who's your nanny?

Laws Are Meant to Protect Us? Don't Be Ridiculous!

It's unfortunate that so many people actually buy into the hype that laws are written to protect innocent citizens. Just the opposite, politicians craft legislation precisely to control and intimidate us and generate revenue for state coffers.

Take, for example, this story out of Batavia, N.Y., where a man was charged with driving while intoxicated even though he was parked on the side of the road.

Gregory M. Brew, 24, of East Bethany, also was charged with operating on a conditional license and third-degree aggravated unlicensed operation.

Brew was parked on the shoulder of Bethany Center Road just after 2 a. m. Monday when Genesee County sheriff’s deputies approached his vehicle and charged him.

If politicians and police, the enforcement arm of the legislature, really just wanted us to be safe as we went about our daily lives, wouldn't they consider it a good thing when people who realize they've had a bit too much to drink pulled off the road to sober up?

Ask yourself: If the point of DWI laws really was to prevent automobile accidents, wouldn't the state laud these responsible drivers instead of slapping on the manacles and tossing them into government cages?

This is no different than when police ticket motorists for flashing their headlights at one another to warn against speed traps. If the czars truly wanted us to slow down, they would have to admit that these voluntary warnings are an undeniably good thing. But that's not what they want. They want to extract as much money from us as possible at every possible turn.

Vital Reading in a Stormy Economy

Doug Casey is interviewed at length by International Speculator and shares vital knowledge on how to position yourself to survive the inevitable economic collapse.

Obama's Altruism?

I just noticed an ad in an online newspaper that read "Obama will give you $2,500 a year to go to school." Oh, really? I thought. Obama will open up his own wallet and reimburse a percentage of your education? Gee, that's pretty nice of him!

So I clicked on the link and it took me to this website, where I was able to read up on the meat of this education program. Sure enough, our esteemed president isn't giving anyone any of his own money. Silly me!

A major part of the bill is a $13.8 billion tuition tax credit boost called the American Opportunity Tax Credit. This tax credit reimburses 100 percent of the first $2,000 of educational expenses for lower income students. For the next $2,000, students will receive a 25 percent reimbursement. In short, lower income students will receive $2,500 in education reimbursements per year.

Not only does this federal program discriminate against "higher" income students (whoever they are), but it is funded by working Americans who are being robbed by Barack Obama. As with any government welfare program, only the taxpayer can "give" you money.

Meet Your Inestimable TSA

As if it weren't bad enough that the feds have layered already-inefficient airline "security" measures with even more bureaucracy following last week's attempted terrorist attack, it should be very comforting for everyone to know that the TSA couldn't prevent an attack even if it wanted to.

The Natural

I generally don't post photos of my family on this blog -- it's fine for readers to hate me but I want to keep my wife and kid out of the line of fire -- but I took my son, Biggie Smalls, ice skating today for the first time.

At 2, he can already walk in skates without folding his ankles, and he could balance himself on the ice at times without having to be held up. From the looks of it, he had fun and asked if he could go again. Definitely deserving of his ice cream cone at McDonald's afterward. And best of all, when I asked him -- face full of ice cream -- if he liked ice skating or ice cream better, he actually said ice skating. Daddy might get a meal plan yet!

 
Cut us some slack with the figure skates; it's all they had in kids' sizes.

By the way, what the hell's with all the kids today who push around those stupid "ice crutches" -- PVC goals without the netting -- that they use for balance during the public skates? Are parents too lazy to get on the ice with their kids nowadays and help them skate? Are kids too afraid of falling to try to skate without them?

We let Biggie Smalls use the "crutch" today for about 10 minutes, mostly because I haven't skated in a year and needed a little break because my feet were killing me. I swore I'd never even do it once, but I admit I was interested in seeing if he was more comfortable with it because he was a little scared given that this was his first time and all. I have to say, though, I've already decided I'll never subject him to these devices again.

But seriously, I've always hated these things. You don't give your kids crutches as they're learning to walk, so they don't need them when they're learning to skate. Check out my (admittedly awful) camera phone pic below -- you can see at least five kids using these training wheels in the photo alone, and I counted 14 altogether around the rink. That accounted for at least half the kids on the ice -- and we're not talking about 2-year-olds here; we're talking about kids who were at least 10 or 12.

I realize most kids will never grow up to be professional hockey players, but jeez, let your kids fall once in a while.
   

The Church-State Bond Is Strong

This is one of those posts I'm writing a couple days after I'd originally planned to because I figured a day or two of contemplation might quell any potential overreaction I'd be guilty of by writing in the heat of the moment.

Turns out I'll be writing the same thing I would have Thursday night, after returning from what I considered to be an incredibly absurd Christmas Eve service at my family's Catholic church. I've acknowledged before that I'm not a particularly religious person, but ever since I was raised Catholic as a child I've had issues with Catholicism.

In a nutshell, I was the kid in CCD class -- I went to a Catholic school through third grade then transferred to the public school closest to my house when my mom went back to work -- who constantly asked the teacher how you knew God existed, why it really mattered to God whether you went to church or not as long as you believed in him, why my grandma said I'd go to hell if I missed a day of church, etc.

I'm the first to admit that the teachings I was subjected to may not have been what the church considers "normal," or maybe they were. I have no idea. And the point is, I've never really cared much. Faith is not something I've had the benefit of acquiring to date, and whether that makes me better or worse than the person who has it, I likewise have no idea. I was probably more mature for my age when I was ten than I am now, and I always resented being forced by my parents to go to church. I figured I was smart enough to figure out which religion, if any, I could choose for myself, and from a young age I both understood and rejected the concept of indoctrination.

Now that I have a young son, it bothers me that he's seemingly destined to grow up in a religious environment I oppose. When I broach this subject with my wife, she simply says I agreed to raise our kids Catholic when I agreed to get married in a Catholic church. Case closed. Apparently it's impossible to change your mind even after you realize you were wrong. (I bet there are a lot of blacks in this country who are thankful there are at least some people out there who believe it's not.)

For the record, I suggested going to Vegas and saving my father-in-law the money, but that was a futile argument. Getting married in a church is obviously a social norm, but if I realized then that merely acceding to my wife's request would come back to bite me this hard, I would have fought harder. My proposed "compromise," if you will, is that my wife will consent to exposing our son to a variety of religions and allow him to choose his own path. Novel idea, I know. To date I've gotten nowhere with that.

I know a great many people who are Catholic and I have no beef with them as individuals, per se. Hell, technically I'm Catholic. Sometimes you do something so long that you don't know how to change even if you wanted to. I get it. I'm just the type of person who would rather not associate with (let alone finance) an organization that doesn't share my beliefs. Call me crazy.

The best part is, Thursday night was the first time my wife has been to church in months. Par for the course for a lot of Catholics; the place wouldn't have been jammed if so many of the "faithful" didn't try to stem that almighty guilt trip by at least hitting Jesus's major holidays. Of course, I'm just hoping I can infer from my wife's sporadic attendance that she's actually assenting in part to my requests, willing to expose my son to the church less often than she knows she could.

On to the big show. We got to church about 20 minutes early, so we got seats next to the rest of my wife's family. The priest opened the service with a rather tacky attack on the phrase "Happy Holidays," which you're obviously apt to hear during the -- forgive me -- holiday shopping season. It's not like it was misplaced given the crowd, but the delivery was inappropriate. Listening to a Man of God contort his voice for the express purpose of mocking a 17-year-old cashier simply following her boss's order was way over the top.

We all know that Christianity is the only legitimate religion, of course. Especially in America, where clearly we're all WASPs. You'd just think that someone sent to walk the earth in God's image would be tolerant enough to understand that not all companies can afford to offend vast swaths of the citizenry without going out of business (No?). Not to mention, wouldn't it sound a little stupid to tell someone "Merry Christmas" the week after Thanksgiving? (For what it's worth, just about every store clerk I encountered on Wednesday and Thursday was wishing customers a Merry Christmas.)

But that little indignity was nothing compared to the following two, which together comprise the primary reason I want little to do with the Catholic faith in general and "our" local church in particular. From what little I know about Christianity, it's supposed to be a beacon for peace and prosperity worldwide. However, in my experience it is fully aligned with the one entity that is responsible for the vast majority of evil and tyranny around the world: the state.

During a prayer session -- the part where the congregation replies "We pray to the Lord" -- the reader prayed for "government officials to smash the yoke of oppression." It would be bad enough if the church didn't realize that "government" -- specifically, the U.S. government -- is the exact cause of the oppression it ostensibly wishes to eliminate; the fact that it must and nevertheless overlooks it is unforgivable.

The final insult was a prayer for all American military personnel stationed overseas who will not be with their families this Christmas. Well, that prayer in itself was not an insult, but failing to pray simultaneously for all the innocent families who suffer at the hands of our military most certainly was. Of course, this church finds itself about ten miles from the Pax River navy base, so obviously it can't risk offending military parishioners who might take offense at such an unfathomable prayer and decide to leave the church, taking all their donations with them.

Organized religion is a business like any other, inasmuch as it -- and, more specifically, the churches that distribute the respective teachings -- will cater to their customers in order to remain in business. But the Catholic faith -- from its acceptance of taxpayer dollars to active endorsement of church-state partnerships to bigoted rants against homosexuality even as its own priests have confessed to molesting altar boys -- is a bit much for me.

Maybe I'm just misguided -- I welcome anyone to lend respectful enlightenment as a means of pointing out where I've gone wrong -- but as of right now, I'm not buying what they're selling.

I'm Already Sick of HannuRamaKwanzaMas

What is it about people who feel the need to subject everyone else to the gabble of their desk radios during the workday? Has our widespread entitlement mentality finally eroded that last bit of common decency you could usually still find if you took the time to look hard enough?

As if it weren't bad enough that Christmas has devolved to mere department store subsidy via obligatory gift-giving, today I'm penned in my cubicle between one guy blaring holiday songs on his radio and another guy whistling and singing along to this endless prattle.

I'd really like to extend this rant a little more but, honestly, I can't even freaking concentrate with Bing Crosby's candles on the tree permeating what little space I've got available between my ears.

Yes, guys, Christmas Eve has indeed found us -- now shut the hell up and put on your headphones if you want to make it to your holly jolly Christmas!

Oh Jesus, now it's the Chipmunks. Someone put me out of my misery.

Pig Brother

In a free country, there would be no government police.

But in those that could at least uphold the facade of freedom, the cameras would be pointed in the exact opposite direction.

The State Screws the Poor Too

It's that time of year again. Time to make room for new Christmas toys by hauling all of my son's "old" toys to the dump instead of to local thrift stores that used to be able to sell cheap toys to poor families.

Due to a federal law that took effect in February this year, most resale shops -- whether non-profit or for-profit -- have since refused to accept donated children's toys unless they are still in their original packaging.

Congress enacted the law last year in response to recalls of imported toys laced with lead.

The law requires all items marketed to children 12 or under to be certified lead-free.

Thrift shops that rely on charitable contributions aren't in business to test toys for lead; they're in business to provide affordable goods to people who usually can't afford to shop at Macy's. And, of course, the reason these goods can be sold very cheaply is because they're generally obtained by the stores free of charge.

However, because it's extremely cost-prohibitive for these businesses to comply with this new regulation -- notwithstanding the sanctions they'd likely face should they fail to comply -- they simply can't afford to accept used toys anymore.

So take that, kiddies! Who needs Santa when you've got Uncle Sam?

Snow Removal and Homesteading

I've spent the past two days digging out cars under about 16 inches of snow. I dug out my car and my girlfriend's car yesterday. Today I dug out my parents' cars. As I dug out my parents' cars, I noticed that there were chairs, trash cans, and other objects in newly cleaned spaces. People put those objects there to let others know that the space "belongs" to someone else. It is easy to understand why people do this. After someone has spent 30 minutes or so removing snow so that he can drive his car, he would like to have the space when he returns home. He does not want to come home and see a freerider parked in "his" space. I say "belongs" and "his" because these are public streets and, thus, it is not clear who owns them. However, we can be sure that if the State is involved, the taxpayer certainly does not "own" them.

But I find the situation interesting because it illustrates two things. First, it demonstrates how the lack of clear property rights can potentially lead to conflict. Suppose I have cleared out a space and put a chair in it, but someone else removes my chair and parks his car there. I can complain or I could be diplomatic and use reason to persuade him to move from the space. But since I do not actually "own" the space, I have no right to use force to make him move his car. Even though I applied my labor and changed the nature of the land to accommodate my desires, I did not own the land upon which I mixed my labor.

One could argue that since I have "paid" taxes which were used to create the street, I do in fact "own" the street. But this is problematic. For one thing, this street was built before I was born. I cannot "own" something which was created before I was born unless it has been transferred to me by the legitimate owner. But if the street was built after I was born and I was earning an income which was taxed by the government to build the street, it is still not clear that I own the street. Other people have also "paid" their taxes and they would also have a claim to the street. My neighbors would definitely want to claim the part of the street which I cleaned. But such is the problem of public streets, public schools, or anything publicly-owned. It is not clear who owns the public street, but we can be sure that the State will simply assert that it owns it because it built it. The fact that the State received the money through the violence of taxation is irrelevant; the State has more guns than we have and and the will to use them against those who disobey its edicts. 

Second, however, it demonstrates how people have a natural understanding of Lockean homesteading. People believe that mixing labor with land gives them "ownership" of the area which they dug out. And many neighbors accept this as ownership. In my parents' neighborhood, the neighbors will not park in a space which they have not dug out. They realize that the person who worked hard to clean out the space "owns" the space. After the snow melts, "ownership" is no longer recognized, but this is because good parking spaces are no longer scarce in my parents' neighborhood.

This is not the case with a publicly owned road. The "owner" who removed the snow will not be recognized as the legitimate owner of the street by the law; hence, if he were to remove the "squatter's" vehicle by force, he would be considered an aggressor. Of course, if the streets were privately owned, there would be no potential conflict. If the owner actually owned the space, he would not have to worry about someone parking in his space. If someone did park in his space, he would be justified in using force to remove the squatter's vehicle. Moreover, the law in this case would recognize that the owner does have this right and is justified in removing the squatter's vehicle.

So while publicly owned streets breed potential conflict, it is refreshing to know that many people have an innate understanding of Lockean homesteading. They voluntarily accept the idea of ownership of a parking space until the snow melts and the good parking spaces are no longer scarce. This innate understanding suggests that people do have an instinctive sense of natural rights and it gives me a small amount of hope for the future of humanity.

Twilight Zone Politics

Up is down, left is right.

In this video, Obama pretends he's the fiscal conservative's public servant by claiming we (just who is this "we" guy, anyway?) can't treat tax dollars like "Monopoly money."

No, just the money "we" create out of thin air by firing up the printing presses at the U.S. Mint.

Government Roads Kill

As usual, two day's notice for a snowstorm just wasn't enough time for bureaucrats in southern Maryland to get taxpayer-subsidized snow plows on the roads so motorists could drive home safely last night.

We're still getting pummeled down here at the time of this writing (3 p.m.), but last night's ten mile jaunt home from a friend's house took about 45 minutes as frequently-traveled side roads went unplowed while at least four inches accumulated, causing several cars to slide off the road. I noticed one truck with a plow, but he was almost certainly a volunteer.

Even today, I'm watching the DC news and major highways like I-90 are completely snow-covered and rendered virtually unnavigable.

Seriously? It seems we have a cop for every three people nowadays, but the state must have one snow plow for every 20,000 people.

I'm not knocking workers who do their best with limited resources to clear roadways, and obviously main thoroughfares should take priority over back roads. I'm just saying that these types of situations clearly point out how governments misallocate scarce resources. But that's par for the course when you can steal money instead of having to operate on a profit and loss basis.

It always amazes me how many people can't even fathom private ownership of roads and bridges, yet your privately-owned and -maintained shopping plazas and the like are always the first to clear parking lots, etc. No customers = no revenue. Why would highways be any different?

Lookin' out for the Hometown Peeps

Can't even pretend to close an evil prison camp without turning it into a jobs program for the constituents back home.

The Stunning Hypocrisy and Arrogance of the President

If anyone has the time and the stomach I recommend reading Obama's Nobel Peace prize acceptance speech. It is a stunning example of the hypocrisy and arrogance of the president. These traits are required of anyone who actually becomes President of the United States.

Allow me to examine this passage, for example:

Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe that the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions.

Does the president adhere to these "certain rules of conduct" which he says that "makes us different from those we fight"? Let's take a closer look.

Barack Obama Is No Peter North

It's official: War = Peace. 

Can you imagine how giddy the Nobel committee must have been in selecting Barack "Peace Man" Obama for the Nobel Peace Prize? I mean, think about it: Not only did they have a president who sanctions the wanton murder of men, women, and children in two high-profile wars (and a handful of lesser ones), but one who for good measure also refused to sign a treaty banning land mines. And you know how Democrats just looove treaties. So, obviously, O-bomb-a was a dead ringer!

But even I didn't expect to hear this during Obama's acceptance speech yesterday. I really thought he would've done a better job trying to fake his penchant for violence:

Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states; have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today's wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sewn, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed and children scarred.

There you have it, folks. Your American president admitting that he is a war criminal, that he knowingly executes innocent civilians as he pursues a fantastical "war on terror."

And if that's not putrid enough for you, here Obama admits just how ignorant he really is:

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

Well, what I know is that everything following that first sentence in bold is nothing more than intellectual pap masquerading as substance of character, of which we as a country have pretty much been devoid for the better part of a couple centuries now.

In fact, Barry, there is one very simply "definitive solution" to the wars in which the U.S. is currently embattled. All you have to do is make like Peter North -- and pull the fuck out.

Jackboot Nation

Another must-read today by Will Grigg on how our esteemed "peace officers" demand impunity even as they increasingly apply excessive force to beat, torture, and kill innocent -- or at the very least nonviolent -- Americans.

I ♥ Bureaucrazy

I wasted two hours of my life this morning driving back and forth between government buildings in St. Mary's County because I had to transfer my business license -- i.e., my permission slip from the state allowing me to be a productive citizen -- from my previous residence in Calvert County.

As if driving from the planning and zoning office in one plaza to the licensing office in the circuit court building then back to assessments and treasury (two separate offices) in the original building before heading back to licensing at the courthouse (!!!) weren't bad enough, the lady in the licensing office ultimately couldn't send me on my way with my official license because the computer wouldn't let her process the $2 processing fee.

Soak that in for a second. I couldn't finalize this entire boneheaded process because the trusty government computers couldn't process the frackin' processing fee. Cosmic justice, I tell ya.

I agreed to let the lady mail the license to me -- I made her pinky swear she wouldn't dispatch SWAT should she happen to learn I sold a bottle or two of my spice mix while my permission to conduct trade with consenting adults was tied up in the reliable hands of the USPS in the meantime -- but I'm really broken up that my beloved document will have to be tarnished by creases and who knows what else by the time I finally see it again.

Gen. 'Betrayus' on Afghanistan

David Petraeus, in testimony Wednesday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: "Achieving progress in Afghanistan will be hard and progress there likely will be slower in developing than was the progress in Iraq."

Real genius, this guy. Wonder what his first clue was.

Republicans question whether the 30,000 extra U.S. troops approved by Obama are sufficient and the timeline too hurried. Democrats say the U.S. could become mired in a war already surpassing eight years.

Petraeus said he fully supports the policy and cautioned lawmakers to “withhold judgment” on whether it is successful until December 2010, when the strategy and [sic] will be assessed with an eye to beginning a drawdown of U.S. forces in July 2011.

You can't send enough troops to combat for the GOP, and the Dems apparently don't realize you're already mired in any murder spree that's lasted eight years. And Petraeus? He doesn't even want you questioning Pentagon policy until a year from now.

So here's how it's supposed to go: Shut your mouths until the end of next year, and then believe us when we say we'll start withdrawing troops a mere six months after you're theoretically allowed to have an opinion on the matter.

The fact that there's even one American who believes this bullshit is mind-numbingly depressing. But there are millions. Bully for us.

It's too bad I only get a couple hundred readers a day at this blog, because now would be a fantastic time for a couple hundred million Americans to familiarize themselves with one Dr. Jonathan Kolkey and his impressive decades-long project.

'Locker' Gets a Reprieve

Watching the Sabres-Capitals game tonight (hockey, for the majority of you Americans). As a Sabres fan living in Maryland, I can't get the Buffalo feed and have to put up with Caps announcers Joe Beninati and Craig Laughlin, both of whom I've generally regarded as, uh, mildly irritating as far as hockey commentators go.

With Beninati's borderline-retarded referral to power plays as "manpower advantages" and 5-on-5 play as "even and full strength," and Locker's nasally description of goal-scoring as "putting the biscuit in the basket," I'm always tempted to turn down the sound on the tv in favor of listening to Rick Jeanneret's radio telecast as he calls Sabres-Caps games.

But, I suppose you can't hold it against other teams that Buffalo has the best play-by-play man in all of sports. And I suppose that as a Buffalo native, I'm probably guilty at times of a little nasal pronunciation myself. Or maybe I'm just getting old and way too forgiving.

Whatever the case, I have to say I gave Laughlin the ol' thumbs up during the first period as he and Beninati were congratulating Caps forward Matt Bradley, who's absent tonight due to the birth of his son. The guys were talking about Bradley buying cigars for the team when Laughlin warned him not to "chince" on them, saying that "Cubans will be fine."

Good for you, Locker. Way to stick it to the man from the nation's capital. Well, from Buffalo, but as I said, I'm stuck watching the Washington telecast.

Maybe there's a chance for us yet, Craig!

Just As You Can't 'Owe' Taxes...

...you can't "trespass" on your own property. But what Jeremy Engelking found out the hard way on Wednesday is that there really is no such thing as private property here in the "land of the free."

Engelking attempted to stop a pipeline crew from working on his land, stating that he hadn't received compensation from the company in what essentially boils down to a case of eminent domain, a fancy term for government theft of property that isn't completely publicly owned.

Engelking said workers told him he was in an unsafe place and asked him to come to an equipment staging area, where he continued to argue his case.

But just as he was turning to leave, Engelking said an officer from the Douglas County Sheriff’s Department arrived on the scene and approached with a Taser drawn.

“He ordered me to 'get down on the ground now!' And he said that I was being arrested for trespassing,” Engelking said.

Of course, you can't have a police officer involved in a nonviolent dispute these days without the simultaneous threat of lethal electrocution, so Engelking had that going for him as well.

Property taxes alone are proof that we truly don't own belongings we perceive to be ours. Anyone who is forced to pay an extortion fee to an armed band of thugs in order to live peaceably in his home is most certainly not free. The state assumes direct ownership of all our property, confiscating as much as it deems "necessary" before determining how much it shall leave for the rest of its subjects.

One Nation, under Military Rule...

Tom Engelhardt on how Barack Obama has surrendered civilian authority to his military masters.

Let's Get Rid of Opposite-Sex Marriage, Too

Inasmuch as it's regulated by the state, that is.

State senators in "liberal" New York voted down a measure yesterday that would have legalized gay marriage.

I neither support nor oppose the right of gays to marry -- or straights for that matter. In short, it is no one's business what two (or more) people wish to do peaceably with one another.

Instead of lobbying for the state's permission to recognize same-sex marriage, gays might be better served by arguing against the government's right to regulate marriage altogether.

Equality will never be achieved if we continue to believe the state is capable of upholding or preserving individual liberties; it will only be achieved once we understand it's the state itself that usurps freedom as a rule.

'After 18 Months, Our Troops Will Begin to Come Home'

In response to Emperor George W. Obama's promise after announcing he will order 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, I can only say ...

... BWAAAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!

Just like when he immediately removed troops from Iraq. Just like when he pledged not to build any more bases. Just like when he ended war in 2009.

I need bigger pockets to carry all this change.