting,” compared to non-home-schooled adults answered 30% and 50%, respectively.

The question wants for further analysis, and I certainly have time for it. But as the federal government sneaks in the back door to control our lives, who knows what will have happened by the time I’m ready to send kids to school.

The public school system: "Usually a twelve year sentence of mind control. Crushing creativity, smashing individualism, encouraging collectivism and compromise, destroying the exercise of intellectual inquiry, twisting it instead into meek subservience to authority." – Walter Karp, Editor Harper's Magazine

what Hitler didn't learn from Napoleon

2007-10-19T20:08:00.000-05:00

Before sending his troops to invade Russia, Hitler said, "We have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down." He obviously didn't learn his lesson from Napoleon, who retreated five months after attempting to take over the same country. History has a way of repeating itself. It doesn't seem very likely that we're able to learn from our mistakes. Granted, I don't think that there will soon be a Fourth Reich who tries once again to claim control of Russia, but there are other mistakes to be repeated.

During my internship in Washington, DC, my program took the participants to see "Cabaret." I'd seen the 1972 movie a few years earlier and hadn't been too impressed, but the stage production was different, and absolutely fantastic. The dramaturg included in the program an essay comparing the rise of socialism and Nazism to the current political climate in America. The essay showed ten signs that demonstrated the decline of Germany into paranoia and oppression; those signs were then linked to events happening in America, making several frightening parallels.

The movie Rendition opens today, which shows the darker side of our current administration. In his review of the movie, Roger Ebert comments that rendition started under Clinton. There is actually basis for rendition between states in the Constitution. Article 4, Section 2, Clause 2 states:

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

This is commonly called extradition, and when it appears as a plot device in Law and Order, we're ok with it. However, rendition, or more specifically extraordinary rendition, is completely different from that. The United States has repeatedly denied claims that the government engages in this behavior, through interviews with various officials and reports for Congress. Whether or not there is hard proof, I don't believe that it's a stretch, considering the presence of America in other countries, CIA satellite stations abroad, and Abu Ghraib. The plot of the movie Rendition follows an Egyptian-born American citizen being kidnapped off a flight from South Africa to Chicago. He is taken to an unnamed country and tortured during an interrogation to discover why a known terrorist, or someone with the same name, called him on his cell phone, which he may not even have had at the time. His wife, when she discovers his disappearance does everything in her power to free him, attempting to fight faceless security admins who care more about averting the possibility of a terrorist plot than actually considering the likelihood that the man is a terrorist.

The last time I was in an American law class, which was earlier this morning, we operated on an adversarial system of law, whereby people are innocent until proven guilty. And I'm pretty sure I read somewhere in the United States Constitution the words "due process." Yes, that's right, Amendments 5 and 14. But then, if the government is working to protect us from foreign threats, we should blindly accept it.

These attitudes toward foreign-born citizens is reminiscent of something.

"A member of the U.S. Congressional Nazi crimes committee visiting Buchenwald concentration camp shortly after its liberation, 24 April 1945."

The more power a government has the more it can act arbitrarily according to the whims and desires of the elite, and the more it will make war on others and murder its forein and domestic subjects. The more constrained the power of governments, the more power is diffused, checked, and balanced, the less it will aggress on others and commit democide.- R.J. Rummel, Death by Government

self-censorship

2007-10-13T22:07:00.000-05:00

A friend just today regaled me with a story that exemplifies a current running through our country today. He is in his last year of college at a private Christian school. He received through campus email a message with the subject "Are You a Hetero-sexist?" The email had a link that lead the viewer to a quiz concerning his beliefs on homosexuality. My friend, a very conservative Christian, scored high on the quiz, placing in the "homophobe" category. He was also raised with the idea, and he maintains as an adult, that homosexuality is a sin. He took issue with the quiz's judgment that not agreeing with homosexuality is the same thing as homophobia and discrimination and hate crimes. I took the quiz myself, scored a 45. Most of the points I accrued were from answers like "I never considered that before." I suppose that would be a personal failing, not wondering if everyone around me is gay. But it's not politically correct to ask people their sexual orientation, or to say that it is wrong, from a religious view.

I recently heard a speech given by Charleton Heston on the Radio Free Liberty podcast. Speaking at Harvard Law School in 1999, Mr. Heston said,

"If you talk about race, it does not make you a racist. If you see distinctions between the genders, it does not make you a sexist. If you think critically about a denomination, it does not make you anti-religion. If you accept but don't celebrate homosexuality, it does not make you a homophobe. Don't let America's universities continue to serve as incubators for this rampant epidemic of new McCarthyism."

It's not only the topic of homosexuality. I will admit that I was unaware that my godmother was mixed-race until a few months ago. I've known her since I was in junior high, and only this year did I know she was African, French and Creole. Before then I just saw her as the beautiful woman who was my godmother; the only thing that's changed is now I know her heritage. Sometimes I feel as though I can't talk about certain things or complain about others because I am three generations away from British citizens.

It's much easier to stay quiet, to assume that someone else will speak up if conditions get bad enough. Like the story of Kitty Genovese, whose murder was heard by about a dozen of her neighbors, but none thought to call the police or come to her aid, we rely on the next person to do something. The people my age are distinctly quiet in this generation, content to stick ear buds in their ears and listen to their iPods instead of taking up the cause, any cause. Even the horrific thought of Vietnam's history repeating itself in Iraq has barely spurred any activism in colleges, at least not compared to the 60s. Many activists this time around are leftovers from the last time, while my peers sit eerily silent. Maybe they're afraid to speak up. After all, in today's society, citizens who are anti-war are harshly admonished for being unpatriotic and not supporting the soldiers who are dying on foreign soil. But who thinks to ask why those men and women are dying?

Our U.S. Constitution still gives us the freedom of speech, though it's been carved away in pieces. We still need to be asking questions, making statements, even at the cost of uncomfortable silences, or social ostracism. The Sedition Act expired in 1801, and even though the Patriot Act has resurrected some of its ideas, we still enjoy a relative freedom to express ourselves. We need to exercise that freedom while we still can.

The freedom of speech and the freedom of the press have not been granted to the people in order that they may say things which please, and which are based upon accepted thought, but the right to say the things which displease, the right to say the things which convey the new and yet unexpected thoughts, the right to say things, even though they do a wrong. – Samuel Gompers (1850-1924), Seventy Years of Life and Labor, 1925

a question of dollar signs

2007-10-11T23:59:00.000-05:00

If you've ever watched tv in the Chicago area, it's likely that you're familiar with commercial staples such as Erik Martin and Legal Helpers, J.G. Wentworth, Attorney Peter Francis Geraci (my roommate and I believe that his legal first name is actually "Attorney") and Roni Deutch. Now, there's really nothing sinister about these commercials, or the companies they advertise, save for the sad commentary on American lives and Americans' desire for government handouts. My favorite commercial depicts some type of credit class, where Erik Martin prevents the room from being "schooled" by "Creditor the Clown" by bopping him with his inflatable baseball bat. "Don't let bankruptcy, garnishment of wages or the threat of foreclosure keep you down," Martin admonishes. It's a nice idea, isn't it? Hiring a law firm to get your creditors off your back? Just forget the fact that you wouldn't be in the position if you were responsible with your money and didn't spend more money than you had. Unfortunately, for Americans, debt is a way of life, as the average American household has more than $9000 of credit card debt, and the national debt has topped $9 trillion (that figure is incredible, because I know for a fact that it was around $8.5 trillion in March of this year. So, in seven months, our government spent half a trillion dollars). Each American born today is responsible for almost $30,000 of that debt.

Since we're all saddled with thousands of dollars of debt, just by being Americans, it would be nice to have something to counteract that. Hillary Clinton has proposed such an idea: giving $5000 to every newborn to put into an account to later be used for college or a down payment on a house. It reminds me of the deal my parents made with my sister and I; they'd give us some money when we got engaged, to be used for the wedding or the first house. Good idea in theory. But where will that $5000 for every child come from? The taxpayers. It'll add to the national debt and drain further on our resources. Since about 4 million kids are born in our country every year, that's $20 billion in just one year. While it would be theoretically nice to put all children on a level playing field, to help disadvantaged kids go to college, it's a hard program to stomach. If our government can't set a good example of fiscal responsibility, how are the citizens supposed to carry it out?

A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money. – G. Gordon Liddy

alternative history

2007-10-09T22:19:00.000-05:00

One of the main tenets of our current presidential administration is the proliferation of freedom, or what the regime considers freedom. This is what America is doing in Iraq, apparently, spreading canned freedom, as well as doing what presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee calls "fixing what we broke." The think tank, Freedom House, reports on the state of the world's freedom on a per-country basis every year. According to Freedom House,

"Freedom is possible only in democratic political systems in which the governments are accountable to their own people; the rule of law prevails; and freedoms of expression, association, belief and respect for the rights of minorities and women are guaranteed."

There is a wonderfully colorful chart of the organization's findings, called "Freedom in the World" on Wikipedia, in addition to color-coded maps like the one below.

The green color means that the country is "free," the tan "partly free," and the blue "not free." There is also a chart that enumerates each country in the world and assigns it a value based on the amount of political rights and civil liberties its citizens enjoy. The lower the number (from 1 to 6), the better off the country is. Unsurprisingly, the United States earns a 1 in both categories, and is labeled "free." In fact, the majority of countries in the Americas are free. Cuba is the only country labeled "not free," though Venezuela is close to it, with 4s in both categories. It's a nice idea, to be able to distinguish the apparent freedom of a country's citizens, especially when those doing the distinguishing do so from the lofty perch of Mount Superpower. I've always found it a bit ironic that for as great a country we are, we are unable to see freedom as something other than a democracy.

John Adams said in 1814, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." We're pressing our luck, aren't we, two centuries later? Historically speaking, our country's experiment with democracy has been successful. We emerged from relative obscurity to be first to develop nuclear weapons (be first to use them, too), first to put a man on the moon. But if we look back at the formation of our country and why it was that way, we've moved very far away from our original goals. With instruments like Social Security and the Great Society, we've moved into a position of reliance on the government such that we've developed selective amnesia. We can't remember what it was like before the government helped to support its citizens, warned its citizens about the dangers of ingesting mood-altering substances, regulated the civil unions of its citizens. We've become so dependent, we don't believe we could ever be independent again.

Sometimes I wonder how our country would have turned out if the South had won that nasty War of Northern Aggression. It's a polarizing question because many are liable to jump on the soapbox of slavery. Slavery is a horrible institution. It was horrible then and it's horrible now. But it was not the reason our Civil War was fought. It was fought out of fear. The South was defending State's rights and its very way of life. The North was advocating Change and Progress and National rights. Ultimately, Lincoln succeeded in reuniting the Union, a feat he is much commended for. I'm not a big fan of Lincoln to begin with. Yes, he was a great speech-writer. Yes, he was calm in the face of adversity and all that. But he suspended habeas corpus. And he quashed State's rights. The South contended that States should be able to decide how to live, and since the States were founded before the United States was, their rights should prevail. The North contended the opposite. Obviously, we know what happened.

But if the South had won, what might the world be like? Would there still be a Confederacy, or would the South have eventually joined up with the North again? Would Amendments 13, 14, and 15 be passed eventually? Realistically, there's no way to know. But wouldn't it be nice for people to think about it, without getting caught up in the peripheral issues?

Can our form of government, our system of justice, survive if one can be denied a freedom because he might abuse it? – Harlon Carter

re-examining job descriptions

2007-10-08T13:18:00.000-05:00

It's a case that highlights so many problems inherent in the system. Pleajhia Mervin's wrist-breaking arrest by a security guard at Knight High School in Palmdale, CA is an easy story to get upset about. After being asked repeatedly to pick up cake that she had accidentally dropped, Mervin was arrested for "littering." Apparently, the security guard doing the asking was unsatisfied with the job she was doing with picking up cake crumbs with her fingers. She was slammed onto a table and her arm was raised behind her back so high, the wrist shattered. When another student was seen videotaping the incident on her cell phone, she was wrestled to the ground. Another student took still photos with his cell phone of that arrest.

I have more than four years of experience being a university security officer. I understand the frustration of dealing with people who seem like a waste of time for what seems interminably long. I can hear in my head some of my more exuberant colleagues excitedly cheering on the arresting guard. And yes, there is definitely a question of reception of the whole story. Maybe Mervin was violent resisting arrest, and the guard felt justified in using so much force. And maybe her wrist bone was weak in some places, and coincidentally broke along those lines. We've only heard her side of the story thus far, the guard's side is ominously silent, save for the official statement issued by the school:

"Good afternoon. I can just comment we did have an incident at our school last week. However, I would like to emphasize that we do have a safe campus. I've been working with our staff, with my district office staff, community leaders, and parents, to ensure that we continue to keep our campus safe for all students, but I want people to know that our focus here is academic excellence for all students," said Dr. Susan McDonald, principal of Knight High School.

Mervin claims that the guard told her to "hold still, nappy head." It's a curious thing that the guard felt comfortable using such a racially charged comment, considering only 20% of Knight's students are white, according to the school's website. It wasn't unconstitutional for him to say it, but it's unfortunate that some people don't understand the concepts of politeness. At any rate, the guard felt that a littering offense required not only arrest, but the perpetrator's being thrown onto a table in front of her peers.

It reminded me of the display shown at the tasering of Andrew Meyer at the Unversity of Florida. The longer version of the video on youtube shows Meyer at the microphone and talking to Kerry about a journalist who claims Kerry won the '04 election, prior to asking his question. Kerry seems a little peeved, and keeps wondering aloud when the question will come. Meyer responds that he wants to first lay down some exposition before asking the question. Behind Meyer are at least two uniformed campus police (campus police, not city police or county sheriff's department, but campus police), attempting to speed Meyer along. He occasionally talks back to them, but mostly ignores them at first. So, then Meyer asks three questions of Kerry (maybe he was worried Kerry would only answer one, so he asked them one after the other); why did he concede the '04 election, why shouldn't Bush be impeached (he brings up Clinton's 'blow job' offense); was Kerry a member of Skull and Bones.

The questions are not really related, and Meyer is obviously excited. But just as he finishes asking the questions, the campus police grab his arms and begin to lead him away. Kerry then says he'll answer the questions, but the officers continue to attempt to restrain Meyer. Some audience members clap at this, and I get the feeling that Meyer had been a bit of a pain to them during the presentation. But the officers never audibly tell Meyer what he's being arrested for. Perhaps understandably, Meyer begins to resist. He doesn't understand why he's being arrested, and in truth, neither do I. Three uniformed officers are now leading him, and Meyer is yelling, "help." The video gets pretty shaky at this point, and it's easier to see what happens next from another youtube post.

Eventually, Meyer is on his stomach at the back of the auditorium, not even outside, but inside, where everyone, including Kerry and various people videotaping the incident can see what's happening. It takes at least six officers to subdue him, apparently. They do warn him that they will tase him if he doesn't stop resisting. But he keeps asking, "what did I do?" and saying "Don't tase me." Then he starts yelling as they tase him a few times.

It has been my opinion for some time that the death knell of our country will be complacency. Americans have been lulled into this false sense of security. As long as nothing bad appears to be happening to us, we don't care about anyone else. The audience's reaction to Meyer's tasing, and even Mervin's arrest are perfect examples. No one in the audience did anything to stop the officers. Kerry half-heartedly starts to answer Meyer's questions, but he never asks the officers to stop, to let him go. There must have been other adults in the lunchroom who saw what was happening to Mervin and the other student who was arrested for videotaping. No one did anything.

Due to my experience in campus law enforcement and by working closely with village law enforcement, I've developed a respect for those who are charged to "protect and serve." But there comes a time when we must re-examine those priorities and who they're actually helping. Is a littering offense worth breaking a 16-year-old girl's wrist and expelling her? Who was the guard trying to protect from errant cake crumbs? And was there something in the UF's student code that criminalized potentially controversial questions asked of visiting speakers?

It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong. – Voltaire

the veil is lifted

2007-10-06T11:38:00.000-05:00

I was out at a bar last night with friends. The air-conditioning wasn't working well, and since Chicago summers bleed so far into fall, it was pretty toasty in the bar. One of my friends remarked that she wanted to take a walk outside to cool off. I commented that she wouldn't be able to take her beer with her if she did. Then I began thinking about all the governmental impositions there are simply in the act of buying a drink at a bar.

In Illinois, there are laws against open containers of alcohol in public. It would not be a good idea for us to test the boundaries of those laws where we were; Forest Park cops are known to tase first, ask questions later. A quick search of Illinois liquor laws yields some interesting information. As per the national standard, it is illegal to sell alcohol to anyone under the age of 21. It's also illegal to "sell, serve, deliver, or give alcoholic beverages...to any intoxicated person." So... how is that law enforced? There's nothing quantifying the word "intoxicated." Visibly? Knowingly? I've got a friend in the Marines who could put away 6 beers in an hour and say the alphabet backwards perfectly. It's obvious that this clause is selectively enforced. If bartenders actually paid attention to this law or their patrons, there wouldn't be bar-crawling or 21 shots on some kid's 21st birthday.

And even as our state is lax on its retail liquor providers, parents are feeling a crack-down. While I understand that the Deerfield car accident that precipitated this desire for legislation was tragic, and the result of the driver drinking at his friend's house where the parents were serving alcohol. But I don't see from where the need comes to saddle parents with a $125,000 fine for serving alcohol in their own homes. Does that mean that parents cannot serve alcohol to their own children? Has the government decided to pick up the slack with the next generation's lack of good parenting? In my opinion, this decision to impose authority over constituents' children is almost as bad as the government regulating sexual behavior between consensual adults. Bowers v. Hardwick didn't only ban sex between homosexuals- it banned analingus and fellatio/cunnilingus between heterosexual couples as well. Thankfully, it was repealed by Lawrence v. Texas, but that was only in 2003. How soon until it's overturned again?

It is not the business of government to make men virtuous or religious, or to preserve the fool from the consequences of his own folly. Government should be repressive no further than is necessary to secure liberty by protecting the equal rights of each from aggression on the part of others, and the moment governmental prohibitions extend beyond this line they are in danger of defeating the very ends they are intended to serve. – Henry George