who's your nanny?

A "Deadly Delay" in Washington, DC

A $60 million lawsuit has been brought against DC police and the city in a case where a mother and her two sons were stabbed to death in Washington, DC while police officers waited outside the door for approval to enter. The first officer on the scene waited 45 minutes for a captain to arrive to approve forceful entry. Then it took several more minutes for the fire department to arrive and gain entry into the apartment.

Given that the DC Supreme Court ruled in Warren v. District of Columbia that the citizens of DC are not entitled to police protection, this lawsuit is a long shot. It is possible that the family could win something if there is sufficient outcry from the public. While the State almost always rules its in own favor when judging conflicts involving itself, it is possible that public opinion is so hostile to the State in a case that it must rule against itself to maintain its legitimacy. It's also possible that the case can come before a decent judge who is actually trying to rule justly, but States generally winnow out those types of people from the judiciary.

But what is really, really sad in this case is that if the boyfriend or the mother were suspected of possessing drugs, the police would have broken in the apartment as soon as they arrived on the scene.

HT Robert Wicks for the alerting me to the article.

Being Counted But Not Questioned

They finally caught me. For months I had been able to avoid any contact with a Census taker. They came to my door several times on different days at different times. But each time I saw someone standing outside with a clipboard, I did not open the door. I received a call at work yesterday and the woman on the phone introduced herself as a worker with the Census Bureau. I was completely stunned; how exactly did they get my number? I told the lady I was too busy to speak, but she could call me back the next day.

She called back today. I asked how she got my number and she said she got it from the property management company that manages my condo. She asked if I owned the place and I said "Yes". She asked if I rented the place out or if I live there and I replied "I live there". She asked how many people lived there and I said "Just me". She then asked my age and sex. I replied that these questions were too personal and I was not going to answer any more questions.

She said,  "Oh, OK. Thank you."

"Have a nice day," I replied.

Granted my refusal was not nearly as heroic as Vijay Boyapti's response to his Census takers. Nevertheless, my conscience is clear. The questions I answered gave her information she could have gotten from my management company. Yes, I was finally and unfortunately counted, but I did refuse to be questioned.

The Country Class and the Siren Song

Via Robert Higgs at the Beacon Blog, I found this essay by Prof. Angelo Codevilla at The American Spectator. Entitled America's Ruling Class--And the Perils of Revolution, it is essentially an anatomy of the political elite who rule the State: what they think and what their goals are. Codevilla's analysis of the ruling class comprises most of this essay. He does spend some time describing the exploited class which he names the "country class". It is a pretty good essay, although I do agree with Prof. Higgs' assessment that the force of Codevilla's argument wanes toward the end of the essay. He theorizes that the country class must find a way to work through electoral politics in order to reduce the power of the ruling class, but those who are familiar with Hans Hermann Hoppe's work already know that attempts to end the power of the ruling class via democracy are futile. He also implies that the country class is made up of only Christian and Jewish Republicans. Apparently atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Wiccans and libertarians of any faith or no faith are not being exploited.

Moreover, I realized that I could not take any his suggestions for ending the power of the ruling class seriously after I read this sentence: "How, for example, to remind America of, and to drive home to the ruling class, Lincoln's lesson that trifling with the Constitution for the most heartfelt of motives destroys its protections for all?" Lincoln's "lesson" included starting a war without a formal declaration as required by the Constitution; ordering his soldiers to arrest dissenters from the war in violation of the First Amendment; confiscating the firearms of some Northerners in violation of the Second Amendment; threatening and imprisoning judges who did not rule as he wished; and deporting a member of Congress who opposed his war. Lincoln forever destroyed the idea that citizens can secede from a government they have become dissatisfied with to create their own. As such, I cannot take any of Codevilla's references to self-governance seriously. Nevertheless, I still recommend that you read the essay when you get a chance.

There is one question that jumped out at me as I read this essay. This ruling elite is a minority. In fact, according to Codevilla's analysis, the ruling elite is a minority within a minority because not all those working for the State are in the "in-group". But my question is Who all composes the praetorian guard? To ask this question as Mises would, which men serve as the armed men, the policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen who enforce the ruling class's decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning?

According to Codevilla, the majority of soldiers come from the country class: "[the country class] also takes part in the U.S. armed forces body and soul: nearly all the enlisted, non-commissioned officers and officers under flag rank belong to this class in every measurable way." This is an interesting conclusion given that earlier in the essay Codevilla decries the meddling in foreign countries by the ruling class. It should be clear that the ruling class could not meddle in foreign affairs without the military. Without men trained to kill when the State commands them to, the ruling class could not aggressively dictate the affairs of foreign countries. But tragically the very people who ostensibly resent the political elite that rules every facet of their lives enforce the political elite's decrees.

'Pack Your Bags'? I Doubt It

Funny headline on Drudge today implying that a public opinion survey ranking confidence in Congress at only 11 percent will be indicative of a large turnover come November.

Really? I seem to remember writing a post a few years back saying that voter confidence in Congress was something like 9 percent, even though the re-election rate always seems to be over 90.

Sure, there are always a few poor parasitic souls in Congress who end up getting bounced every election, but by and large, the power of incumbency is too strong for most challengers to overcome.

Public opinion polls reflect exactly what they say they do: the opinion of the taxpayer who is fleeced to provide for the cushy lifestyles enjoyed by our politicians. They do not reflect the opinion of big corporations or powerful interest groups, the coddled elite who fund the re-election campaigns of their whores in Congress so they continue to receive preferential treatment in the form of protectionist regulations, tariffs, and bailouts.

Money talks, bitches walk.

Drive-by Agitatin'

It really is the little things that make life worth living.  Like taking the opportunity, upon driving past a small gaggle of overweight, parasitic nags picketing against the Governator's push to reduce California state workers' wages to the federal minimum ($7.25/hr) in the absence of anything resembling a reasonable budget, and shouting out the window "ABOLISH THE MINIMUM WAGE!"  I'm sure that if these porcine tax-grazers were able to process big words like "abolish," then they would probably be appalled that someone would suggest such a thing; but then again, such cognitive ability would have automatically overqualified them for government service, and they wouldn't be out picketing in the first place.

Almost universally touted as another backstop government policy protecting the proletariat from evil capitalists, the minimum wage is simply another example of arbitrary price fixing.  In a nutshell, it is a policy that states that bureaucrats on the other side of the country are better enabled to determine the value of labor than those who purchase it.  Seen from another angle, it's a way for politicians to buy votes by ensuring unskilled laborers are paid wages that they may not otherwise be entitled to.  Not to mention the fact that, by setting one of the most significant expenses of business artificially high, they are necessarily creating unemployment.  But this obvious point seems to be missed by California state controller John Chiang, who apparently thinks ripping off productive citizens to pay parasites to do unnecessary "work" is a good idea.  That makes about as much sense as implying that anyone has control over this crooked nut house of a state.

A quick example to illustrate that last point:  ABC Co. produces widgets, those ubiquitous indispensable tools of industrialized society.  In order to maintain a profit margin large enough to meet the payrolls, pay the rent, maintain the widget-making machinery, etc., the company needs to keep its expenses for unskilled labor down to $800 per day.  Now, let's say to run a widget machine, all you have to do is stand there, keep your dick from getting pulled into the machine, and pull a lever for eight hours (nominal, of course: after all the union breaks, you only really end up pulling the lever for about six).  ABC Co. human resources, being generous types and averse to difficult arithmetic, determines that it's worth $10/hour to run the machines.  That allows them to hire ten lever-pullers, which is enough to produce enough widgets to fill orders and keep a little back-stock.  But $10/hour doesn't go very far, especially after all the parasites gets their cuts.  And it's an election year, so a little vote-buying is in order.  Those folks making the minimum wage are typically suckers, and probably won't realize what's being done to them on their own behalf, so what the hell, let's increase the minimum wage to $15/hour.  ABC Co. is now faced with a tough decision: fire three or four lever-pullers -- creating unemployment -- and stay afloat,  while still allowing the other six or seven to have a higher standard of living than they would otherwise be entitled to; or keep them all on at the higher minimum wage and eventually go under, thereby creating even more unemployment.  Typical of government action, there's always a loser, just not the state.  They got their votes, so it all worked out according to plan.

Yes, abolish the minimum wage, along with all other forms of price-fixing, mercantilism, and protectionism.  Does it bother you that the state's brilliant plan to give voters (in exchange for their votes, of course) a higher standard of living automatically lowers it for others by pricing them out of the labor market?  Does it bother you that the Gulf shores are turning into tar pits in order to protect unionized shipping interests (in exchange for their votes, of course, along with some hefty campaign contributions)?  Does it bother you that you are legally mandated to retain the security services of unionized "police" forces who have no complementary mandate to provide you the services that you are forced to pay for, and are likely to run you in or kill you while providing you the service you pay for if they decide to do so?  Then do something about it.  Learn about Austrian (real, valid) economic theory and share your knowledge.  Resist the state's efforts to tell you how much value you should place on goods and services.  Hell, resist the state in general.  Remember, they're supposed to work for you, not against you.  Take responsibility for your life and live it as you see fit.  Just remember the Golden Rule and give the same level of respect for the rights of others as you would like to enjoy yourself.

Many Cities Are Feeling the Budget Crunch

According to this FoxNews report, some cities are outsourcing their services to contractors to save money:

Faced with a $118 million budget deficit, the city of San Jose, Calif., recently decided it could no longer afford its own janitors. So the city's budget called for dropping its custodial staff and hiring outside contractors to clean its city hall and airport, saving about $4 million.

To keep all its swimming pools open and staffed, the city is replacing some city workers with contractors.

"These are cases where the question is being asked, 'Is this a core service
at the city level?' " said Michelle McGurk, senior policy adviser to the San Jose mayor.

After years of whittling staff and cutting back on services, towns and cities are now outsourcing some of the most basic functions of local government, from policing to trash collection. Services that cities can no longer afford to provide are being contracted to private vendors, counties or even neighboring towns.

The move saves cities budget-crushing costs of employee benefits like health insurance and retirement. Critics say contracting means giving up local control and personalized services.

Cities say they have little choice. Municipalities across the U.S. will face a projected shortfall of $56 to $86 billion between 2010 and 2012, according to a report from the National League of Cities.

San Jose City workers were making a pretty good living according to this report:

San Jose has 800 fewer employees than 10 years ago, however, average pay and benefits have gone up 64 percent to an estimated $120,000 per employee.

Pay and benefits for police and fire have risen 78 percent, while their retirement benefits have jumped 174 percent. Employee costs make up 75 percent of the city's budget.

It is good to see city governments deciding to cut back spending rather than raise taxes to pay for their budget deficits. Less aggression is always a good thing. However, I fear that the root problem still remains. That problem is that the city is still using tax money to provide these services. The money is now going to private vendors, but the fact that the city gave the vendors this money still reinforces the idea that the city must be active in providing these services.

The FoxNews report continues

Maywood, a tiny city southeast of Los Angeles, is taking contracting to the extreme. The city of around 40,000 is letting go of its entire staff and contracting with outsiders to perform all city services. The city is disbanding its police force and handing public safety over to the Los Angeles County Sheriff. Its neighbor, the city of Bell, will take over running Maywood's City Hall.

This city is outsourcing its services to other levels of local government. But in the end, the State, i.e, the monopoly of aggression over a given territory, still provides the services because it pays the bills.

Unfortunately, these budget cuts and outsourcing do not chip into the ossified ideology of most Americans that a State is necessary to provide these services. The radical solution would be to dissolve the city government of San Jose and let a truly free-market of services appear. The services that people want would continue to be provided by entrepreneurs. Those services that the people did not want, but were provided because the money was taken through taxation, would cease to exist. However, if such a suggestion were to be made, I'm sure that there would be the same objection that anarchists always get: "Well, without a State, we would not have police or schools or roads. So even if the city cannot provide these directly, the city still has to tax the people to pay someone to do provide these services; otherwise, their would be no one to do it." Because if monkeys can ride bicycles, then it logically follows that only monkeys can ride bicycles. Q.E.D.

My Time in the Porno-Scanner

Good for Dubai, which has announced that it will not use porno-scanners in its airports, saying they're disrespectful to women and children. (I'd add men to that, too, but no government's perfect.)

Exactly two weeks ago, my family and I embarked on our trip to Jamaica, and this was my first trip through BWI that I'd noticed the installation of the new perv-machine. I'd be damned if I was going to let my pregnant wife and two-year-old walk through the thing, so I jumped in front of them as we proceeded to be frisked by the state's dirty underwear-loving goon squad.

Thankfully my wife and son were motioned to the regular scanner; that left me with the peeping tom. As I waited for the scanner to be "recalibrated," I looked at the TSA guy to my left and said, "I better fluff a little!" I actually thought that might get me tased, but he just started laughing and told me I had issues. I guess not all TSA agents are clueless.

Finally I'm called into the machine and forced to raise my arms up in the air. Then turn around. As I felt all dirty inside but secretly hoped the jerks enjoyed their show, I wondered why we need the porno-scanners when we basically have to get naked just to walk through the regular ones. All in the interest of national security I guess.

As I exited the machine, another agent made me raise my arms in the air all over again so he could wand me down. Apparently a metal detector is going to find something in a crack somewhere that the porno-scanner can actually see through. By now this entire fiasco had easily hit the five-minute mark. I was pretty sure my wife had already delivered our unborn son, placed him on the belt of the machine to my left, gathered him up, and placed him back into her womb.

Just when I thought I was free (as if), yet another agent forbade me from exiting a gate until I was "cleared" by the peeping tom(s). Eventually the gate was opened and I walked out, looking back to see who the next victim was -- turned out to be a rather attractive young lady. At that point I wondered if the TSA was accepting applications for more peeping toms.

Another Productive Citizen Thrown in a Cage

A Buffalo man and 33 associates have been arrested for voluntarily trading justly acquired property with other consenting adults. The problem is, they had the audacity to allegedly sell drugs that are reserved solely for the state's well-connected pharmaceutical companies and their preferred distributors.

Michael M. McCall’s alleged prescription drug-dealing operation took up an entire block of Strauss Avenue. Still more of his dealers operated in the suburbs. McCall insulated himself, making himself known only to a few people, said local Drug Enforcement Agency officials.

For years, McCall ran it like a well-functioning business.

“I have to admit that we are kind of surprised how big it had gotten in Western New York,” said Charles Tomaszewski, resident agent in charge of the Buffalo DEA office.

Amazing how successful entrepreneurs can be when they're not shackled by government rules, regulations, and mandates, huh?

Not only did McCall cause no harm to his clients, he provided benefits -- goods and services they desired but probably either could not afford or procure easily through hyper-regulated legal channels.

Per usual whenever law enforcement agents attempt to justify the artificial criminalization of vices, officials claim that these arrests will help to protect young people from prescription drug abuse. This is a great strategy used to brainwash the naive. However, the more perceptive understand that it's a far greater crime to undersell the government's cronies or, worse yet, to facilitate the belief that one can prosper by reducing his dependence upon the state.

The menace to society is the state itself, not the creative and productive individuals who make life easier for its victims.

Rise above, Not Against

My friend, celebrity chef Robert Hesse of Hell's Kitchen fame and with whom I'm writing a cookbook, texted me on Monday very upset over the fact that he was removed from a Southwest flight after being deemed a "safety risk."

Did Robert yell "bomb" on the airplane or something to that effect? No. He was removed by the captian and forced to purchase a second seat because he was apparently "too fat" to fit in just one.

Anyone who knows Robert or has seen him on TV knows he's overweight -- he weighs about 400 lbs. -- and he's the first to tell you he's fat. However, whether he's comfortable with his weight or not, it's obviously not fun to be singled out in public over it, called "fat," and humiliated in front of everyone.

Robert's beef isn't with the fact that he was forced to buy an extra seat, though he maintains he could snap the lap belt and move the arm rests up and down without obstructing adjacent passengers (the inability to do so ostensibly posing a potential risk either to himself or nearby travelers); it's with Southwest employees who supposedly behaved rudely by calling him fat and making him a public example for everyone to see.

I don't know whether Robert's personality played a role in the escalation of an already-sensitive situation -- to be sure, he was no stranger to confrontation during his stint on Hell's Kitchen -- but no doubt Southwest expects its personnel to maintain a professional demeanor regardless.

Whatever the case, my concern lies with Robert's reaction to this episode, as he has intimated that he's going to add his name to a lawsuit filed against Southwest by director Kevin Smith, who earlier this year was removed from a flight for the same reason. Now, I haven't been able to confirm an actual lawsuit by Smith -- only that he's hinted in that direction. But even if a suit has been filed, I think this would be a very bad move by Robert.

For starters, Southwest is entitled to enact any customer policies it likes. And, yes, that means it even reserves the right to humiliate passengers, whether intentionally or not. Indeed, if people don't like the way a company does business, they likewise reserve the right to refuse its services and find one they do like. This is Property Rights 101.

Furthermore, instead of filing a lawsuit against Southwest, I would rather see Robert rise above this unfortunate treatment by either refusing to patronize the company or by contacting management privately. If it's an apology or monetary compensation he's looking for, this can often be procured much more quickly when you get the director of customer service on the phone rather than going through the rigmarole of a lawsuit, where the lawyers are usually the only ones who profit in the end.

Finally, Robert has something most people do not: celebrity status. He has thousands of fans he can connect with via Facebook and Twitter to tell his story. If it's vengeance he seeks, I'm pretty sure he could organize a boycott of Southwest. What I'd rather see, though, is for Robert to keep his dignity intact by using this experience to his advantage. Once he cools down a bit, he may realize that while some airlines' policies for "customers of size" may be a touch insensitive, perhaps they're nevertheless necessary. And while this is no defense of Southwest's apparent behavior toward my friend, I believe Robert stands to gain far more personal and financial benefit by merely telling his story than by trying to sue.

As I mentioned, Robert and I are writing a cookbook. This one happens to be aimed at helping guys impress women through the art of cooking, but publishers always want to know about your next book even as they're moving forward with your current one. Why not publish a subsequent cookbook on healthy cooking and eating, using this Southwest experience as a motivator? Instead of complaining about being made fun of, turn the tables on the airline by proving they'll never be able to mistreat you again -- and, oh by the way, by making millions teaching readers how to cook to shed pounds as they lose weight right along with you? Promotional tours, cooking shows, how-to videos, a magazine column ... the possibilities are endless.

Because, Robert, as you well know ... you can set your own seating policies when you have your own jet.

Tolerance in Maryland

Too bad this dude didn't know I have a blog.

I went to a Maryland Blue Crabs baseball game tonight -- against my better judgment not only because we have to pay for food and $6 beers even though taxpayers fund the damned stadium, but also because I've seen softball chicks who can hit a baseball better than these schleps. (I actually thought this was a single-A league, but it's even worse than that.)
 
But the girls wanted to take the kids to a baseball game, so like a good schelp myself I go along to get along.
 
So I'm standing up at the beer counter getting a couple Sam Adamses and this guy to my right starts in on me with, "So, I noticed you didn't take your hat off for the national anthem. And then you just stand there eating your food?"
 
(Clearly he had no idea what he was getting into.)
 
I look at him and say, "You're lucky I even stood up." (Only out of respect to the 12 year old playing the anthem on his trumpet, I might add.)
 
Him: "Yeah, well that was pretty disrespectful!"
 
Me: "I guess I just don't worship the state as much as you do."
 
Him: "Whatever, asshole."
 
Me: "Aw, that's polite. Should I have hopped on my left foot too? Maybe spun around in a circle?" (RIP, George Carlin.)
 
Him: "Fuck off!"
 
Me: "So if I were a pedophile and took my hat off, you'd have no problem with me, eh?"
 
Him: "Whatever, jerkoff."
 
Me (taking my change): "You have a nice night sir."
 
Him: "Go fuck yourself!"
 
Me: "Love you too."
 
(I'm sure the church group volunteering at the counter enjoyed the repartee).
 
Honestly, I can't believe I never once used profanity or called him any names. Very uncharacteristic of me. When I got back to my seat I turned to my buddy, who goes about 6-5/250, and told him to look at the short, fat douchebag over there (with the goatee, cuz they are sooo in!) and told him the quick story. The d-bag looks at me and yells some shit I couldn't hear ... I wave vigorously ... he says more shit I couldn't understand ... I give the peace sign (first time in my life, no shit), and he gives me the "you're number one!" salute with the wrong finger. My buddy says, "some people are just crazy fuckers."
 
The fact that I literally ruined this guy's night is hilarious. I actually thought he would try to jump me when I took my 2 year old to the bathroom, but he probably saw who I was with and, being a big flag-wavin' tough guy and shit, thought better of pushing his issue further. As we left in the 7th inning, I doffed my cap to him on the way by. I know ... genius.

Jeez, I Need to Write More Often

I'm back online after spending a week in Jamaica with the family. About halfway through the trip last week I almost had a heart attack when I realized I hadn't let Brutus know about it or asked him to pick up my slack while I was gone. Thankfully, I returned home late Saturday night to find that he had anyway. And Cal even put up his once-every-couple-months post too, so that was great. (Just busting your balls, dude, but get on the horse!)

As if I have any room to talk, though. A quick look at my left sidebar and you'll notice that the latest offering of my most "recent pieces" isn't exactly recent. We're all busy, but buying a new house, trying to find a new job, and working on a cookbook with celebrity chef Robert Hesse has been taking a toll. Oh, and the wife's expecting our second child in October, so that just throws a whole bunch of no time to spare into the mix.

But enough complaining. Here's to trying to get my shit together for all you peeps. And again, thanks to Brutus and Cal for hooking a brother up last week!

A Quite Relevant Quote from Albert J. Nock

I am currently re-reading Albert J. Nock's Our Enemy, the State and I found this rather trenchant passage:

The point is that in respect of the relation between the theory and the actual practice of public affairs, the American is the most unphilosophical of beings. The rationalization of conduct in general is most repugnant to him; he prefers to emotionalize it. He is indifferent to the theory of things, so long as he may rehearse his formulas; and so long as he can listen to the patter of his litanies, no practical inconsistency disturbs him – indeed, he gives no evidence of even recognizing it as an inconsistency.

The ablest and most acute observer among the many who came from Europe to look us over in the early part of the last century was the one who is for some reason the most neglected, notwithstanding that in our present circumstances, especially, he is worth more to us than all the de Tocquevilles, Bryces, Trollopes and Chateaubriands put together. This was the noted St.-Simonien and political economist, Michel Chevalier. Professor Chinard, in his admirable biographical study of John Adams, has called attention to Chevalier's observation that the American people have "the morale of an army on the march." The more one thinks of this, the more clearly one sees how little there is in what our publicists are fond of calling "the American psychology" that it does not exactly account for; and it exactly accounts for the trait we are considering.

An army on the march has no philosophy; it views itself as a creature of the moment. It does not rationalize conduct except in terms of an immediate end. As Tennyson observed, there is a pretty strict official understanding against its doing so; "theirs not to reason why." Emotionalizing conduct is another matter, and the more of it the better; it is encouraged by a whole elaborate paraphernalia of showy etiquette, flags, music, uniforms, decorations, and the careful cultivation of a very special sort of comradery. In every relation to "the reason of the thing," however – in the ability and eagerness, as Plato puts it, "to see things as they are" – the mentality of an army on the march is merely so much delayed adolescence; it remains persistently, incorrigibly and notoriously infantile.

After experiencing the LeBronimation over the weekend, this passage hit me like a Mike Tyson punch. On Thursday LeBron James decided to leave the Cleveland Cavaliers for the Miami Heat. After this decision, the residents of Cleveland lost their collective minds. First, the owner penned a puerile and vindictive letter expressing his anger at LeBron's decision. I would expect such behavior from a fan, but I would expect that a multi-millionaire who understands making business decisions would act with class, at least publicly. He then lowered the price of LeBron's Fathead to $17.41 because that was the year Benedict Arnold was born. Cavaliers fans then burned LeBron jerseys and tore down murals of LeBron because their sports "savior" decided that he had a better chance of winning a championship in Miami. (Skip Oliva has some excellent commentary on the Lebron decision over at the Mises blog).

Supposedly the people of Cleveland were "betrayed" by a "narcissistic" young man who only thought about himself while making the decision of where to play next year. Cleveland has been in dire straits for some time and this pain was exacerbated by the depression we are told. Now that the team will probably be irrelevant for the next decade, what will the people do now?

The people of Cleveland could actually examine the policies of the local and State governments. My guess is that businessmen and investors are turned off by the regulations and taxes there. The people could also look at the disastrous policies of the Federal Government; surely these policies also discourage investors and entrepreneurs from creating jobs. The residents could also read Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson to give them the framework to judge these policies and understand why these policies are choking the life out of their city.

But given the infantile reaction to a young man freely choosing another place to work in a voluntary market, I seriously doubt many Cleveland residents would take my advice. LeBron was their bread and circus that took their minds off of their pain and gave their economy a boost. My suggestion would take time to understand unfamiliar concepts and are not easily emotionalized. On the other hand, burning jerseys and tearing down murals is exactly what one would expect from an adolescent army on the march.

Brutus's Law

Brutus's Law states as follows: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving slavery or the South or the Confederacy approaches 1." This law stems from the very popular use of the reductio ad servitium argument in which any advocacy of secession/nullification instantly compels an opponent of secession/nullification to argue that the South/Confederacy wanted to use secession/nullification to defend slavery, thus insinuating that the proponent of secession/nullification also wants to defend slavery. Victims of these ad hominem attacks include Lew Rockwell, Thomas DiLorenzo, Ron Paul and most recently Thomas Woods whose newest book is driving Leviathan's court historians nuts.

Do the Collapse!

Just finished watching Collapse, an intriguing documentary that presents, in the form of an interview with investigative jounalist Michael Ruppert, a concise summary of the very strong argument that we are presently witnessing the inevitable collapse of the American Empire.  I suggest that readers sympathetic to this blog's tenor check it out.  Can't say it was the fabled "aha moment" for me, more like reinforcement of the realization that I came to sometime between the Tweedledee vs. Tweedledum 2008 presidential contest and today.  But for those readers new to the scene, I recommend it as a primer on the depth and scope of the sorry state of affairs that the US is in, and motivation to do something about it.  Since I missed my opportunity to agitate prior to Independence (sic) Day, I'll spare you the Gadsden-flag-waving crap and just say that it is high time to declare your own independence.  The would-be architects of society are completely out of control, and you will soon be on your own whether you like it or not.  I'm sure I'll be picking this movie apart over the next ten or so views, and if my scarce free time allows, more analysis and tangential rambling will follow.

Hat tips to Alan for loaning me the DVD, to the guy who loaned Alan the DVD (does that make it a derivative?), and to Trevor and Brutus for not revoking my guest blogger status after two months or so of inactivity.  (Sorry guys, if my ass wasn't so deeply in hock to the company store down at Magic Happy Windmills and Prancing Dolphins, LLC, I might have been more productive during that time, as I hope to be in the near future.)

Happy Independence Day

I have heard many commentators today say that July 4th is the day "we as a nation celebrate our independence". If we were to take the meaning of the day literally, then only the original 13 states have a reason to celebrate their independence. It was these 13 states that declared their independence from Britain. And it was these 13 states that King George declared to be "free sovereign and independent". Article 1 of the Treaty of Paris reads:

His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.

If the States had remained free sovereign and independent, it would make as much sense for residents in California to celebrate Independence Day as it would for Americans today to celebrate Victoria Day in Canada.

Rather than celebrate independence and liberty, what Americans really celebrate today is the consolidated empire that resulted from Lincoln's War. That is when the "United States" went from plural to singular and citizens began to think of themselves as Americans rather than citizens of their resident states. In doing so, Americans ignore the words of the Declaration of Independence which we ostebsibly celebrate today:

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Ideally this would be a day for Americans to celebrate secession, i.e., the idea that people can alter and abolish their government whenever it fails to protect the rights. Instead, thanks to court historians, we celebrate a nation unified at gunpoint as independent and free.

How's the U.S. Economy?

Here's a snippet of headlines linked by Drudge today:

"June Job Losses at 125,000, But Jobless Rate Falls to 9.5%"

"GM's Auto Sales in China Top US for First Time"

"Weak economic data suggest recovery is fizzling"

"Dollar Plunges After UN Call To Ditch Greenback"

"Six Months to Go Until the Largest Tax Hikes in History"

Just livin' the dream.

It's Almost Time

To shoot off fireworks to celebrate all our freedom.

Well, don't shoot them off yourself -- the good ones, anyway -- if you live in a state that will throw you in a cage for doing it.

Because you felt like celebrating all our freedom.