who's your nanny?

Hologram of Liberty: Chapter 9-"Cure the Patient, Kill the Doctor"

This is the tenth essay in my live-blog of Hologram of Liberty by Kenneth Royce. You can also read my summary of the Introduction, Chapter 1, Chapter 2, Chapter 3, Chapter 4, Chapter 5, Chapter 6, Chapter 7 and Chapter 8.

In Chapter 9, Royce looks for solutions to reverse the growth of government within the existing political system, but sees little hope. He does not think that there will be dramatic reversals of policy through the legislative or executive branches. There is a better chance of liberty being advanced through the judiciary, but only if better judges are appointed. He thinks this is very unlikely and even if more liberty oriented judges were by some miracle appointed to the Supreme Court, the President and Congress could just increase the number of justices and pack the court with justices who will rule in their favor.

What about impeaching congressmen or justices who disregard the public interests? This is very unlikely. Says Royce, "Since 1940, there have been only nine impeachment investigations." And impeachments are now only used for criminal offenses rather than political offenses.

What about electing a President who would use Executive Orders to wipe out bureaucracies? This is also very unlikely. Royce does not see how a laissez-faire candidate could get on the ballot, much less be elected. A person cannot become a viable candidate without approval from the Republican or Democrat elite.

How about the Constitution? The Constitution could theoretically be amended to better restrain government. Royce even lists some possible amendments including:

• Congressmen cannot exempt themselves from their own rules;
• salary increases for President, Congressmen and Justices must be approved by popular referendum;
• moratorium on new, and ceiling on total, public debt;
• creation of a third house of Congress to unmake law with power also to impeach and try federal officials;
• monetary reform to recognize only gold and silver coin as money, and prohibiting government from selling credit;
• recipients of government checks, excluding disabled vets, denied suffrage until they return to the private sector;
• "due process" to mean (criminally and civilly) the unanimous verdict of twelve jurors in a local county court;
• elimination of Article I tribunals, civil forfeitures, eminent domain, and licensed monopolies and professions;
• "sunshine law" (expiration) for federal bureaucracies;
• elimination of "sovereign" and "good faith" immunities for government officials and employees.

Sad Anniversary

Five years ago today my friends Denis and Trish were killed in a car accident on their way home from dinner. Denis hit an icy patch on a downgrade in the road and spun helplessly into the path of an oncoming pickup truck.

 

I've resisted the urge on anniversaries past to focus on anything but how great these two wonderful people were, and this year is no different. So all I'll say is that the county knew for two days that meteorologists were calling for icy rain that evening, yet even at 8 pm there wasn't so much as a granule of salt on the roads.

I'll be at ABC Liquors in California, Md., tonight serving up some free chili and promoting my spice mix. There's one round on me for anyone who'd like to raise a glass to Denis and Trish.

O Glorious State-Run Adoption!

As I was glancing through the Buffalo News, I came across this nice story about a Buffalo family that adopted a three-year-old boy named Geoffrey from Haiti.

Naturally, my first thought was one of pleasant disbelief -- how could an American family so quickly navigate the bureaucratic gauntlet of adoption regulations to rescue a Haitian boy from his earthquake-ravaged village? Perhaps our esteemed regulators have finally embraced the concept of getting the hell out of the way in order to facilitate rescue efforts by motivated, private citizens!

But of course not. The Lancer family has been trying to adopt little Geoffrey for two years.

Erin Lancer was in Haiti visiting Geoffrey when the devastating earthquake shook the impoverished nation Jan. 12. Neither was injured. She was evacuated, but Geoffrey had to stay behind at his orphanage because the paperwork allowing him to leave Haiti and come to the United States was not completed.

I'm sure the Lancers are busy celebrating the culmination of a years-long quest (nothwithstanding the outstanding paperwork required to make Geoffrey's immigration permanent, of course), but how absurd that they could have just as easily lost their new son a couple weeks ago due to the mind-numbing bureaucracy associated with state-run adoption.

This is Not a Very Good Pro-IP Argument

In a December 21, 2009 article in defense of intellectual property, William Shughart writes:

But the reality is that new ideas are scarce, and their discoverers, as our Founding Fathers recognized, merit protection from those who seek to gain from their intellect, investments and hard work without just compensation.

Yes, ideas, the very thoughts of man, are now scare resources like clean water or land. I guess I better keep this post short. I would hate to use up all my ideas tonight and have to run to the store to buy a fresh supply for the morning.

Missing the Point

Police in Queens, N.Y., are investigating the A1 Medicine clinic after Alexandra Nunez died Monday during an abortion.

Detectives have interviewed the staff at the Roosevelt Ave. clinic, but no charges have been filed, police said.

"There is an investigation going forward," said Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, "but as of yet, there's no indication of any criminality."

Nah, no criminality. Only the fact that an innocent baby was murdered in the process.

Guess Who Has More Readers Than Newsday.com

Give up? We do!

In the three months since Newsday put its online content behind a pay wall, it has garnered a whopping 35 subscribers.

At least our loyal 200 visitors per day will never have to worry about being asked to pay to read our scintillating opinions.

Respect My Authoritah!

Maybe Chambersburg, Pa., man Ron Doyle takes government road rules a little too seriously, but that doesn't mean he deserved to get assaulted by several of Pennsylvania's "finest" -- the tax-feeders otherwise known as the PA state troopers.

Doyle walked to his neighborhood food mart after an NFL playoff game on Sunday -- presumably either yesterday or last week; I can't find a date on the news report -- to retrieve his car because it wouldn't start after he parked it there earlier in the day.

On his way out of the store, Doyle noticed a pickup truck parked illegally in the fire lane and proceeded to ask the driver what gave him the privilege to do so. It turned out that the man was off-duty state trooper Craig Finkle, who flashed his badge and told Doyle that's what entitled him to park there.

Given that police officers technically aren't allowed to double park or park in emergency lanes even when on duty in most jurisdictions unless they're doing so on official business, I find it difficult to believe that Finkle was within his rights to park in a fire lane off the clock. But that matters not to our betters who are graced with the state's badges and costumes, as Doyle quickly learned when Finkle got on his cell phone and called for "units that can roll now."

What Doyle would learn the hard way is that not only are mere commoners not allowed to lay a finger on our esteemed officers of the law, but we're not to so much as question their authority to act in any manner they please. For no sooner had Doyle gotten home and put away his groceries before three state police cars arrived at his house.

Confusing Submission with Consent

Some of you are aware that I've embarked upon an entrepreneurial endeavor selling my own personal brand of chili spice mix, and after spending at least two months getting all my bureaucratic paperwork straight with the state of Maryland -- trade name applications, business licensing, etc. -- I just found out I'm apparently not fully "legit" yet.

I still have to file a sales and use (tax) license, which essentially puts me on the grid so the state can come find me in the event I neglect to surrender 6 percent of the revenues I collect from individual consumers living in Maryland.

I find it exceedingly rich that I have to hold a license to be robbed by a third party I care absolutely nothing about.

Given that I just flew commercial last weekend, I note that the state of Maryland's mentality concerning taxation is analogous to the federal TSA's when it comes to boarding a plane -- as long as I "voluntarily" choose to stand in a cattle line and be prodded simply to enjoy (ahem) "freedom of travel," I apparently consent to whatever humiliation, degradation, and abuse the state sees fit to wield. Similary, I must consent to being taxed if I "voluntarily" fill out my sales and use form in my attempt to be a productive member of society.

The truth, however, is that I do not consent to being taxed by my betters or being felt up by men in airport terminals (among the myriad other violations of privacy to which we're exposed on a daily basis here in the land of the free). Nor is it even possible to consent when the consequence of failing to do so is prohibition of peaceful activity.

While many folks mistakenly believe that one consents to, say, paying property taxes if he chooses to live in areas where they are levied, I disagree. I argue that I (should) have the natural right to live anywhere I choose without having to pay an extortion fee to anyone in order to do so.

While some people indeed do condone taxation, it nevertheless constitutes an initiation of violence on behalf of the state. Taxation, like any other government regulation, is coercive, where failure to comply will be met with more and more violence, including death. Therefore, it is impossible to "consent" to coercion. One may only submit or be mauled.

Friday Night Tunes

I spent last weekend in Park City, UT, which explains why this blog sat dormant for so long for the better part of the past week, so I apologize for that. But I was out pimping my new chili spice mix -- have you tried it for yourself yet? -- and I also had a blast catching up with old friends, especially my buddy Brian and his wife -- both friends from college who have made a significant impact on my life over the past 15 years.

For the past dozen years, Brian owned a record shop that unfortunately went out of business at the end of last year. (If you think it's rough owning an indy music shop in the age of the internet and superstores, think about what it's like after the economy tanks.)

Brian is single-handedly the only reason I know anything at all about music (which admittedly isn't much), and ever since college -- whether we'd go on roadies together or just sit around the house chillin' with our mates to some good tunes -- whenever I think of my favorites songs, it's uncanny how often it turned out I was hanging out with him when I heard them for the first time.

Things really haven't changed much. Here are two songs I'll always associate with my latest trip to Park City. "Just Breath" from Pearl Jam's latest album, and "I and Love and You" by the Avett Brothers.

I Never Used to Text While Driving

But ever since Maryland banned it, I make a point to do it just about every time I get behind the wheel.

Our "Broken" System

I find it interesting that many people in this country believe that our government is "broken" because it does not serve the masses. I've seen a fair amount of such thinking lately especially today after the Supreme Court ruling on campaign spending. It is not "government of the people, by the people, and for the people", they argue. And they hope that through the democratic process, they can elect the right people who will restore trust in a government which responds to the masses.

But to call government "broken" because it does not serve the masses is like calling a blender "broken" because it won't burn DVDs. A blender is not designed to burn DVDs. And the State is not designed to serve the masses. It is a criminal institution. It originated in conquest and deceit. It divides the people into two groups: the exploiters and the exploited. It does this because it cannot do anything else. Just as a blender can only spin a blade at high speeds, a State can only rob, kill, and oppress the exploited. As long as the State is the ultimate judge of conflict including conflicts involving itself, and has the power to tax and make laws without consent, paper constitutions will never limit its power.

So the next time someone tells you that our system of government is broken, point to the two bailout bills and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as evidence that our government is not at all broken but is, in fact, excelling at its purpose.

Do Massachusetts Voters Oppose Statism, or Just Obamacare?

Count me among the relatively few libertarians who aren't particularly thrilled that Scott Brown just whooped Martha Coakley.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that Massachusetts voters just proverbially bitch-slapped the president, most likely over his health care policies. But I doubt Brown's election will make one bit of difference in the grand scheme of things. Why? Because you can't elect one statist over another and expect to get less statism.

Occasionally I take part in a private libertarian forum hosted by Stephan Kinsella, and the other day I remarked that Brown's victory might actually be bad for the small but palpable liberty movement currently led by Ron Paul.

As an anarcho-capitalist I believe the faster the American Empire falls, the better; that if Brown's election actually upsets the Democrats' plans for radical health care "reform," it could (perhaps perversely) work against the liberty movement -- if forcing a blatantly unconstitutional and tyrannical bill down our throats actually served to wake up Americans to the inherent evil of the state (in itself no guarantee, of course).

One forum participant challenged my logic with the following comments:

(1) ... there's [no] reason to think that Brown not getting elected would mean the fall of the U.S. any sooner. The USSR held itself together almost for 100 years, and post-[communist] Russia hasn't been that much better, anyway.

(2) While it's obvious that the faster the empire falls the better, since it's not so obvious whether inflicting as much pain as soon as possible is the best strategy for achieving this, it could very well be that increasing statism as much as possible right now is actually worse for everyone, both now and in the long run. It seems the safer bet to me to oppose statism at every turn. (This harkens back to Mises's view that he shouldn't have stopped the hyperinflation in Austria, a point on which Rothbard and Rockwell have "corrected" him.)

Both are excellent points, and they're indicative of my inner struggle regarding how best we beat back tyranny both in our lifetime and in years to come. 

For instance, you could argue that Ron Paul's growing popularity is delaying the eventual fall of the empire, as well. While I admire the man for his principles -- he's clearly the only true gentleman and statesman in Washington -- I nevertheless wouldn't vote for him in a presidential election because I don't vote (I simply don't consent to coercive government). If he were elected, however, it's almost irrefutable that statism would decrease in scope at least for a short while. 

But this isn't the case with respect to Scott Brown's election, if for no other reason than the fact that Brown is hardly a Ron Paul Republican -- he didn't run on a platform of liberty; he ran on a platform that establishment Republicans are better than establishment Democrats. In short, voters have most likely been suckered again into believing that they can simply elect the "opposition" and things will get better.

The vast majority of Republicans and conservatives -- that is, at least a third of all Americans -- aren't happy Brown won because they're desperate for more liberty; they're happy because they (1) hate Obama, (2) correctly believe that ramping up socialist medicine even more is a bad thing, and (3) can't wait until their own socialist is in the White House again. And as far as Brown himself is concerned, he can probably be thankful there are enough independent-minded Democrats in Massachusetts who oppose the commonwealth's own draconian health care mandates that they were able to swing the election in his favor.

Let's assume, however, that Brown did run an anti-establishment campaign. Would that mean that the future looks noticeably brighter? Would we be significantly better off if the state were to confiscate "only" 30 percent of our property instead of half? While it undoubtedly is better for liberty whenever Congress foists weaker controls on us rather than stronger ones, this oscillation between the Democrats' and Republicans' versions of statism nevertheless represents statism.

Liberty doesn't originate with politicians. Whatever the future holds, I don't want to simply be "freer than the USSR"; I want to be free. But that won't happen until Americans understand that liberty begins and ends with them, and subsequently refuse to partake in gang warfare via the voting booth.

I Can't Stand Voluntary Altruism Half the Time

Now that the holidays are over, I think I should discuss how much I hate the whole idea of compulsory gift-giving. I'm not allowed to even whimper so much as a protest during Christmas for fear of being lanced with the laser of my wife's evil eye, but in our family everyone with a heartbeat gets a present from everyone else for virtually every celebration on the Hallmark calendar.

I'm not complaining about getting the little nieces and nephews gifts on their birthday or little trinkets on Easter. I'm talking Christmas runs us at least a couple grand because it's just expected that all the adults exchange gifts with one another, to say nothing of hooking all the kids and family pets up with toys as well.

Of course, my wife's side of the family is pretty big so that doesn't help matters much. But when I was kid, even my ridiculously small family would pick names out of a hat a couple weeks before Christmas and that's the person you'd get the gift for. You'd put a lot of thought into your one responsibility and save money to boot. Nowadays, though, now that we've been whittled down to my mom and dad and my brother, sister, and her husband, even my side of the family buys for everyone.

It's not so much the sheer cost of gift-giving that bugs me, and I'm not even saying I wouldn't necessarily want to buy everyone and their mother (literally) a gift at any particular time, either -- it's that it's merely expected, which automatically eliminates any sense that the gesture is appreciated in the first place.

OK, so boo-hoo for me. That's not really the point of what I'm trying to say anyway. What I'm saying is that if I don't even care to spend my money on my own family members half the time -- the people that I love -- why the hell would I care about people I don't even know?

Put another way, why would I care whether complete strangers have material goods -- to say nothing of things like transportation, prepaid grocery bills, and health care -- when I know for a fact most people aren't worrying about my family (nor should they)?

Sounds crass, you say? As crass as shoving a gun in someone's face in order to force him to surrender his money to perfect strangers so politicians can continue to pander to preferred voter blocs? As crass as forcing parents to work multiple jobs to feed their own kids because the government's stolen so much money from their primary paycheck to feed other people's children that they have to get a secondary one?

Never should it be lost in any debate on nanny-/welfare-state policy that beneficiaries of compulsory altruism will only grow more and more expectant of the public's "benevolence" as they simultaneously grow less and less appreciative. Rarely are we gracious for other people's generosity when we know they had no other alternative for their good will.

So...I Get to Fly Commercial on Friday

I'm really not looking forward to dealing with the TSA Friday morning in Baltimore as my family and I attempt to make it to Utah without being anally probed before our morning coffee.

For the record, I've essentially sworn off commercial flight for, like, ever. I have no idea what I'd do if I didn't have a buddy whose company owns are couple planes and I couldn't mooch prop plane-friendly jumps from Maryland to states like New York and Florida. In fact, my homie Brian who lives in Park City is one of the few people for whom I'll actually put up with federal airline "security" measures.

I just hope it doesn't come back to bite me in the ass. You know...literally.

"As Long as It Keeps Us Safe..."

The truth is that the common man's love of liberty, like his love of sense, justice and truth, is almost wholly imaginary. As I have argued, he is not actually`happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. He longs for the warm, reassuring smell of the herd, and is willing to take the herdsman with it. Liberty is not a thing for such as he. He cannot enjoy it rationally himself, and he can think of it in others only as something to be taken away from them. It is, when it becomes a reality, the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority of men, like knowledge, courage and honour. A special sort of man is needed to understand it, nay, to stand it—and he is inevitably an outlaw in democratic societies. The average man doesn't want to be free. He simply wants to be safe.-H. L. Mencken

There are days when I allow myself to become optimistic about the prospects for liberty in my lifetime. Then I read an article like this in USAToday and skim the comments, and I am quickly brought back to reality. According to a recent USAToday/Gallup poll,

78% of respondents said they approved of using the scanners, and 67% said they are comfortable being examined by one. Eighty-four percent said the machines would help stop terrorists from carrying explosives onto airplanes. The survey was taken Jan. 5-6 of 542 adults who have flown at least twice in the past year.

Joel Skousen, a poll respondent, said "It would seem much more thorough than the process that we're doing now...It would put me more at ease getting on a plane." One comment on the article reads

Yeah most are ok but the aclu will lock this up and cost us millions of tax dollars while some monster blows up a plane. I hope one of those aclu pukes is on the plane when it smashes into the ground. I wonder if he will be thinking, "Hmm I am glad we fought this right to privacy" SPLAT.

Free free to read more of the comments if you have the stomach. There are plenty more like this there.

'You're Wasting My Time'

A work colleague told me a story this morning about an encounter she had over the weekend at a local food market. She and her husband went up to the checkout with a full cart of groceries and noticed a woman standing in line reading a magazine. Upon being asked if she was actually "in line," the woman said yes despite having no items on the belt.

My colleague, rather befuddled at the woman's bizarre behavior, didn't want to cut the in-line-but-not-ready-to-check-out lady, so she told the woman she was going to load her items at the back of the belt while she waited for her to proceed to the checkout.

Upon seeing the items on the belt, the lady apparently flew into a rage and began flinging them off, hitting my colleague several times with cans and other items -- to the point where some left red marks on her stomach through a down jacket.

My colleague said she called the police immediately and an officer actually showed up within two minutes, intercepting the assailant at the doors of the market on her way out. Bizarre as this entire situation was, it's not the best part of the story.

While my colleague was in the midst of explaining the course of events to the officer, he interrupted her and said, "You're wasting my time," noting snarkily that he could instead be out "catching real criminals."

Ah, yes. "Real criminals" -- like people who drive ten miles an hour over the speed limit, refuse to wear seatbelts, question the authority of tax-feeding police officers, drive without a registration or license, smoke in private bars and restaurants, gamble, or puff on harmless plants. Among dozens of other nonviolent, victimless activities undertaken without the almighty state's consent.

But call the cops when someone actually initiates a violent assault and you're on your own. Remember, NEVER call the police for "help."

Chicago PD Might End Entrance Exams

The Chicago Police Department is considering ending its entrance exam for potential police officers. According to the CPD, eliminating the test will save money and boost minority enrollment. Critics argue that eliminating is a mistake, "and without the test the city would basically be giving badges and guns to people who have met only very basic physical and mental requirements, without any indication that they are truly fit for duty."

The article continues:

Charlie Roberts, who used to be in charge of the Chicago Police Department’s training division says the entrance exam, which focuses on things like reading comprehension and logic, is a critical filter. He explains that, “there is nothing automatic about going through 24 weeks at the police academy. They would have to show us that they could handle it. Handle what? Handle the ability to make a judgment as to when to take away from an American something they value greatly, their liberty, and in some extreme cases, their very life. That’s what’s at stake.”

I must agree. Chicago residents truly deserve police officers who utilize wise judgment before taking their liberty or the lives. Anything less than the quality of men who serve now would be a tragedy.

The U.S. Is on a Suicide Mission

According to AFP, al-Qaeda is claiming that the suicide bombing that took out seven CIA agents in Afghanistan last week was "revenge" for drone strikes in Pakistan that killed some of its top militants.

I don't condone this senseless shitstorm of a war, but it's pretty apparent that our "anti-war" president intends to carry out policies that will guarantee death and destruction well past the course of his first term. And given that the CIA (i.e., the president's personal secret army) is supposedly hunting al Qaeda operatives, it's important to recognize that this latest suicide attack was perpetrated against a military target.

I wish it wouldn't have occurred. I wish up to seven more families didn't have to become victims of this stupid war. But if we can't abolish the CIA outright, I wish our agents were at least sitting in Langley monitoring our purchases of aspirin tablets (or whatever the hell it is that they do) instead of destabilizing entire countries at the behest of the American war machine.

But they're not. They're sitting in air-conditioned desert offices with military officers and literally playing war games, using joysticks to maneuver unmanned drones that they claim are bombing "suspected" militants -- in Pakistan. In reality, however, they're racking up enormous civilian death tolls instead. According to Antiwar.com, while U.S. strikes have killed a handful of al-Qaeda leaders, the vast majority of deaths are coming at the hands of innocent Pakistanis -- as many as 700 according to one estimate.

On June 22, the US struck at a house officials called a "suspected militant hideout," burying a few locals inside. When others rushed to the scene to rescue them, they launched another missile, killing 13 apparently innocent Pakistanis. When they held a funeral procession on June 23, the US hit that too, ostensibly on the belief that Baitullah Mehsud might be among the mourners. He wasn't, but the attack killed at least 80 more people.

By fomenting hatred through its continued slaughter of innocents -- how would you feel if an outside government occupied your country and murdered your family? -- the United States is essentially signing a suicide pact with the Middle East. At minimum, it is guaranteeing the continued cultivation of foreign terrorists, and by doing so, it has made every innocent American a target and potential victim of blowback for decades to come.

Police Have a License to Kill

So it stands to reason they oppose any measures mere commoners can take to protect themselves from the state's lynch mob. Read this outstanding (if chilling) article by Will Grigg.

How Much Money Did You Spend in the Last Four Days?

According to these statistics on charity in the US,

If a taxpayer donates $1,000 and pays a 35% tax rate, that donation saves $350 in taxes. This represents a loss of revenue for the government of about $37 billion which is enough to run the US government for four days.

Warren Buffet has a net worth of $37 billion. It took him about 60 years to amass this wealth. The US Government spends Warren Buffet's entire net worth in just four days.

HT Manuel Lora for the statistics

Down with the Rooney Rule

Most of the time around these parts, we're dealing with issues specific to human interaction with the state. But every now and then, situations pop up in private life that make me wonder what the hell people are thinking.

Yesterday it was reported that the Buffalo Bills organization completely cleaned house and fired its entire coaching staff. No, that's not the interesting part; that shouldn't come as too much of a surprise to most Bills fans. It's what's implicit early on in this report by Jay Glazer that piques my interest:

On Monday the Bills fired their entire coaching staff -- including interim head coach Perry Fewell. Fewell, however, is expected to officially interview Monday for the Bills' permanent head-coaching position.

For folks who aren't aware, Perry Fewell is black. And since taking over for Dick Jauron after the midpoint of the season, Fewell posted a 3-4 record -- altogether not too shabby for a chaotic situation on a team that managed only six wins all year. Yet all I can think when Glazer says Fewell is expected to officially interview for the head coaching job he just held is: it's only because he's black, not necessarily because he's good.

Why do I think this? Because of the Rooney Rule, which, since 2003, has required all NFL teams to interview "minority candidates" for head coaching positions. (Of course, the league may as well just come right out and say it's requiring teams to interview black candidates, given that I can't recall the last time I read about a midget or a woman getting a shot at a head coaching gig at the NFL level. But I digress.)

Now, as a private operation, the NFL can require its teams to do whatever it likes -- its club, its rules (though at least one state has codified the Rule into its laws). What I can't understand, however, is how such a transparently offensive and artificial measure aimed at throwing minorities a bone actually flies with the very people it laughably claims to help.

Can anyone argue with a straight face that Washington Redskins secondary coach Jerry Gray has any chance of filling the team's head coaching vacancy? I hope owner Dan Snyder at least sent Gray a turkey over the holidays to compensate for the poor guy's public humiliation after "interviewing" for a job for which even he knew he wasn't being seriously considered.

As bad as it has to be for black assistant coaches to have to sit through a charade as a team's house pawn, I would imagine there has to be at least some sense on the part of black head coaches post-2003 that they were hired just because they're black, not because they were the best candidate for the job.

Perhaps their one saving grace is that most NFL owners want to win no matter what, and I imagine they'll hire only those head coaches they believe will give them the best shot. Clearly coaches like Art Shell, Tony Dungy, Ray Rhodes, Dennis Green, and Herman Edwards -- all hired prior to the advent of the Rooney Rule -- are a testament to that line of thinking.

Better yet, even Art Rooney himself insisted that Pittsburgh Steelers head coach Mike Tomlin's hiring prior to the 2007 season was not due to his own rule. If that's the case, why should we assume that guys like Bengals head coach Marvin Lewis and the Bears' Lovie Smith wouldn't have won their jobs without the Rule? If I remember correctly, Lewis could've been made of purple polk-a-dots after the career he had as a defensive coordinator in Baltimore, which included a Ravens Super Bowl victory at the conclusion of the 2000 season, when he took over in Cincinnati in 2003.

In short, there are some aspects of life in which merit still counts, and thank goodness for that. Even though 70 percent of NFL players are black, you don't see artificial mandates for more white players. And I'm sure season ticket holders would just flock to the stadiums to see invalids forced to line up at wideout. The beauty of pro sports is that if you don't deserve to play or coach, you usually don't.

Proponents of the Rooney Rule argue that black coaches needed a means of breaking into the "white man's club," but everyone who works for an NFL team -- black, white, head coach, assistant coach, coordinator, scout -- already belongs to a pretty exclusive club in the first place. I guess all I'm saying is that if the NFL truly is interested in promoting equality and fairness, it wouldn't encourage the token use of minority coaches during interviews in a club that most white dudes across the country aren't breaking into, either.

I don't doubt that the Rule has helped bring black coaches to the fore in professional football. By definition it had to. And whereas the league should be commended for attempting to right its wrongs with respect to its own historical prejudices in dealing with black athletes, I just can't shake the "ick" factor of the modern day Rooney Rule.

This isn't 1960 anymore, and for that we can also be thankful. But time itself, civic activism, and the spirit of competition -- ironically, fostered in no small part by professional sports franchises that accepted black athletes when society did not -- have done more to bridge the racial divide in this country than any government mandate or silly hiring rule ever has.

Time's Up, Barry

Skip to the 12:00 mark. I have no idea whether the sweet-talker intended to end the war and bring the troops home before he was elected, but the new year has vindicated those of us who warned you that Obama's anti-war rhetoric was a pile of lies.

HT Libertarian Forum