who's your nanny?

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year to all of our dear readers. Please be safe this evening. I would recommend not driving after midnight to maximize your safety. Stay where you are until the sun comes up. But the danger you should be most concerned about is not drunk drivers, but the police. Even being a designated driver is very risky and I offer this excerpt from an excellent essay entitled "The Tyranny of DUI Enforcement" as a warning to stay off the roads tonight:

But what about when overzealous enforcement of DUI laws does just the opposite of its stated goal of saving lives, and places innocent lives at risk? That’s just what happened on New Year’s Day, 2010, outside Mundelein, Illinois, when police stopped Jean Kotlinski on suspicion of DUI at about 3 am. Despite being the designated driver, and telling the officers as much, she was forced out of her car into the freezing, snowy weather to perform those ridiculous roadside gymnastics known as “field sobriety tests.” When, after passing those “tests” with flying colors, she was dragged to another cruiser to perform a breath test, her understandably concerned husband, Steven Kotlinksi got out of the passenger seat of their car to check on her. In typical fashion, the police completely overreacted, threatening him with their Tasers, and ordering him back in the car. Steven admits to being inebriated at the time, so perhaps his decision to argue with officers was a poor one influenced by a little too much liquid courage, his objection to his wife’s treatment was legitimate, and the officers were grossly excessive in their use of force. Despite warning them of her husband’s heart condition, police insisted “he’s gonna get Tased,” and so, even after he relented and returned to the front seat of the car, he was treated to a dose of electro-shock torture. The officer was absolutely not in any immediate danger, nor could he even pretend that he was, so the usual claims about “officer safey” simply do not apply here. In fact, he took the time to handcuff Jean and put her in the back of his patrol car, before returning to “deal with” Steven. He walked up to the car where Mr. Kotlowski was seated, belted in, and demanded he get out, saying “I’m only going to tell you once, get out of the car or I’m gonna take you out.” Of course he didn’t bother waiting for his intended victim to even try and comply, and after trying to pull him out of the car with the seat belt still engaged, the cop stepped back and fired his Taser at the father of two, while his children looked on in horror from the back seat. After being shocked 4 more times, even with the officer’s full knowledge of his victim’s heart condition, Steven Kotlowski is lucky to be alive, despite he and his wife doing everything we are told we should do with respect to celebrations where alcohol is imbibed. They had a designated driver who consumed no alcohol, and she was stopped, investigated, cuffed and stuffed, and her husband was brutally assaulted, all in the name of “keeping the roads safe.”

Remember that in the eyes of the police, we are all drunk drivers now.

More Haterade for the TSA

Here's an excellent commentary on the TSA by Jennifer Abel.

People Are Stupid

Well, not all people, of course. Just the ones who don't think like me. Like namby-pamby whiners up in Buffalo who are actually running to the city government complaining about "price gouging" at parking garages around HSBC arena during the World Junior Hockey Championship.

Higher-than-usual parking rates began surfacing Tuesday as ticket-holders — most of them from Canada — descended downtown for the World Junior Hockey Championship only to find parking lots charging up to $60 for the day.

"The mayor is upset, and when [the rates at privately operated lots] were brought to our attention yesterday, we set about looking at what options we had available to us," said Peter K. Cutler, the mayor's spokesman. "It's clear the best one is to go to the Attorney General's Office to ask through their Consumer Affairs Bureau to look into this."

For christ's sake, people have to toughen the hell up. As I explained yesterday, there's no such thing as price gouging when someone can't force you to give him your money. If you can't pay 40 to 60 bucks to park a car for an entire day within walking distance of the biggest amateur hockey tournament in the entire world, maybe you need to stay home. Or call a fucking cab. Let me know how much they charge to drive you around for 20 minutes.

Instead of being treated as the non-issue that it is, city officials are now hassling private businesses at the behest of spoiled little brats, most of whom clearly don't realize they wouldn't even be able to find a parking spot within a mile of the arena if parking lot owners only charged their any-other-day rate of $15. And if I had to guess, these are the exact same people who complain the very next minute that Buffalo's economy is so shitty.

Please don't mistake this post as an attack on Buffalonians. There are stupid people everywhere, and this hockey tournament is drawing a lot of Canadians and random tourists, too. I know, that was a low blow on all my Canuck friends. Forgive me, eh?

But seriously, I hope it's clear that economic ignorance isn't specific to any particular demographic or geographical location. Obviously there are a great many people attending this tournament who understand and accept price fluctuations that are the epitome of capitalist markets. And there are probably just as many fans who understand supply and demand and actually can't afford the inflated parking rates, but who find alternative transportation methods without pissing and moaning about it. It usually only takes a handful of craven pricks motivated to run to some politician or bureaucrat and hand him the power he so desperately seeks to wield over everybody else.

Here's a quote from Mark Croce, a parking lot operator who sounds like he could teach a class on supply and demand:

"If you charge a price and fill up the lot, then it wasn't too much because the market has a way of defining its own level. People make their own decisions of what the threshold is," Croce said.

"Some people will say [price] doesn't matter, because they want to park their car outside the front door. Others will want to park in the the Theater District, and jump on the free train. It's a free market."

Croce did great right up until the final sentence. Yes, he and other parking lot merchants are operating under a free market mentality, but we don't have anything close to a free market economy in the U.S. This, my friends, is instead a perfect illustration of fascism.

Price Gouging Is Impossible in Voluntary Trade

The World Junior Hockey Championship is taking place in Buffalo, and at least one reporter at the Buffalo News is left wanting for some economic understanding and journalistic integrity.

I realize staff reporter Gene Warner probably didn't come up with the headline "$40, $50, $60 — to park!?!," but the copy editor who did accurately interpreted Warner's bias throughout the piece. (Note to editor: The P in park should be capitalized.)

Warner doesn't simply report on some hockey fans' negative reactions to increased parking prices around HSBC arena; he flat-out calls this completely normal and predictable occurrence "price gouging."

Fans attending Tuesday afternoon's Finland-Switzerland hockey game could have bought two tickets and parked their vehicle for a total of $46.

The twist, though, is that the tickets could have been purchased on a secondary ticket market for $3 apiece — and the parking for $40.

Welcome to the World Junior Hockey Championship's version of Economics 101, a hockey tournament that features both bargains galore and some serious price gouging, in and around HSBC Arena.

Clearly, merchants offering parking and other goods- and services-based operations during this tournament have a clear understanding of Econ 101. Too bad Warner doesn't. In fact, he doesn't even seem to understand that these cheap ticket prices are likewise the result of their own market supply and demand. Perhaps the broker had an excess of tickets, or the game was of relatively little demand to fans (for example, it probably wasn't a U.S.-Canada contest).

Prices reflect the availability of scare resources. When they rise, people often accuse those setting the prices of "gouging," though rising prices simply indicate an increase in demand, a decrease in supply, or both. Prices also force consumers to economize.

It should be obvious that there are only so many parking lots and spaces immediately surrounding the hockey arena, thus constituting a high demand for a limited supply of spots during such a high-profile hockey tournament (and frigid weather, I might add). Therefore, parking lot operators know that people will be willing to pay to park close to the event, even if they might prefer more "normal" prices (Buffalo Sabres fans generally pay $10-15 to park for a regular season game, according to Warner).

But what many people may not understand is that this hike in parking prices is normal, if due to nothing but the fact that parking lot operators cannot force people to pay their asking price. Therefore, if people are willing to fork over the dough, that's a good indication that, as Bob Barker would say, the price is right. Consider this fan's comments:

"Forty dollars is a little pricey," [Mac Yule of Hillsburgh, Ont.] said. "Once you're across the border, you're going to the game. You're not going to turn away because of $40 parking. But they know that, so it's gouging."

Sorry, no it's not. It just means the merchant knows your demand for parking is a lot higher than if you were planning to spend the day at the Galleria Mall.

Not only do these current parking prices reflect a high demand for limited parking spaces, they also allow for more hockey fans to park close to the arena instead of walking long distances. Because rising prices force consumers to economize, more people will carpool instead of driving to the arena separately to meet their friends (Forty bucks divided by four people in a car is pretty close to that $10-15 amount Warner referenced earlier, isn't it?). Higher prices also help to guarantee that those who truly must find a parking place -- say, the elderly or disabled -- will be able to do so, as fans who would rather walk a little farther and save their money for food and beverages will voluntarily leave a spot for someone who has a higher demand for it.

Rather than representing the "evils" of capitalism, as many people no doubt mischaracterize anything with a price tag, fluctuating prices are one of the purest indicators and guarantors of peaceful, voluntary human interaction.

Only the state can truly gouge us -- its litany of taxes, fines, and other compliance fees comes to mind. We're not doing ourselves any favors by shitting on the people who are actually on our side.

Report: Mexican army planted weapon on dead American

From a CNN report dated December 27, 2010 we learn that

Mexican authorities tried to cover up the shooting death of an American who they said fled a military checkpoint, a Mexican investigation into the incident concluded.

Joseph Steven Proctor, 32, was shot by soldiers at a checkpoint in the Pacific state of Guerrero in August. At the time, there were conflicting reports about whether he had fired first at the soldiers.

But the conclusion of the Mexican military investigation, which was forwarded to the U.S. Embassy in Mexico and obtained by CNN, indicates that an assault rifle found in Proctor's possession was planted.

Where on earth did they get an idea like that?

 

The TSA and Our Fascist State

Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death.... Benito Mussolini

The Washington Post has a series of interesting articles on the TSA. The series is entitled "Agony at the Airport" and has several articles on different aspects of the TSA. The series is a good insight into one area of our facist state. Throught these articles we learn that

• The scanners are finding drugs and ceramic knives, but are probably missing potential explosives.
• TSA agents have backed down a little from their original position of scanning or patting down children, but not much.
• The firms that make these scanners have hired lobbyists to push their interests.

I have inferred from this series that the TSA is a microcosm of our facist country. The State and the corporations that sell scanners and other security technology to the Federal Government have no interest in peace. The War on Terror is perfect for these entities because, as Dick Cheney once said, it is perpetual. Moreover, the relation between the TSA and these security firms fits Mussolini's definition of fascism perfectly: "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." These articles reveal the inner workings of this relationship. In this series we see how the State and corporations continue to rob the American public. We are also given a glimpse into the creation and distribution of propaganda that is necessary to inure Americans to clear violations of their liberty.

More "Change" from the Obama Administration

From the Politico blog-"Bush officials: Obama's terror policies echo Bush's"

While Vice President Dick Cheney and other prominent conservatives have faulted President Barack Obama for slacking in the war on terror, two top Bush administration intelligence officials are arguing that the Obama White House has been just as tough - if not tougher. 

"The new administration has been as aggressive, if not more aggressive, in pursing these issues because they're real," former National Intelligence Director retired Vice Admiral Michael McConnell said on CNN's "State of the Union."

"You commend them for that?" host Candy Crowley asked.

"I do commend them for that," McConnell said.

Former Central Intelligence Agency Director Michael Hayden, a retired Air Force general, also argued that Obama's approach has been, by and large, the same -- regardless of campaign rhetoric.

"When one is in office, it's, as the admiral has suggested, when one is in office, that responsibility weighs pretty heavily. And so we've seen a powerful consistency between two administrations trying to deal with this problem," Hayden said. "Actually, I've seen it over two administrations, and I thank god every day for the continuity."

"Regardless of which side of the political spectrum you come from or what your political views might be, these threats are very real and very serious. And we have to -- have to deal with them in a very serious way," McConnell added.

Why I Think that We Are Doomed

I will probably expand on these thoughts in a future post, but I want to explain the pessimism that echoes many of my blog posts. It appears to me that most Americans are, for whatever reason, unable to apply the moral principles and common sense that they apply to their personal lives to the the actions of the State. Most people believe that slavery, robbery, and murder are wrong. Nevertheless, when the State conscripts, taxes, and wars, these activities are suddenly not wrong. People may think that the State can conscript too much or tax too high or war too often, but they have no problem with conscription, taxation, and war as such. It seems that only libertarians are willing to say that slavery, robbery, and murder are always wrong, even if a group of people get together and call themselves government engage in such behavior.

I've heard and read many people say that "the law is the law". What they mean by this is that whatever the State decides the law is, that is what it should be. But no one really truly believes this. For instance, the overwhelming majority of Americans believe that racism is wrong, however, Jim Crow used to be the law of many Southern States. These Southern States were influenced by the black codes that were the law in many Northern States before the War between the States. Slavery used to be the law in Northern and Southern States. Would these modern Americans then say that blacks and whites of that time should have just obeyed the law because it was the law? Should white abolitionists not have helped illegally free slaves through the Underground Railroad? Should white civil rights activists in the 1960s just tolerated Jim Crow because "the law is the law"? I'm sure that these Americans would say "no", and then provide reasons why these laws were wrong. The fact that they believe these laws were wrong demonstrates that these Americans believe that their is a higher law which we can use to judge whether State-made law is just or unjust.

Merry Christmas from the TSA

Here is your annual Christmas gift from the TSA-fear.

My Beef with Minarchists

The U.S. is so far down the slavery scale on the liberty-slavery spectrum that minarchists and anarchists might as well be the same people. And in conversations with statists, we even sound like we are advocating the same ideas. Even though I respect the minarchists' dedication to liberty, I have a philosophical disagreement with them that they have yet to address satisfactorily. That disagreement is the minarchists' contention that we must have a State to provide judicial and defense services.

I am baffled as to how minarchists can consistenly argue that the State as monopolist is inefficient at providing all goods and services except defense and judicial services a State is necessary. Why this exception? If it is clear that the State cannot provide other goods and services, why are judicial and defense services exempt from economic law? I have yet to find a convincing answer to this question from minarchists.

One answer is that without an ultimate supplier of defense services, competing defense services will immediately resort to violence to resolve their disputes. But I don't see how this follows from the idea of competition in defense services. War is expensive. Warring defense companies need resources to battle. Taxation makes war more likely because "customers" cannot simply opt out of the State by ending payments for its services. However, without taxation, customers can stop paying defense companies who choose to settle differences with violence.

Mainstream Media to American Public: "Your Fellow Citizens Are Obeying, So Shut Up and Get in the Scanner"

When I first read this article named "Travel-Trained: Americans Take Security with a Sigh", I was convinced that my pessimistic outlook was justified. (Yes, that is the actual title. Subtle, isn't it?) The article begins:

NEW YORK — Explosive snow globes? You've got to be kidding, Robyn Burford thought when security inspectors at the Portland, Ore., airport demanded she hand over her two glitter-filled souvenirs.

The snow globes might contain explosive nitroglycerin, an officer informed the 16-year-old from Houston. Instead of complaining, Burford did what thousands of other travelers are doing when confronted with pat-downs, body scanners and the other indignities of air travel this holiday season.

She bit her tongue and obeyed.

"I think we're actually getting used to the fact that we have to go through so much to go places," Burford said.

Resignation replaces fear
As the Christmas travel week arrives, it appears Americans are getting used to flying under the specter of terrorism and the new inconveniences the government deems necessary to combat it. Most people surrender to body scans and invasive pat-downs with little fuss. Resignation has replaced fear.

This is the general conceit of the piece. The article stresses the point that even though some Americans are upset with the TSA and chose to not fly, most Americans have resigned to the TSA's security measures as necessary. The article even includes quotes from passengers who say that the measures are not that bad. For example

"If it means me getting naked, I'll get naked and get right on the plane," said Gil Torres, 49, as he waited at Chicago's O'Hare International for a flight to the Philippines.

The article ends with this message of joyful obedience:

Erika Holland, who flew in from Nashville to Los Angeles on Monday to spend the holidays with friends, said she didn't have to undergo extra screening measures such as the body scanning machines or the enhanced pat-downs, but said she wouldn't be against the invasive checks.

"I'm willing to give up a lot as long as I can fly safely," Holland said.

So when I finished reading the article, I felt that our country would look like Nazi Germany in about a decade with Muslims taking the place of Jews. I figured at that point the populace would be so corrupted that no one but libertarians would object to gassing Muslims and bombing the Middle East.

Government Motors Extracts Its Pound of Flesh from Toyota

Toyota Motor Corp. will pay an additional $32.4 million fine to bring its total fines to $48.8 million that "will settle investigations into how Toyota dealt with recalls over accelerator pedals that could get trapped in floor mats and steering relay rods that could break and lead to drivers losing control." It is important to note that these fines do not address any deaths or injuries that might have resulted from the Toyotas suddenly accelerating. In fact an August 2010 government investigation suggested that driver error may have been the cause of unintended acceleration. Instead these fines supposedly punish Toyota for its response to the problem which did not satisfy the government.

Call me cynical, but I suspect that the Federal Government's attack on Toyota and the fines that have been extracted from its shareholders was influenced by the fact that the Federal Government now owns General Motors. Considering that GM has to pay back this loan, the Federal Government has an incentive to damage its rivals. The Toyota problem proved quite propitious for the Federal Government which then hauled Toyota executives before Congress to embarrass them in early 2010 and insinuated that Toyota's cars were dangerous. Unsurprisingly, Toyota's sale fell 16 percent between January and February 2010.

Recently the Federal Government opened investigations into the 2007-2008 Honda Fit, the 2005 Honda Accord Hybrid, the 2006 Honda CR-V, the 2007 Kia Optima, and the 2010 Kia Soul. I have yet to find any recent investigations into GM or Chrysler or Ford. Thus, it seems that the Federal Government's strategy is to harass foreign car companies to make it easier for the domestic car companies, especially GM which it now owns and Chrysler which it bailed out.

Perhaps my analysis is wrong, but I think it foolish to not look at the incentives that the Federal Government has given that it now owns a GM. Toyota is a rival of GM and a foreign rival at that. It is much easier to simply smash your rival than compete with them by improving your product.

Anti-Cop Hip Hop-"Crooked Officer"

"Crooked Officer" by the Geto Boys was included on their 1993 release Til Death Do Us Part. The lyrics need no commentary from me as Geto Boys are quite clear about their feelings for the police.

Congratulations, Gays and Lesbians!

Now that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has been repealed you can be open about your sexuality while serving as cannon fodder for the Regime. You and your straight comrades in arms can oppress brown people in foreign countries together. Way to fight for equality!

First-Hand Bullshit

About "third-hand" smoke.

I've read more intelligent shit in fourth-graders' journals.

Security Theater Starts Its Run at the Washington Metro

I've lived in DC pretty much all my life. I was in high school during the 1990s when DC was the murder capital of the nation thanks to a combination of horrible gun laws and the drug war. That was a scary time for a young high school student. Kids were being killed over Starter jackets and Timberland boots. And despite increased police presence, robberies and murders still occurred frequently in some parts of the city because the criminals were pretty sure that their victims were unarmed and the police would not get there in time.

Fast forward to today. Police have begun random bag searches at the Washington DC subway system known as Metro. Supposedly this increased police presence is enough to deter terrorists who might want to attack the Metro system. How this is supposed to deter a terrorist's attack is beyond me. If a terrorist has made it to the kiosks to purchase a farecard, the citizens have already lost. He could detonate a bomb at that point and wreck the Metro system. If armed terrorists wanted to attack the system by shooting up the system, they would succeed because they can be assured that most people are unarmed.

I am not a security expert, but even I can see these glaring holes. And I am just too cynical to believe that our government security experts are this stupid and cannot see thees gaps. Thus, I continue to believe that the real purpose of these random searches, like the TSA's scanners and pat-downs, is not security, but compliance. Each encroachment on our liberty through practical politics further reduces us to easily managed beasts of burden who produce enough to feed the parasitic class, but do no complain about their labor. Even in the Washington Post article there are quotes from people who believe that such random searches are worth it. This is the attitude our masters hope that we all adopt. One of quiet subservience that permits them to rob us at will and control our lives as they see fit.

To borrow from Lysander Spooner, all these cries of "random searches", "back scanner x-ray scanners", and "enhanced pat-downs" to "keep us safe from terrorists" who want to attack this country "because they hate us for our freedom," are all gross, shameless, transparent lies—so transparent that they ought to deceive no one—when uttered as justifications for violating our right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. As long as the American people continue to believe that their most formidable enemies are distant foreign terrorists rather than their own governments -- federal, state, local -- they will continue to lose their freedom and their wealth to the very entities they so wrongly believe exist to protect them.

 

The TSA's Soundtrack

From a USAToday article named "TSA choir has holiday spirit pat down at LAX":

Airports around the country have scheduled musical performances during this time of heavy holiday travel to try to brighten the experience for harried travelers. The choir here is one of just two — the other is at the airport in Austin — made up entirely of TSA workers, said TSA spokesman Greg Soule in Washington.

Members of the LAX TSA Choir are volunteers who practice and perform on their time off, says musical director and keyboardist Raul Matute, who is a security manager at LAX. The group has been performing since 2003 and also serenades passengers with patriotic music on Veterans Day, Memorial Day and other occasions.

"It's to promote the human spirit and morale," said Matute, who played in the San Francisco band Cold Blood in the 1960s.

Ernie Perez, a security supervisor and tenor, led the choir in a Ray Charles-like version of Georgia on My Mind and Feliz Navidad.

"We've been taking a lot of heat for what we do" at TSA, said Perez, referring to body scanners and aggressive pat-downs of travelers. "We just put a new face on TSA — I think a positive face."

At the start of Wednesday's performance, volunteers from other airport jobs performed an eight-minute dance routine on the floor of the terminal, stunning passengers and enticing some to dance along to recorded songs such as Surfin' USA, Rock Around the Clock and Stayin' Alive.

As the choir worked through an hour-long set list that included America the Beautiful, God Bless the U.S.A. and Battle Hymn of the Republic, as well as Frosty the Snowman and other seasonal chestnuts, traveler Edwin Tagoe recorded the scene with a video camera.

Well, here's a song I wrote for TSA agents to sing, although this probably works better as a hip hop track. All I need now is someone to help me put this to a hot track and I'm sure this would be a top 10 hit. Call me, T-Pain.

"As Long as It Keeps Us Safe"

Lighten up, folks. It's no big deal,

Just obey and let us cop a feel.

And if that's too much, just let us see you nude,

It's not like we care if you're circumcised, dude,

Or if your junk is small or you're hung like a horse,

And don't worry, we can't save your pics, of course

But if your wife is hot, we'll put her through the scanner

And then enhance her security in such a manner

That she'll think she's cheating. Hell, she might even like it

So take some notes. When you get home, you can try this

And while we grope you, enjoy this song,

And please, don't focus on these wrongs,

We are working hard to keep you safe

From terrorists we couldn't stop in the first place

And now you're through security. We admit that it's porous

But no time to fix that, just sing along with the chorus

As Long as It Keeps Us Safe!

As Long as it Keeps US Safe!, sing it louder!

As Long as It Keeps Us Safe!

Obama to Business Leaders: Hire Some People; Business Leaders to Obama: Fire Some People

Recently President Obama met with business leaders in an effort to get the economy moving. While some businesses are hiring, other CEOs expressed concern over low consumer demand and burdensome government regulations. In other words, if the Obama administration would fire a good number of the lawyers who make up arbitrary rules at various regulatory departments like the FTC, FCC, DOJ, FDA, etc., business leaders might have some confidence about the future and might hire some people. Of course, I have a better chance of winning the gold medal for women's gymnastics at the 2012 Summer Olympics than the Obama administration lowering regulatory burdens for all businesses. One simply cannot run a successful corporatist State if regulatory burdens are lowered for everyone.

Your Garbage Can Get You Arrested

This evening I learned from my brother that police in Charles County, MD, work as undercover trashmen. They collect garbage looking for drug paraphernalia among other "illegal" things. So be careful what you put in your trash. I'm pretty sure that this county's police force is not the only one that does this. 

So Now the Constitution Matters?

From what I have heard and read, liberals are having conniptions over a judge's ruling that forcing people to buy health care is unconstitutional. This is understandable given that liberals believe that as long as the State is doing what they want it to do, there are no limits on its power. Conservatives, of course, feel the exact same way. But since conservatives oppose the health care bill, they are happy to see that at least parts of it are deemed unconstitutional. 

I find arguments over original intent versus living document boring. This is because these arguments don't really matter. The State as ultimate judge of its own powers will always say that its power has no limits. And since the State has soliders who will kill us for disobeying its edicts, I see Constitutional debates as yet another tent in the bread and circus we call democracy. Congressmen today other than Ron Paul cannot even think of an area of human life in which the State has no business intervening. Congressmen and judges and presidents may argue over the degree to which the State may intrude into our lives, but these people will not say that the State has absolutely no business in certain aspects of our lives. The Federal Government in this country does whatever it wants, whenever it wants. Using the Constitution to stop the Leviathan State from advancing is like trying to stop a raging bull with a roll of wet paper towels.

Don't Lump Edwards and Revis in with Alosi

There's been a lot of talk the past couple days about Sal Alosi, the New York Jets' strength coach who tripped Miami Dolphins cornerback Nolan Carroll as he was covering a punt in the third quarter of their game on Sunday. What gets me, though, is reports like this:

It’s the latest embarrassing incident for the team that starred on HBO’s “Hard Knocks” during the summer.

The Jets were investigated by the NFL in September for their treatment of a female television reporter. The league responded to the situation involving Ines Sainz of TV Azteca by developing a workplace conduct program, underwritten by Johnson, to educate players and staffs of all 32 teams.

A few weeks later, wide receiver Braylon Edwards was arrested for drunken driving.

Star cornerback Darrelle Revis was ticketed for speeding while driving to the team’s facility for a meeting before a practice in October.

No question this incident is an embarrassment for the Jets, but it's absurd to compare it to other incidents where players were arrested for DUI or speeding. Why? Because Alosi's actions didn't just constitute a dick move; they were much more criminal in nature than anything Edwards or Revis did.

To even mention a speeding ticket in this story doesn't only illustrate the ignorance of the reporter, it goes to show how conditioned the masses are to accept "crimes" crafted out of whole cloth by the state. Historically, criminality implied intent and required at least one victim. Today, however, crimes are whatever politicians and bureaucrats say they are. The law should deal with actions, not hypothetical situations, probabilities, or the mere potential to harm someone.

Judging the Alosi incident by this standard -- one that traditionally implied at least some semblance of the rule of law -- we would have to conclude that his actions were much more troubling than those of someone who simply exceeded arbitrary limits imposed by our betters.

It's not clear that Alosi actually intended to do harm -- certainly we're all guilty of poor decision-making at times -- but it's borderline criminal to even pretend Edwards and Revis are in the same league.

We Are All Drunk Drivers Now

From Dr. Gridlock at The Washington Post online, I learned of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood's latest measure to control all movement of citizens in the United States (emphasis added):

The U.S. Department of Transportation says it is partnering with thousands of law enforcement agencies for a holiday crackdown on drunk driving.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood kicked off the effort Monday in Washington. Many states are adapting a "no refusal strategy" to fight drunk driving, where police obtain warrants from on-call judges for blood samples from suspected drunk drivers who refuse breathalyzer tests.

"Drunk driving remains a leading cause of death and injury on our roadways," LaHood said in a statement announcing the "Drunk Driving. Over the Limit. Under Arrest" campaign. "I applaud the efforts of the law enforcement officials who have pioneered the 'no refusal' approach to get drunk drivers off our roads. And I urge other states to adopt this approach to make sure that drunk drivers can't skirt the law and are held accountable."

Let's be clear here. "Suspected drunk drivers" means anything that the police want it to mean. As long as you drive a vehicle, you are a suspected drunk driver while driving. For instance, if you approach a sobriety checkpoint and turn around to avoid it, you are a suspected drunk driver. If you are stopped at a sobriety checkpoint and do not answer questions from police satisfactorily or choose to not answer questions as is your right, you are a suspected drunk driver. If the police ask to search your car and you refuse, which is your right, you are a suspected drunk driver. If the police just do not like you (you are a black male, for instance), you are a suspected drunk driver. As a suspected drunk driver, you will be compelled to take a breathalyzer and if you refuse that, the police will contact an on-call judge who will rubber stamp a warrant to take your blood. And if you refuse to submit to these violations of your rights, you will be arrested and probably tasered or even killed.

We Have Lost Our Collective Mind

A couple buddies of mine who went to the Army/Navy football game on Saturday were driving back home to Maryland from Philly yesterday when they encountered a motorcade of no less than half a dozen police cruisers and SUVs on I-95. Spotted were at least two black federal SUVs and several Maryland and Pennsylvania state troopers.

Were they escorting the Holy Emperor himself? A governor or the secretary of state? No. They literally blocked every lane on I-95 to surrounding traffic in order to escort the U.S. Naval Academy's team bus.

One friend told me that any car (including his) that even got within ten car lenths of the bus was immediately forced to the shoulder, and he told me he watched as one innocent motorist was run off the road into the median in front of them. All for a bunch of college freaking football players.

Apparently it's best not to underestimate the lengths to which the state will go to protect the cogs in its war machine.

A Teaching Moment for the Rest of Us

Wesley Snipes reported to prison today to begin serving a three-year sentence for failure to file a tax return, a misdemeanor that should have only resulted in a fine. During sentencing, however, prosecutors wanted to make an example of him. According to CNN:

But prosecutors, in their sentencing recommendation, said the jurors' decision "has been portrayed in the mainstream media as a 'victory' for Snipes. The troubling implication of such coverage for the millions of average citizens who are aware of this case is that the rich and famous Wesley Snipes has 'gotten away with it.' In the end the criminal conduct of Snipes must not be seen in such a light."

The judge who sentenced him said that "Snipes exhibited a 'history of contempt over a period of time' for U.S. tax laws, and granted prosecutors the three-year sentence they requested — one year for each of Snipes’ convictions of willfully failing to file a tax return from 1999-2001." (emphasis added). Snipes punishment has nothing at all to do with the "crime" he was actually convicted of and both the prosecutors and the judge have openly admitted this. Snipes was made an example for the rest of us. Here are at least two lessons we can learn from this injustice.

The first lesson is that Snipes' unjust sentence helps nourish the envy and resentment democratic man has toward rich people and, thus, strengthens the democratic State. The rich in this country are thought to get away with all types of crime because they have money. They are always being chastised for not "paying their fair share of taxes." This attitude animates the prosecutors' recommendation for a harsh sentence. The fact that Snipes was not convicted of the more serious charges of tax fraud and conspiracy are irrelevant to democratic man. His concern was that a rich person was accused of evading taxes, and in his mind that it all that is needed for a conviction. According to Snipes himself he has received many comments from the public saying that he was receiving "just punishment" even though the "crime" he was convicted of did not call for jail time. This is how democratic man thinks and Snipes' prison sentence buttresses the political ideology of democratic man which then strengthens the democratic State.

The second lesson that we can learn is that resisting the IRS is like a slave standing up to his slave master. The slave master only wants the complete obedience of his slaves. Resistance of any kind will only anger the slave master and prompt him to viciously beat the slave. This not only quiets the disrespectful slave, but serves as an example to other slaves that resistance or disrespect of any kind will not be tolerated.

This attitude animates the comments of the judge. The judge has decided that Snipes' failure to file his tax returns for three years is contempt for U.S. tax laws. This insubordination, especially from such a high profile slave as Snipes, is utterly intolerable. That Snipes did actually pay his taxes according to the jury is not enough for the judge. Snipes did not show the appropriate complaisance because he did not do everything the State commanded him to do, i.e., file tax returns. For this he must be punished harshly. And his punishment demonstrates to us that our master has little tolerance for disobedience of his commands.

Is Today Groundhog's Day?

Today I read that a man was arrested in Baltimore for attempting to blow up a military recruiting office in Catonsville, MD, with a fake bomb provided by the FBI. FoxNews reports:

"A Baltimore man has been arrested this morning in connection with a scheme to attack an Armed Forces recruiting station in Catonsville, Maryland, with what he believed to be vehicle bomb," U.S. Department of Justice spokesman Dean Boyd said in a statement sent to Fox News. "There was no actual danger to the public as the explosives were inert and the suspect had been carefully monitored by law enforcement for months."

Didn't I just write about the FBI thwarting a terrorist plot that the FBI itself planned like two weeks ago? This is damn near word for word what the AP report for the Oregon arrest stated:

PORTLAND, Ore. – A Somali-born teenager plotted "a spectacular show" of terrorism for months, saying he didn't mind that children would die if he bombed a crowded Christmas tree-lighting ceremony, according to a law-enforcement official and court documents.

He never got the chance. Mohamed Osman Mohamud, 19, was arrested Friday in downtown Portland after using a cell phone to try to detonate what he thought were explosives in a van, prosecutors said. It turned out to be a dummy bomb put together by FBI agents.

Earlier this year the Federal Government created a propaganda public relations website to disabuse certain insane Americans of those nutty conspiracy theories that suggest our Federal Government is always into something. We simply cannot have people looking for motives of federal agents. Such agents would never abuse their power or succumb to the temptation to use the State to advance their own goals while lying about their true motives. There might be some bad apples, but fortunately the State's own rules prevent them from rising to the top of State power. Plus, State agents would never obey commands that conflict with their own moral consciences. Of this, we can be sure.

Nevertheless, I have a suggestion for you feds who wish to correct this irrational minority of Americans who are utterly detached from reality: If you want these foolish Americans to stop thinking that you are plotting terrorists attacks so you can benefit from the politics of fear, then stop plotting terrorists attacks so can you benefit from the politics of fear.

 

"Extremist" Is Not an Argument

Dear Liberals, Conservatives, and Moderates:

It has come to my attention during debates with you on Facebook or the comments section of various and sundry blogs and online newspapers that you have a tendency to get quite frustrated with me and my fellow libertarians who stubbornly insistent on logical consistency while arguing. For instance, we sometimes argue that crime is always crime. The fact that a group of people have come together to call themselves a government does not obviate the moral codes that bind the people who are not the government. Or sometimes we argue that self-ownership necessarily means that people who want to ingest drugs or engage in prostitution should be free to do so even if we personally disagree with this behavior. Or we demonstrate with sound economic logic why a minimum wage will increase unemployment and not help the very people whom you intend to help.

When we consistently criticize the State and advocate for a dramatic reduction of its power or even a complete abolition of the institution itself, you then hurl the "extremist" grenade at us in hopes that the force of the blast will blow us away from our keyboards while the connotative shrapnel of Ku Kux Klan, neo-Nazis, Timothy McVeigh, and  anti-government militia members will scar our hands and eyes, thus preventing us from typing any more utter nonsense such as natural rights, liberty, or individualism. However, we see this term as simply a fireworks display: it amazes and awes your audience who already think as you do, but then the show ends and things return to normal. That is, you have entertained your audience and given them something to cheer about, but you still have not grappled with the essence of our arguments.

While you use the term "extremist" because its modern political usage implies a violent, racist, anti-government Neanderthal, the term by itself says nothing about the quality or truthfulness of our arguments. Allow me to give you some examples by applying the word "extremist" to past periods in history. Advocating that someone be black and free in colonial America would be labelled "extremist". Advocating that someone be female and allowed to vote in early 20th century American would be labelled "extremist". Advocating that someone be Jewish and alive in Nazi Germany would be labelled "extremist"^*. Do you see my point? 

The fact that we libertarians generally believe in limited government (and many including this author believe in the abolition of the State) is an extreme position relative to political opinion of the masses. Neverthless, it does not follow that our extreme opinion is proof that it is an incorrect opinion. In fact, I think that all of you would side with the "extremists" in each of the three examples I previously mentioned. This should clearly illustrate the frivolousness of the term as it is currently used in discussions.

Therefore, when we are engaged in political debates, please refrain from using this term as if the word is the intellectual equivalent of a guided missile that obliterates all libertarians who are arguing with you. It only makes us realize that you have run out of good arguments and you are utterly frustrated with our stubborn adherence to logical consistency, natural rights, and sound economic theory.

Yours,

Brutus

*I must thank my libertarian colleague Robert Wicks for these analogies.

Something to Bring a Smile to Your Face

Given that our country is headed to hell in a handbasket and I spend so much time documenting each level of our descent, I feel obligated to occasionally post something happy so we can enjoy our trip. This video has been making the rounds and you've probably already seen it, but I still smile every time I watch it.

 

Move, B****, Get Out the Way!

In my post on Amazon and WikiLeaks, I remarked that slavery and Jim Crow were apposite analogies for the relationship between the State and mundanes. Here is yet another law that demonstrates said relationship. Maryland, the Free State, passed move-over laws this fall. These laws require

drivers to move to another lane or slow down when they are passing near police cars and other emergency vehicles stopped along a highway.

"Violating the law, which took effect Oct. 1, carries a fine of $110 and one point on a driver's license. If the violation contributes to a traffic crash, the fine is $150 and three points. If the violation contributes to a traffic crash resulting in death or serious injury, the fine is $750 and three points."

Of course, it's also quite possible that a driver could cause a crash while trying to suddenly get into the left lane when he suddenly sees a police cruiser on the shoulder. He also might slow down while passing, but this speed might not be slow enough to satisfy the shining knights in blue. But protecting our sainted police force (and their ability to generate revenue) is all that really matters.

 

I Have a Topic For You Military Chaplains to Debate

Apparently the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy has led to disagreement among military chaplains:

"Some of the most intense and sharpest divergence of views about Don't Ask, Don't Tell exists among the chaplains," states the Pentagon report, released last week, on the potential impact of repealing the policy. The report concludes that allowing openly gay or lesbian troops to serve in the military would have little lasting impact on the U.S. armed forces.

Among the issues raised by chaplains, according to the report, is whether a change in policy would hinder ministers' religious expression, particularly for those faiths that consider homosexuality immoral.

"Chaplains who aren't able to proclaim what they believe is true about this issue ... means that the soldier then, the airman, the sailor, the guardian, the Marine aren't able to get the full opportunity to hear religious faiths," retired Army Chaplain Brigadier Gen. Douglas Lee tells CNN.

Question for the military chaplains: What say you about the commandment against murder? Is there any debate among you about this topic?

The Problem with the World Is That the U.S. Federal Government Does Not Control It

America needs to kick ass and take names says neocon Robert D. Kaplan.

The Criminalization of Everything Continues Apace

"A child nutrition bill on its way to President Barack Obama — and championed by the first lady — gives the government power to limit school bake sales and other fundraisers that health advocates say sometimes replace wholesome meals in the lunchroom."

 

Maryland: Totally Earning Its Nickname As the 'Free State'

My buddy sends this study on freedom in the 50 states and says, "We're only the 46th worst state, but with a little work and oppression I think we can beat out NY."

I have full faith that Martin O'Malley and the Maryland legislature can pull off the task.

 

Thoughts on WikiLeaks and Amazon

I find myself a bit baffled over the proposed boycott of Amazon in response to the company dropping WikiLeaks from their servers. Some boycott proponents have called Amazon cowards. One commenter on Antiwar.com wrote: "F-- Amazon. They cave with one phone call from Lieberman? Anyone that listens to that guy should be boycotted. Goodbye Amazon." Apparently many boycott proponents feel that Amazon caved in too easily. It is not clear to me what the boycotters wanted Amazon to do. Perhaps Amazon could have at least announced their decision to drop WikiLeaks' servers ahead of time. But was Amazon supposed to rebuke Joe Lieberman and other government officials who pressured them?

Apparently many proponents hope that a boycott would compel Amazon to resist the State in the future. But let's think this through. Let's say the boycott successfully pressures Amazon so that the next time politicians bully the company, it resists their bullying. Now what? Do we really believe that politicians would simply back off their demands? Would politicians be compelled by Amazon's resistance to rethink their actions? Would Amazon's adherence to principle persaude the politicians to apologize for their misfeasance? Does anyone really think that this would happen?

I would predict that if Amazon were to rebuke such political pressure, politicians would simply make life hell for Amazon until they got their way. In fact, I believe that if Amazon had stood up to Lieberman as the boycotters wanted, there would have been multiple investigations into Amazon's business practices. The IRS, FTC, FBI, and DOJ all would have harassed Amazon's management until the company obeyed. As Stephan Kinsella has pointed out, Amazon is already in a precarious position for helping people avoid sales tax. My guess is that Jeff Bezos and his staff also believed that such retribution was probable and wisely acquiesced so that their business would survive.