The Greedy Capitalist

A third spy has been caught at Guantanamo base. As Sean says,

Bake Sale Anyone?

SMU shuts down race-based bake sale.
The Texas A&M chapter of the YCT is planning the same thing in November.

A few interesting stories: Jeff Jacoby says that The War On America Did Not Begin On Sept 11th, Victor Hanson writes that "These Are Historic Times," and Arthur C Clarke's dream of a space elevator may be becoming a reality, although the weight of government involvement may ground this project before this elevator goes anywhere.

Arafat threatens to commit suicide if he is expelled from Israel. Oh, the horror! Don't do it Arafat – the thousands of innocent people you murdered will never get over it!

Walter Williams on "Click It or Ticket"

“If you build it — we will burn it”

That is the slogan of the eco-terrorists group known as “ELF.” In the last few years, these home-made terrorists have not only been causing untold millions of dollars in damage, but have also been committing murder for “crimes against nature.” Ted Kacynski’s ‘revolution against the industrial system” is just one example of their methods, along with assassinating political opponents, and large-scale harassment and intimidation campaigns against American companies. A few years ago, they went after an insurer of a drug-testing company:

While the scale of death and destruction caused by eco-terrorism has been growing, neither the police nor any federal agencies have pursued these groups with any seriousness, in large part due to the political power of the environmentalist movement.
Earlier today, a terrorist was finally arrested in CA for causing over $1 million dollars in damage. Their bold-faced lies are astounding:
Despite the scale of violence coming from these groups, a much more serious threat to our lives comes from the non-violent mainstream movement, which is just as dedicated to the wholesale destruction of human life. I think Glenn Woiceshyn sums it up best:

(Read on for several of the more interesting crimes perpetrated by eco-terrorists.)

JULY 21, 1997
Redmond, Ore.
The ALF and ELF used napalm which they referred to as “vegan Jell-O” - to destroy the Cavel West horse slaughtering plant.

OCT. 1999
“An ALF faction known as the Justice Department took credit for sending over 80 razor blade-laced envelopes, each containing a threatening letter with a picture of a bomb on it, to animal researchers, hunting guides and others in the United States and Canada. An ALF communiqué said some of the razor blades, which were positioned so as to slice open the fingers of anyone opening the envelopes, were coated in rat poison.”

MARCH 30, 2001
Eugene, Ore.
Thirty SUVs at Joe Romania's car dealership were torched, causing about $1 million in damage. The ELF said the attack was in support of Jeff “Free” Luers, who was serving a 23-year prison sentence, in part for torching cars at the same dealership.

MAY 21, 2001
Seattle, Wash.
The ALF set fire to the University of Washington's Center for Urban Horticulture, causing $5.6 million in damage and wrecking years of research on genetically altered poplar trees and similar projects.

JULY 4, 2001
Detroit, Mich.
The ELF torched an executive office of logging giant Weyerhauser to protest the company's part in funding Oregon State University and the University of Washington's poplar and cottonwood genetic engineering research.

JULY 24, 2001
Sands Point, N.Y.
The “Pirates for Animal Liberation” claimed responsibility for unsuccessfully trying to sink a Bank of New York employee's 21-foot boat.

JAN. 29, 2002
St. Paul, Minn.
The ELF claimed a $250,000 arson at the University of Minnesota's Microbial and Plat Genomics Research Center, which was under construction.

Socialist healthcare policies are bankrupting doctors and killing untreated patients. If you believe that doctors should not be made slaves to bureaucrats and patients, support Americans for Free Choice in Medicine.

Not satisfied with forcing flush-twice (or thrice, if you’re in CA) toilets on unsuspecting Americans and creating numerous toilet smuggling outfits along our borders, enviro-wackos are pushing the “dry flush” variety to developing countries . These monstrosities start around $2000 and closely resemble the unsanitary, disease-ridden, unheated, and putrid outhouses our ancestors had to use before the invention of flush toilets. The new variety “improves” on that design by forcing you to regularly empty the toilet -- presumably on your crops. After all, we wouldn’t want to deprive ringworms and other assorted parasites of their “right” to continue infecting us.
(Props to Tim for the link.)

More on the Patriot Act

Many people sent me links to various critiques of the Patriot Act. For the reasons I mentioned in my original post, it’s very difficult to find objective evaluations of the law. Two stand out: this one by Reason magazine and this editorial on Capitalism magazine.
After doing some reading, I’ve been convinced that the Act has major flaws, of which the primary one is not that it gives too much power to the government, but that it is too vague about which powers it actually provides for. The great danger of a tyranny is not that it has too much power, but that its power is expressed by the arbitrary and unpredictable whims of some bureaucrat or dictator. I stand by my original claim however: unrestricted liberty requires a system of objective laws, under which the government has all and only the power it needs to find and punish criminals.

Here is a damsel in distress the world has forgotten about. Help her out by spreading the word.

Where were you on 9/11?

I’ve been wondering what possible motivation even an Islamic nut would have to bomb an irrelevant and pacifist group like the UN. According to one UK-based fundamentalist group, the UN is just as “quango organisation doing the bidding of the US.”
In related news, neither New York City nor the major media networks plan any special events to mark the upcoming second-year anniversary of September 11th. Not everyone has forgotten the occasion however, as the nuts mentioned above have planned a celebration of the “Magnificent 19” for the occasion.
What kind of society would not only forget about the murder of so many innocents but allow the same groups that created these terrorists to celebrate their atrocities? Britain is significantly more guilty of being a terrorist breeding ground than the U.S., but both are infested with the same plague: the terrorist-loving, America-hating trend of multiculturalism.

(Thanks to LGF for the links.

STRONGER, YOU FOOL!

(Thanks, DailyPundit)

A tally of US taxpayers' tab for Iraq

Tim insists that I link to this article about the cost of the US involvement in Iraq. Surprise, surprise, "reconstruction" is costing a fortune. Probably the biggest cost of the war is the cost in increased oil prices (no “blood for oil,” eh?) Since there has been some misunderstanding about my stance on Iraq, let me clear things up.
ATTN: World
Re: “Iraqi Reconstruction”
I adamantly oppose the reconstruction of any oil refinery, factory, or even one golf shack with money taken from me without my consent. Furthermore, I oppose any “peacekeeping” or policing efforts in any foreign country, including Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo. What I oppose even more than the above however, is die-happy fundamentalist terrorists blowing up my countrymen and putting my life in danger. This is why I support the US military taking whatever steps to kill those bastards as fast and as efficiently as possible, while risking the lives of American soldiers as little as possible. The best way to do this would have been to take out the two governments that are the most active in supporting terrorism around the world: Iran and North Korea. Having failed to do that, Iraq is better than nothing. This involves taking out the Iraqi government by whatever means necessary. What the Iraqis decide to replace Saddam with is not my concern, though I doubt that any semblance of a democracy is possible.

Have the WMD's finally been found? Let's hope Bush has the guts to follow up...
(Thanks, RE)

China's Mix of Freedom and Blood

A successful Chinese businessman was jailed earlier this year for his anti-communist statements as well as for “illegal” competition with state banks. This case is typical of the resistance state-run industries in China put up to better and more efficient private companies. The spread of private enterprises in China is creating a new class of entrepreneurs who challenge the state monopolies both economically and ideologically. The military-run state industries often respond by having the businessman sufficiently harassed or quietly disappear. While the situation is depressing in the short run, this mix of freedom and force is unstable – sooner or later, China will have an intellectual revolt and will be forced to choose capitalism or tyranny. If it chooses tyranny, it will surely look for an outside scapegoat to blame for the economic collapse that follows. This turn of events is probably the greatest threat from China to America’s security in the long run.
(Thanks, Keenan )

The Patriot Act and the Politics of Liberty, Part Two

To determine whether the Patriot Act infringes on our liberty, we must first determine what “liberty” is. Two political theorists stand out as defining the meaning of liberty: John Locke, and John Stuart Mill.

John Locke essentially invented the notion of liberty. According to Locke, the essence of liberty is the absence of coercion. Locke believed in political liberty, under which “coercion” means the initiation of force against an individual by physical force, the threat of force, or fraud. Furthermore, Locke held that liberty can only be justified on a particular ethical and epistemological basis, rather than an absolute independent of any particular ethical or philosophical basis.

According to John Stuart Mill, the meaning of “liberty” is very different. Mill was a utilitarian – he saw the happiness of society as his ultimate goal. He rejected the idea that humans had a common nature or a single path to their happiness – which means that each individual must find his own path to self-actualization in order to maximize his happiness. For Mill, liberty lies in the ability of the individual to choose the way in which he wishes to express himself, and to share his ideas with others in order to teach and learn the successful means by which to achieve happiness. In this view, limitations on liberty come from anything that limits one’s means of “self expression,” whether that means singing in the streets, having your art shown in museums, or bashing people’s heads in.

The primary difference John Locke and John Stuart Mill is that according to Locke, full and unlimited liberty is possible as long as men do not initiate force against each other, while for Mill, liberty must always be limited and contradictory because force is often needed to allow individual self-expression. So, if one was unable to convince the media to present his views, or to have museums display his art, or to convince men to follow his vision of society, the state’s role is to regulate the media, support the arts, and enforce “community standards.” Locke on the other hand, argued that the function of government is to protect individuals from the initiation of force, and as long as men respect each other’s rights, and the State prevents the initiation of force, full and unlimited freedom is possible.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, it was John Locke’s definition of liberty that he had in mind. Since that time however, Mill’s view has come to dominate society, in liberal, conservative, and libertarian circles. Some argue that if any restriction of “self-expression” limits liberty, then no objective basis for government limitation of “liberty” is possible, and anarchy is the ultimate form of freedom. Most people amend this view with the position that government coercion is the only “practical” means to compromise between conflicting views of liberty. Leftists and libertarians are the most common supporters of this utilitarian and subjective definition of liberty.

According to Locke however, totalitarianism and anarchy are essentially the same condition of freedom being displaced by a rule of the biggest thug. Full and unlimited liberty is possible to man – but only in a society where the initiation of force is removed from human relationships – and that can only be done in a system of objective laws. In a free society, the role of the government is to negotiate peaceful solutions to disputes and punish criminals and foreign invaders who initiate force against its citizens. The government must be restricted from becoming yet another aggressor by being limited to stopping criminals and carrying out justice.

Liberty is only possible in a society where men are free to do as they please as long as they respect that same right in others, and the government fulfills its role of carrying out justice based on objective laws. There are only two ways the government can fail to respect the liberty of its citizens: by initiating force, and by failing to adequately protect its citizens from the initiation of force. The former happened with the success of the terrorists in the 9/11 attacks, precipitated by many years of flawed domestic and foreign policy. The proper response of the government should be both to exact justice on anyone responsible for the attacks and to change its domestic and foreign policies to prevent such attacks in the future. The Patriot Acts are just one of necessary steps needed to correct decades of flawed policies that emboldened terrorists, and crippled the security agencies by preventing them from properly carrying out their function. These powers are not a limitation on the liberty of the people, but a necessary condition in order that the primary requirement of liberty: life, be preserved. This is not a blank check for whatever policies the government thinks are necessary – the police must be supervised by the courts to ensure that they abide by the laws, and the laws must be written so that proper precautions are taken to avoid harassment or wrongful convictions of innocents. (See my post The Fallacy of “Liberty vs. Security” for more.)

The latest Patriot Act is not perfect in this respect – but it goes a long way to giving the security agencies the powers they need to carry out justice. It is much better to have a sharp offensive security policy where the FBI actively goes out after individual terrorists than a dull defensive policy where airline passengers cannot take nail clippers in a carry-on and children and grandmothers are subjected to intrusive random searches. Yet both the liberals and libertarians would rather have us treat everyone like children than go after the actual terrorists with no holds barred. Of course, neither group will admit that the inevitable outcome of the policies they are advocating is just that.

The Patriot Act and the Politics of Liberty, Part One

Leftists (including the neo-commie Howard Dean) would love to have you believe that the Patriot Act is some sort of Nazi anti-subversion law that blows away the Bill of Rights. I will bet you good money that none of the protesters you hear about have ever read the Patriot Act, nor do they have even a remote clue what it is actually about. Even if they did know what they Patriot Act is about, they have absolutely no conception of individual rights, preventing them from making any kind of informed judgment about whether the Act will take them away. Given that a leftist’s idea of “freedom” is imprisoning gun owners and smokers while letting killers and rapists loose, promoting government-enforced racism, ignoring eco-terrorists, and stealing my money to support lazy-ass moochers, bad art, and "free" speech, I would love to see a law that wipes out the leftist notion of “civil liberties.”

No, the leftists definitely cannot be trusted to understand, much less argue whether the Patriot Act infringes on our “civil liberties.” To understand what infringes on liberty, one must first know what liberty is. Explaining this however, is something that will have to wait till after lunch. Meanwhile, check out the “Preserving Life and Liberty” site the government set up in support of the Act.

Take out Pyongyang!

MSNBC has an interesting account of a North Korea missile factory shipment to Libya. North Korea’s major sources of income consist of foreign aid (from western nations as well as loyalist Koreans in Japan), slave labor exports to China (and often to U.S. with a “Made in China” label) – and military hardware and technology sales to dictatorships around the world. Although I am skeptical about its chances for success, North Korea’s latest quest to develop nuclear weapons is a clincher in the case to take it out. No need to send in a large US force – drop a few nukes to take out Pyongyang, and the enslaved North Koreans will take care of the rest (and be eternally grateful to us for it!)

More Islamic madness…

Why in the world would anyone go after the UN?
I can think of two reasons. The obvious explanation is that the Iraqi terrorists are stupid and cannot distinguish between the different foreign agencies in town -- so they targeted the least-defended one. The less likely reason is that they want more UN involvement and aid to Iraq – precisely what is likely to be the outcome of the bombing. With all due respect for the dead, the bombing is the best thing that could have happened to the UN from the perspective of its supporters – it has given the UN a relevance they have been desperate for since the war started.

In other news, how many innocent civilians have to die before the “cease-fire” is officially over?

Commanding Heights on PBS

I hear that the Commanding Heights miniseries is pretty good -- and now it's all online. The book has been gathering dust on my shelves for a while, so I think I've give the video version a try. Stay tuned for a review..

Update: I saw the miniseries, and I have two words for you: SEE IT. The series is a must-see for anyone who shares an interest in economics or want to learn about the economic history of the 20th century and the issues surrounding “globalization.”

The first section is an account of the economic development of the 20th century, and the second goes over some of the issues surrounding privatization and globalization. The third section is rather muddled and aimless so skip it if you are pressed for time. The many multimedia presentations and additional readings that accompany the videos are also very informative, and I spent a significant amount of time pausing the videos to browse them.

Although the overwhelming message is pro-market, I have some major issues with the economic theory presented in the series. The “free-market” is defined as a mixed economy that is far from being a welfare state, yet not nowhere near a truly capitalist society. Organizations and treaties with dubious merit like the WTO and NAFTA are endlessly glorified. The Austrians are given minor lip service, while the Chicago/monetarist school is put center stage. Clinton is given something like a dozen clips, and portrayed almost as a champion of free trade. Most disturbingly, the Marxist take on the Great Depression is accepted wholesale, along with a rejection of “raw greed” in favor of “controlled” capitalism. While the series definitely leans towards free markets, Thatcher and Reagan are glorified as the ultimate capitalists. Commentary on monetary policies is flawed somewhat by the monetarist perspective. In short, you will find a great deal of historical context, but be careful about accepting the economic theory the series presents at face value.

MSNBC provides some "tips" for fixing the power grid. Their "fix"? Nationalization, regulation, and environmentalism -- the very causes of the blackouts.
Ah well, another great Cox and Forkum. Also: FCC head warns of more regulations.

Et tu, Arnold?

Druge reports that Schwarzenegger's top economic adviser Warren Buffett wants to raise taxes. Buffet is a democrat and a vocal critic of Bush's tax cut. This is the man Arnold picked for his economic advisor? I know he wants some credibility, but this is not the way to get it. Does anyone remember seeing Arnold with Milton Friedman on the "Free to Choose" videos praising free-market policies?

NY Blackout Special Edition

Quick Quiz: What is the media’s most likely take on the blackout:

1. The “complexity” and “chaos” of the market is unsuitable for an “essential” need like electricity.
   
2. The blackout was caused by America’s over-reliance on fossil fuels – we need to reduce our electricity use and move to renewable energy sources.
   
3. The minor looting and small number of deaths caused by the blackout is a sure sign that we can trust the government to protect our lives.
   
4. The Democrats haven’t found a way to blame the Bush administration for it, but they’re going to have something soon.
   
5. The blackout is an inevitable consequence of a heavily regulated, price-controlled, forcibly monopolized, and eco-crazed power industry.

I have a feeling the terrorist to blame here is called "incompetence."
Bill O'Reilly: "..it's a natural occurence..a shame this stuff has to happen..."
Has to happen? Just like terrorism, huh?

"Missile-smuggling plot"? What plot?

God knows, I'm all for blowing to hell any terrorist fuckers than want to mess with the U.S. of A. However I suspect that this latest "missile-smuggling plot" is basically a PR stunt by the FBI, perhaps motivated by the upcoming elections. I was watching an interview with a former FBI chief investigator, and listened to him answer questions for several minutes about the "foiled plan." Guess what he said? NOTHING. He went on and on about how terrorists were bad (um, DUH!), how terrorism is a global problem, blah, blah, but nothing whatsoever about what this "plot" was about. Methinks, some undercover FBI agents promised this Indian guy a ton of money in exchange for smuggling a "package" into America. Meanwhile, the Russian security agents working with the FBI conveniently sold it to him. That's all that ever happened -- no plot to shoot down any airliners ever existed, and no sale would have happened if some poor sucker hadn't been convinced to smuggle a package accross the 'lake'. Meanwhile, while the FBI is pulling publicity stunts, Congress is restricting the military's abilities to take out the real terrorists. Good planning, guys.

The first GI action figure of a U.S. president?

The George W. Bush Elite Force Aviator Action Figure, coming to a toy store near you!

(Thanks, Tim)

Black church will pay whites to attend.

Wow.

What Is Good For Iraq Is Good For Iran?

FOX:

The grandson of Ayatollah Khomeini…the late Iranian cleric who hated America and founded the Islamic state that rules Iran…is now blasting his own country's clerical regime, calling it, ‘the worst dictatorship in the world’ and suggesting that U.S. military force might be needed to remove the regime. Hossein Khomeini, a Muslim cleric himself, says of U.S. military intervention, ‘I think the [Iranian] people would accept that. I would accept it, too, because it's in accord with my faith.’ Hossein, now visiting Iraq, told the Scotsman newspaper, 'I see that there's security, that the people are happy, that they've been released from suffering.'

(Thanks, Steve)

Paper: N.Korea Plans to Export Missiles to Iran

Word on the street is that North Korea is selling long-range ballistic missiles to Iran. I’m not sure why a totalitarian slave-state like North Korea would be able to create both nukes and ICBM’s while a marginally less-totalitarian but much larger slave-state like Iran is not. Gee, maybe it has something to do with Israel having the balls to take out the nuke-factories while our dear old President Clinton decided to “negotiate” with that epitome of honesty, beloved dictator Kim Il-jong. I doubt that N. Korea has the capablity to develop working nukes in the near future, though Iran certainly will if Bush decides to echo Clinton and "negotiate" with the death-happy Islamic fundamentalists.

Of course North Korea and Iran claim that their nuke plants are (mostly)intended for the peaceful purpose of "providing electricity to the People". If the satellite photo below is any indication, they definately need it.

LAWRENCE, Massachusetts (AP) -- This city's superintendent of schools, who recently put two dozen teachers on unpaid leave for failing a basic English proficiency test, has himself flunked a required literacy test three times.
The story concludes:

This pretty much speaks for itself. I would only add that the same unions that oppose vouchers and bash home schooling ensure that the worthless bureaucrats who run our schools are paid so much.

Fox Hunting and the Politics of Compromise

The House of Commons has just voted for a total ban on fox hunting in England. One might be tempted to dismiss this as another sign of the loony leftists in Europe but the failure of the "pro-hunt" lobby holds a number of important lessons for conservatives in America. The primary causes for the failure of the hunting lobby to defend their rights were their willingness to compromise and a failure to offer a moral defense of their rights.

Two weeks ago, Andrew Linzey, a prominent British "expert" on morality and "animal rights" compared fox-hunting to rape. To quote, "'Causing suffering for sport is intrinsically evil. Hunting, therefore, belongs to that class of always morally impermissible acts along with rape, child abuse and torture...All acts of cruelty to animals are of a kind ....they diminish our humanity and offend."

While Linzey's argument is flawed on oh-so-many levels, I am more interested in what the opposition had to say in response. Here is one of the spokesmen of the Countryside Alliance, a pro-hunting group: "If you ask a rape victim or a victim of torture who has suffered so much whether they think what they have gone through can be compared to hunting, I think you know the response you would get. Frankly, it's disgusting. We are talking about a legal pastime which is being likened to illegal acts of gross exploitation."

Note that no attempt is made to defend the moral argument Linzey is making. The best answer the spokesman comes up with is that rape feels worse that hunting. The second part of his reply is to say that rape is worse because it is illegal, which is completely irrelevant in the question of whether it is right. Similar flaws are found in arguments in all of the Alliance's defenses. Their latest slogan is "59% say keep hunting." Other arguments call for a defense of their "way of life" and that hunting an improper priority for the legislature. Not one has dared to offer a moral defense of hunting or to explain why it's wrong to kill humans but not animals.

In response to the Alliance spokesman, Mr Linzey could easily say "Well how do know that rape feels worse than hunting? Have you ever been hunted?" In a comparison between being hunted down by dogs and being raped, most people would probably choose rape, and any sane person would certainly say that both are immoral and ought to be illegal. If a clear distinction between the moral status humans and animals is not made, what possible defense of hunting can be made?  And how can one defend the moral status of humans if one does not recognize what makes them different from animals in the first place?

In short, hunting is doomed in England not because the arguments of the anti-hunt lobby have any merit, or because the defense of the hunters are wrong, but because hunters fail to provide any defense for their views at all, other to offer vague clichés such as "tradition," "way of life," and desperate resorts to public opinion. Realizing that they have nothing to offer in defense, they argue for compromise measures such as registration and various limits on where and how they hunt.

The gun lobby in America faces the same proposition. While the liberals offer laughable claims that guns are intrinsically evil, gun owners fail to defend their position on a basis of individual rights and refer to the traditional role of guns in American society and the Second Amendment. There is no certainly no question that gun ownership is an American tradition and a right guaranteed by the Constitution, but until recently fox hunting was an even older British tradition that collapsed before a small but vocal minority. Until gun owners on both sides of the pond realize that they must defend their rights on a moral basis and offer a principled stand, their freedoms will continue to be eroded by collectivists with preposterous claims that hunting amounts to rape and guns are evil while criminals are not. Ironically, it is Tony Blair who stated in response to calls to weaken the hunting ban that "this is a moral issue, and as soon as you try and compromise on a moral issue you end up hacking everybody off." Until conservatives stop "conserving" and start defending their rights, their stance is as useless as the fox hunters.

(Btw, while I think the NRA's willingness to compromise on their principles makes them unworthy of anyone's support, I was surprised to find a link to CapMag on their site. If you want to support an organization that truly supports your rights, I recommend you check out Keep and Bear Arms)

Supreme Court Ruling Extends Legacy of Supporting Racism into 21st Century*

In its latest ruling, the highest court of the United States decided to prolong its longstanding tradition of upholding state-sanctioned racism by affirming the right of public universities to exclude people based solely on the color of their skin. The recent ruling was a clear vote in support of affirmative action programs, with the possible exception of a contradictory ruling issued the same day. The decision highlights the Court's unwavering commitment to upholding their oath to abide by and protect the Constitution of the United States, except in cases where the National Interest , Common Good, or the State's Interest in Protecting the Whims of the Electorate, trumps the guiding document of our government.

As Justice Ginsburg explained, the ruling is exemplary of the Court's resolute commitment to carrying out justice: "I'd rather let 100 rapists go free on a technicality than commit an injustice." the outspoken feminist declared. "As my record shows, I have always ruled in support of freedom, democracy, and social progress, at least other than on Earth Day, May Day, during you know, my time of the month and generally whenever I didn't felt like it. Where was I? Oh, yeah, I'm a firm supporter of social and economic progress." She then hurried off to finish the paperwork for her ruling in support of price controls and the upcoming ruling on what consenting adults can do in their own home.

While some critics have criticized the ruling as a vague compromise that fails to provide any real guidance as to what the law really means, Justice Stevens vehemently denied these allegations: "When the conservative wing doesn't ruin our decisions, we always vote according to principle and set a firm precedent for the future. Other than the rulings on race, abortion, the death penalty, the rights of accused, freedom of religion, property rights, the draft, and other minor issues, we have always spoken as one voice and provided clear direction to the lower courts. I can't speak for my Republican peers, but the liberal wing of the court has always been a consistent supporter of individual rights, at least other than when we ruled that snail rights trump human rights and that some men don't qualify as human beings."

*Your freedoms void where prohibited, all rights (not) reserved. This is just a parody, so please don't sue me for libel.

Child porn, Bill O'Reilly, Libertarianism and Hentai

What do they say? If you can't take the heat, (or the competition) get out of the kitchen. This "criminal at the computer" read your book and is tired of your "someone should do something!" commieconservatism.

Edit: A further comment. O'Reilly says

the Supreme Court actually helped [the child molestation people] by ruling that virtual child porn, computerized images of kids being raped, are legal, an extension of free speech.

What he is almost certainly talking about, is hentai, or the popular Japanese version of anime, or animated nudes. Japan has strict censorship laws that prohibit the portrayal of genitals (even animated ones), but are very flexible and open on everything else, including breasts. The weird result is that mainstream anime features plenty of bare-breasted women and porn has genitals that are digitized just enough to get past the censors. Anyway, women in Japanese anime only come in two forms: young, nubile, and top heavy, and old hag. Although their huge cleavage, enormous eyes, and purple/green hair hardly qualifies as "human," a number of conservatives (like Mr. O'Reilly) have labeled hentai as "child porn" and sought to ban it outright. It doesn't take much brains to figure out that this is only a stepping stone to banning pornography, masturbation and all kinds of other things their preacher thinks are bad. So what is child porn and what should be illegal?

I was arguing with a prominent "libertarian" a few months ago who was said that while child molesters are guilty of a crime, those who distribute child pornography are are not, because they didn't actually harm anyone. I compared this to saying that while a thief commits a crime, those who knowingly buy his stolen loot do not, since they didn't steal anything themselves. (The libertarian agreed with this as well, at which point I gave up.) The fact is in both cases, both parties are guilty: one of the actual crime, the other of aiding and abetting. When dealing with virtual child porn however, there are no victims and no crime. The behavior may be immoral, but it's in the same status as watching the numerous rape and gang-bang scenes in adult movies. (Not that I watch that kind of stuff, but did you know that the rape scenes frequently feature tiny white women and mean-looking black men, yet are happily purchased by all races?) Not surprisingly, I have heard many arguments made by feminists for banning "rape" scenes and by conservatives for banning adult stars who dress to look underage. Their logic is based on the implicit assumption that humans are like apes who mindlessly imitate whatever they see, be on it television, computer, or newsprint. If that were the case, then my many hours of playing Doom are a much bigger threat to society than my small but growing hentai collection. In any case, child porn it is not, and to prove it, I've posted a random sample here. Judge for yourself, but not for too long, since it may soon be against the law.

US Army expands Iraqi weapons ban to toy guns..

kids fight back..

Martha Stewart: Political Prisoner

There are a number of interesting stories covering the witch hunt the government is pursuing against Martha Stewart. A number of papers are running stories such as "Official Poll: Is Martha Stewart guilty?" and Poll: Majority of New Yorkers think Martha Stewart is guilty. How the hell is Joe Shmoe supposed to know the details of the legal code or what Martha did or did not do? Fortunately, most of the editorials I've seen recognize the case for what is is: "U.S. government makes her the subject of a criminal test case designed to further expand the already unrecognizable boundaries of the U.S. federal securities laws." A number of sites in support of Martha have popped up, including Martha's own MarthaTalks.com and the SaveMartha.com, which features several hilarious clips from her "enemies."

Martha's own defense has been to say that she is only being prosecuted because she is a successful woman -- but I think this take is misguided. Many successful men have gone to jail for insider trading, and Martha's defense is doomed unless she acknowledges the real motivations of her prosecutors: to inspire fear, uncertainty and doubt into successful businessmen everywhere, and gain political prominence in the process. As the must-read article "Martha Stewart: Political Prisoner" points out,

It is politics, not the pursuit of justice, which is driving this case. Stewart is well-connected politically, but it is to Democrats, who control none of the branches of government at the present time. Her wealth and public persona make her a convenient target of a very political U.S. Department of Justice and of U.S. attorneys who see the example of the Guiliani path to fame and fortune.

I can't say whether Martha broke the law or not: I'm not lawyer, I don't know the facts of the case, and even if I were a lawyer, the SEC regulations are vague enough to mean whatever the government wants them to mean in any particular case. What I do know, is that the insider trading laws are a mockery of justice, and that the witchhunt against Martha Steward is only happening because she and Sam Waksal are successful individuals, and in today's world, success can be a very dangerous thing.

Which party does this list of proposed policies describe?

• "Special rights" for certain races/cultures/ethnicities
• Censorship and arbitrary imprisonment of non-crimes such as sexism, "heterocentrism", "ableism" etc.
• Arbitrary redistribution of wealth on the basis of wealth, race, success, etc
• "Reasonable" slave-reparations plan
• State-worship replacing God-worship (note: I don't condone either)
• Extensive gun control and confiscation from "suspect" groups
• Nationalized child care, health care, and education, and social security for the retired
• Rational thinking replaced by mass brainwashing in public institutions
• Arbitrary court system dominated by politics rather than legal code
• Belief that race, class, and society fix the essential traits of every person.
• Many other policies that sacrifice individuals for "society" and the "common good"

Seems like the usual liberal agenda, right?  Replace "slave" by "Jew" and "heterocentrism" by "homocentrism" and you have platform of the National Socialist Workers (NAZI) Party. 

(This blog inspired by "an extremist homophobic Republican nazi" on the Hobbes forum.)

"Drug cartels thrive in US national parks"

The CSMonitor reports that "Drug cartels thrive in US national parks."  The blame is placed solely on the druggies, but do you think this would happen if the park land was privately owned or growing weeds was legal?  When the government places a very profitable (and harmless) industry outside the law, what else can it expect but the Prohibition all over again?  Well, at least public land is finally being put to a productive use.

Is driving a "right"?

Remember "Sultaana Freeman," the woman who refused to show her face for her driver's license photo? A number of arguments have been presented in support and in opposition of her "right" to have her photo taken with her veil on. Unfortunately, since no one understands what a "right" is anymore, no one can say whether driving is in fact a right and just what freedoms the the separation of [mosque] and state clause allows. The current interpretation is that as long as your religion (a) does not pose any immediate danger to the public, and (b) is followed by a sufficient number of electorally - motivated followers, you will be free to practice whatever stupid tricks your holy book prescribes. This is of course an arbitrary doctrine without any rational or Constitutional basis. So, "Native Americans" can smoke their dope and wear their bald eagle feathers on their own time, but they can't file for unemployment insurance if they get fired for smoking their dope at work or claim that cannot find work because Friday is their "holy-day." (Whereas Christians who observe the usual Sat-Sun holiday can.) The rest of us can't wear feathers of smoke dope because although that passes (a), it fails (b).

All men are born with a right to life, liberty, and property -- and that includes the right to practice any idiocy your particular shaman prescribes -- as long as you don't harm anyone else in the process. The right to liberty and property includes the right to own and drive a car -- but it is a violation of someone else's right to force them to pay for your roads and traffic cops. There is no right to drive on public roads for anyone, whether you are Catholic, Southern Baptist or Harry Krishna because the maintenance of a "public roads" is theft. So in deciding whether Mrs. "Sultaana Freeman" has the right to have her face hidden involves making the best of a bad (immoral to be exact) situation. The question her collectivist judge is currently asking -- what her religion "really" says is completely irrelevant in the matter. The number of people who share your delusion has no bearing on its truth. The only question the judge should ask "Does wearing a veil pose a threat to the safety of others?" Since wearing a veil undermines the primary function of having an ID (and thus undermines the valid police function of maintaining safety and carrying out justice), I would say that the answer is clearly yes. On that basis, and on that basis alone, there is no "right" to conceal your identity on a public road.

Now as to why I used quotations quotations for Mrs. Sultaana Freeman's name, it turns out that her real name is "Sandra Keller," and as the photo taken for her 1999 felony aggravated battery (of a foster child) conviction shows, she has already exposed her real face to the cops a number of times since her 1997 conversion to Islam.

PETA Madness

OK, first PETA compared the murder of the Jews in the Holocaust to the killing of cows and chickens. If that weren't crazy enough, the're now on a campaign against IAMS (the pet food company) for get this, conducting nutrition trials on pets. Apparently unlike humans, who frequently experiment with different diets, animals aren't able to consent to nutrition testing! The irony of course is that animas don't have rights for the precise reason that as non-rational beings, they don't have the ability to engage in consensual/transactional interactions with humans. Meanwhile PETA is essentially a terrorist group bent on wiping out humanity - or at least everything that differentiates us from animals.

Victims of America's Immigration Policy

Two sad stories in the news exemplify the unfortunate victims of America's restrictive immigration laws. A high school student from Laos is set to be deported 22 days before graduation. His family has lived here for 13 years, and after unsuccessfully attempting to get permanent citizenship, are set to be deported. Both parents have productive jobs, and Tchisou has been accepted into the University of Minnesota, where he wanted to study natural resources or aerospace engineering. Unlike so many illegal immigrants from south of the border, the Tho family actually attempted to comply with the law and obtain citizenship, and deportation is their reward.

Like the Tho family, in a few weeks I will mark the 13^th year since my family came to America, and although we came here legally, it boggles my mind that I could be deported back to Ukraine because of a difference in paperwork. I cannot speak for Tchisou, but I speak virtually no Ukrainian, and loath Ukraine and everything it stands for with a passion that rivals only my distaste for commies (and for the same reasons). Besides that, the country I left was USSR, and it is dubious that Ukraine would even take this dirty Russophile Jew back, probably dooming me to years in detenention camps while the bureaucracy decided my fate. Like Ukraine, Laos is a mix of communism and anarchy held together by nationalistic propaganda, and a former immigrant would be doomed to second class citizenship or worse. (I dramatize a bit since the Tho family will probably end up in France by virtue of having lived there on the way to America, but being an American in France is only a marginal improvement over Laos these days.)

Meanwhile, the bodies of 18 immigrants were found in truck in Texas, stuffed inside a locked truck that may have held over 100 people. This is just the latest episode of the annual death marches that many thousands of illegal immigrants undertake to find low-paying and unwanted jobs in America that usually involve working outside in 100 degree Texas heat. Everyone who has ever complained that Mexicans are "stealing" his minimum wage job should feel some guilt and responsibility for the suffering his economic ignorance causes.

While they are expert at sending little boys and young men back into slavery, the immigration services too overwhelmed by the drug war and their attempts to stop well-meaning immigrants to deter any actual criminals from crossing our shores. The ultimate hypocrisy is that Middle Eastern terrorists are able to buy visas while harmless and hard-working immigrants are denied their chance to the American Dream.

"Food Aid Said Diverted to N.Korea Military "

Regular readers of my blogger will know what I think of the groups that send aid to North Korea: they are guiltier of causing mass starvation and supporting genocidal regime than Kim Jong Il himself. If it were up to me, I would have those "humanitarians" sent to die in the labor camps with the rest of the peasants whose torture and slavery they are perpetuating.

The fact is, that without the massive material and diplomatic aid (of which US provides 68%) from the quasi-free nations of the world, North Korea would have collapsed long ago. If any more proof is needed that the sanction of the free world is keeping North Korea's regime afloat, Reuters news reported today that food aid is being diverted to the military instead of the starving peasants. Well, DUH! You don't to be a UN bureaucrat to figure that out. In a decisive condemnation of North Korea's actions, Tony Hall, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. food agencies said "We don't like that. The food is not designed for that. The food is aimed especially at women and children -- people who are hurting." Wow, thanks for clearing that up, Tony.

Meanwhile, Kim continues playing world leader like a fiddle to get his way, by threatening to build nukes, start a war, etc if concessions aren't made. (I'm not sure if the "non aggression" treaty North Korea is pushing for means that the U.S. will standby if the Kim attacks the South, or that we'll sell him arms to better attack the U.S.)

Meanwhile, the bloodsuckers at the UN keeping leeching more money from the productive men in America to support more and more despotic dictatorships abroad. "I can't remember in my experience of working in the humanitarian field when we have had so many crises at one time" says Mr. Hall, Leech #1. Perhaps it's time for a little self-examination.

Gotta love the UN

Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post has written a great editorial about the U.N. He mentions how Iraq has been chosen to Iraq to Chair U.N. Disarmament Conference (with Iran as co-chair) while Libya, that great utopia of individual rights was elected to the chairmanship of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights.
Can the U.N. possibly become any more hypocritical? Next, I suppose North Korea will be selected to chair the Democracy Conference, and China to lead the Religious Tolerance Committee, and Cuba to chair the Economic Development Forum. Then, the five chairs can pass a resolution condemning the U.S. for terrorism, hostility to Muslims, human rights abuses, and trade restrictions. (And the libertarians, those great defenders of non-aggression would probably applaud the resolution for pointing out U.S. "imperialism.")

Venezuela

If you don't know what's going on in Venezuela just yet, click on the link below.



For an overview, check out this article on their site: Is John Galt Venezuelan?

This is pretty funny: U.S.

This is pretty funny: U.S. food programs 'make the poor obese'

"The U.S. government's food aid programs for low-income people are contributing to the high obesity rates of America's poor, according to a recent report from a Washington think thank.

In his paper, Besharov, director of AEI's social and individual responsibility project, notes that that the U.S. government now spends billions annually on its three major programs to help feed the poor: $18 billion on food stamps; $8 billion on school breakfasts and lunches; and $5 billion on the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, or WIC, which provides food directly to mothers and children.

He says these programs are driven not by an emphasis on healthy eating habits that could help stymie the costly problem of obesity, but by outdated policies that contribute to obesity. Such policies ignore the fact that Americans are much more likely today to be at risk from health problems related to overeating and obesity than those that arise from lack of food. "

Cloning...

Matt Drudge had a recent story referring to the recent claims of a successful human clone being born under the tagline "DID THIS WOMAN CHANGE THE COURSE OF MANKIND FOREVER?"
Now, I usually like Drudge, but he seems to have joined in with the general hysteria surrounding human cloning. From the little that I know about cloning, I am highly skeptical that a successful human clone is technically possible at the point, but even if this feat has been accomplished, I see nothing wrong or immoral about the practice.
First of all, the classic argument against cloning, that messing with reproduction "goes against God's will" is completely bogus. If we take this argument to its natural conclusion, then ANY human manipulation of genes is immoral. But we are in effect participating in genetic manipulation when we choose one mate over another, or breed a certain variety of a crop over another, or choose to have kids or not. Simply by favoring blondes over brunettes, or mates of a certain race, we are in fact engaging in genetic manipulation - and if man was made in God's image, than that image is certainly a moving target. Even if you aren't an atheist, excluding human manipulation of us and our environment, leaves us with little choice, but to sit in whatever mud hole we were born with, and rot to death - which, incidentally, is exactly what some environmentalists would like to see us do.
Another argument against cloning is that it will lead to birth defects and shortened lifespans. Perhaps so, but so will so does smoking, consuming alcohol and bad diets while pregnant - and mothers are not legally liable for in those cases. Perhaps, if cloning was inherently detrimental to a fetus - for example as random radiation exposure might be, there might be a case for banning it, but in fact, it promises incredible advances in preventing genetic disease and perhaps even improving on the fragile condition to which we have involved. Sure, some people might mess up their kid's genes, but then stupid people have kids all the time - more than their fair share even, and no one tries to pass a law against that.

More on NK Nukes

Apparently, North Korea is going full stream with nuke production -- they have removed UN seals and inspection devices, and openly admitted to nuclear weapons production. Apparently, they're not afraid to take the world with them if they ever go down:

The communist party's newspaper Workers' Daily declared that "the army and people of the DPRK are fully ready to mercilessly strike the bulwark of US imperialist aggressors" - implying that they could hit targets in the US.

"There can be no earth without Korea," it said. "The army and people of the DPRK will destroy the earth if the enemies dare make a nuclear strike at it. This is their do-or-die spirit."

Do what exactly? Achieve a communist utopia? If the mass starvation of their people is that utopia, then "kill everyone or die trying" is a better description of their "spirit."

A pacifist speaks his mind.

On October 8, Air Force Academy cadet Robert Kurpiel sent an e-mail to several college professors seeking support for the academy's annual assembly, which provides a forum for the exchange of political views. His polite request sought advice on publicity for the event and such. One who responded was Professor Peter Kirstein of St. Xavier University in Chicago. Here is his October 31 reply in full and verbatim:

You are a disgrace to this country and I am furious you would even think I would support you and your aggressive baby killing tactics of collateral damage. Help you recruit. Who, top guns to reign [sic] death and destruction upon nonwhite peoples throughout the world? Are you serious sir? Resign your commission and serve your country with honour.

No war, no air force cowards who bomb countries with AAA, without possibility of retaliation. You are worse than the snipers. You are imperialists who are turning the whole damn world against us. September 11 can be blamed in part for what you and your cohorts have done to Palestinians, the VC, the Serbs, a retreating army at Basra.

You are unworthy of my support.

After the national media covered this story, and Dr Kirstein was temporarily removed from his position for his remarks, he gave the following (non)apology:

I have expressed to Cadet Kurpiel my regrets over what I communicated to him in my e-mail. I did not mean to impugn his character. I am sure he is of the highest character. I should have written him in a more thoughtful and contemplative manner. As one who believes in non-violence and the avoidance of conflict, I could have been more circumspect and creative in my communication with him.."

I don't think I need to add much commentary here, except I can say from some of my experience at Texas A&M that Dr Kirstein is no exception and this this is the ugly underbelly of today's academia out in the open.

Trent Lott

Here is a quote from MSNBC news:

He added, "I am going to have to make changes, make amends and do something about it." Specifically, he pledged his support for affirmative action programs and for creation of a "task force on reconciliation."
"There's an opportunity here," Lott said. "This is a wake-up call."
When pressed by moderator Ed Gordon, Lott spoke candidly about his Thurmond comment. "It was insensitive, at the very least," he said. He also said if he had to vote today he would vote for the federal holiday in honor of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., which he voted against in 1983."

Note a few things:
Lott doesn't ever acknowledge that his comment was in fact racist -- so what is he apologizing for exactly? He doesn't say. Instead of admitting his own guilt, he wants a "task force" -- as if his racist remarks should be dealt as a social problem, not a racist attitude on his part. (If he's not racist, he hasn't explained what he "really" meant by his remarks.)
As a response to his own racism, he decides to force it on others - by affirmative action. So what "convinced" him to support affirmative action and a national holiday for MLK? No answer. So does it then make any logical sense to change one's political views in response to your actual political views being revealed? Of course not. It only makes sense to a politician who tells the public whatever he believes they want to hear, without bothering to define any principles or ideals to base his position on.

No Gore in '04

It seems that Al Gore won't run in '04 after all, clearing the way for (the marginally better candidates) Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt, and Lieberman. Either way, as long as the Dems fail to get their act together and find something to stand for, Bush's re-election should be a shoe-in.
Also, while advertising the upcoming speech on Abortion, I started a lively (perhaps too lively) debate on TexAgs.com which is probably the most active thread ever outside their college football section.

Quoth one commie

"We need [Moore's] noisy, cocky energy, his passion and class consciousness; we need his shticks, we need his stones."

Anyone who wants more proof that Hollywood/media is commie heaven should note the
13 positive and 0 negative reviews on Michael Moore's latest manifesto: Bowling for Columbine.

Zimbabwe

The thing I find the most outrageous about politics in today's world is not that so many collectivist and authoritarian governments exist, but that it is the free nations of the world that support them. The U.S. is building North Korea a nuclear plant in exchange for it agreeing to not build more nukes, as millions of its citizens starve, kept alive by the millions in aid that the country gets every year, while North Korea diverts its entire industry (supported mostly by western aid) towards making more weapons and keeping a huge conscripted military force in the army instead of allowing their enslaved masses to raise any crops. As it sends aid and builds North Korea nuclear plans (which are illegal to build in the US thanks to the enviro-wakos), the U.S. military keeps several thousand troops stationed at the border between the Koreas to guard against North Korean aggression. More so than the dictators of these countries, who are common thugs, the "civilized" countries that support these dictatorships are responsible for their existence.

Recently, "thousands of tons of U.S. emergency food aid destined for crisis-stricken Zimbabwe has been diverted to other countries, and a new shipload may be diverted within days, because the donations include genetically modified corn that the Zimbabwean government does not want to accept." Why not? They "don't want to contaminate their soil with genetically modified crops"!
Even more outrageously, Mugabe has said he is being prudent. "We fight the present drought with our eyes clearly set on the future of the agricultural sector, which is the mainstay of our economy," he told Zimbabwe's parliament on July 23. "We dare not endanger its future through misplaced decisions based on acts of either desperation or expediency."

What Mugabe does not mention is that in the last year, he has stolen the land of thousands of white farmers in a pathetic attempt to boost his own failing popularity by taking the role of a common looter. Since the farmers produce most of the country's agricultural output and hire millions of workers, millions of people have gone starving (and unemployed) and the country's economy has nosedived. And this punk claims he is "set on the future"? But it's not Mugabe who makes me sick - it is the aid agencies, the governments, and the media that support these regimes by adopting and promoting the statist, collectivist, nihilist, and pragmatic attitudes that create these sad situations.
Excuse me while I barf.