who's your nanny?

The Top Ten Most Destructive Government Actions Are...

1. False Deficit Figures
2. Looted Social Security
3. Hidden Welfare Costs
4. Duplication of Federal Programs
5. Financial Mismanagement
6. Misinterpreting the Constitution
7. False Tax Policies
8. Unfunded Mandates
9. Alternative Minimum Tax
10. Waste, Waste, Waste

This is according to conservative writer Martin L. Gross. From an anarchist perspective, this list can be condensed into two actions: government taxes the population without consent (points 1-5 and 7-10) and government does not obey its own laws (point 10). Interestingly, war is nowhere to be found on this list. And that is all you need to know to understand the unwavering commitment to peace and liberty so eagerly displayed by American conservatives.

Red Light and Speed Cameras in the District Are Very Lucrative

The red light and speed cameras in Washington, DC have added a record high of $36.4 million to the DC treasury during the first 11 months of fiscal year 2009. But do not be alarmed. The purpose of the cameras clearly is to keep the residents of the District safe on the roads. The money collected will only be used to benefit the public at large. I mean, no government would set up red light and speed cameras just to collect money from its citizens and then spend the money on itself, would it? That's ludicrous. It's the government; it's here to help us.

 

The Obama Administration Continues to Strangle the US Economy

It is not enough for the Federal Reserve Bank to destroy the currency unabated or the Obama Administration to continue two wars or propose an $863 billion ($863,000,000,000) health care package while increasing the deficit to $1.42 trillion ($1,420,000,000,000). This will not destroy the US economy quickly enough. In addition to spending money we do not have, the Obama Administration wants to ensure that there is little wealth to tax and sustain Leviathan in the future. So to ensure that few if any private businesses will come into existence, the regulatory agencies under the Obama administration have increased their regulatory reach.

Top appointees at the Food and Drug Administration, for example, have cracked down on dietary supplements with "steroid-like" substances that for years had been sold in gyms and health-food stores. In a move designed as much for symbolism as effect, the new chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission last month dispatched all 100 agency inspectors across the country to enforce a law that requires special drains on swimming pools to prevent children from entrapment. The agency shut down more than 200 pools.

The new regulators display a passion for rules and a belief that government must protect the public from dangers lurking at home and on the job -- one more way the new White House is reworking the relationship between government and business.

"In the Bush administration, the problem was that the political folks were hostile to the mission," said Michael A. Livermore, executive director of the Institute for the Study of Regulation at New York University Law School. "We've already seen the new direction of this White House play out in other regulatory aspects -- the Environmental Protection Agency and financial regulation. With the consumer protection agencies, you're going to see a lot more stuff happening because they fit Obama's broad vision for government." (emphasis added)

What I have found interesting about the Obama Administration is just how candid it is about controlling our lives. He and his minions are true progressives. The progressives of the early 1900s were very frank about their goals to use the power of the State and force people to live as the progressives thought they should. Obama is just as honest about redistributing wealth to make things more equal (See The Plumber, Joe). This is not the war economy of the Wilson or Roosevelt administration, but I think we're getting a good idea of that economic life sans a draft and Jim Crow.

This is an all-hands-on deck approach to strangling the economy. The Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration are also becoming more active in enforcing regulations. The article admits that there might be obstacles to overcome:

The regulators still face significant hurdles if they want to dramatically expand government's reach....And the private sector is likely to assert that new regulations would be an additional burden in a weak economy.

"The argument is going to be that this is going to hurt jobs and be bad for the economy," [Michael A.] Livermore said. "That has resonance on the Hill and within the public. . . . That's the one big challenge."

This will hurt (some) jobs and this will be bad for the economy. Increased regulations raise the cost of entrepreneurship. Small businesses do not have the financial resources to hire lawyers to negotiate the layers of bureaucratic red tape as large businesses do. Since the State backs its regulations with violence, entrepreneurs face a huge risk if they run afoul of any regulations. The State will fine the entrepreneurs or shut down their business or even throw them in jail for violations. How many people would want to take that additional risk in the market place? It is hard enough to forecast what consumers will want and serve them. And yet the State burdens creative individuals with so many taxes and regulations, it is a miracle that our standard of living is what it is. Thus, entrepreneurs will be reluctant to open businesses which would create sustainable jobs. So I can see why Mr. Livermore believes that it will be a challenge to convince the public that these regulations are good for the economy. He has to find some really nice lipstick (probably MAC) for this pig.

There will be some job (sic) creation due to these regulations, however. The more aggressive rules will increase demand for lawyers and bureaucrats, but these jobs are not sustainable. These are not positions which create wealth or facilitate the creation of wealth. Government lawyers and bureaucrats create chaos which discourages resourceful individuals from investing. Moreover, these government positions are completely dependent on the production of the market to exist. This parasitical relationship cannot last indefinitely; the State agents' lust for power and wealth will never be satiated and will continue to grow with each generation. There will come a time when the State cannot survive because there will not be enough producers to live off of. But it will be a painful death.

 

 

D.C. Council Member's Chief of Staff Arrested

Federal authorities Thursday arrested Ted Loza, chief of staff to D.C. Council member Jim Graham, and charged him with two counts of accepting bribes.

The indictment says Mr. Loza received a cash payment of $1,000 on June 19 from a person with whom he spoke and that he promised to promote legislation and policies that the person wanted. On July 10, Mr. Loza met with the person again and had a similar conversation. At the time, Mr. Loza received an additional $500.

I do not know if the recently passed code of ethics covers council member's staff. If not, Vincent Gray should pass another emergency bill covering member's staff. This way the staff as well as the council members will have clear rules to uphold "unusually high standards of honesty, integrity, impartiality," and never give "preferential treatment to any person." Doing this will guarantee that the residents of DC will never have to worry about corrupt council members or council aides ever again.

DC Residents Will Never Have to Worry About Corrupt Council Members

The DC Council today passed emergency legislation that establishes the city's first "Code of Official Conduct" for council members:

The proposal, for example, states that council members need to uphold "unusually high standards of honesty, integrity, impartiality" and that the "avoidance of misconduct and conflicts of interest on the part of council members is indispensable." Some of those standards were already scattered through out city code, but Gray concluded the ethical policies dealing with the council were confusing and too dispersed.

The new code marks the first time since the council was formed in 1973 that members can access a unified, written ethics code.

Politicians cannot even uphold the usual standards of "honesty, integrity, impartiality." But clearly the council has figured out the problem: these codes were not written down. Now we will have ethical and honest representatives. 

Assuming the legislation that passed is the same as the code proposed by Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray, it

also states that members should avoid "using their office for private gain," never give "preferential treatment to any person," and steer clear of matters that impede "government efficiency and economy" or result in a "loss of confidence or impartiality."

It reinforces several existing laws and ethics policies for council members, such as not accepting gifts or loans from someone who is seeking a contract from the city.

Well, I feel a lot more confident about our council members now. Given that this code is finally written down for the council members to see, we will never have any more corrupt, dishonest, or biased council members ever in DC until the end of days. QED.

This Is the Best News from the DC Government I Have Ever Heard as a Resident

The D.C. Government is ending safety inspections for private vehicles. This is the best news I have ever heard from the District Government as a lifelong resident. Last September I took my dad's car through inspection and it failed the safety inspection because it had a small crack in the windshield. Perhaps now we will be able to drive it.

Of course, the Sirens are singing the popular song of Safety, predicting death and destruction because the residents of the city are now responsible for maintaining their own vehicles:

"You have an entire generation that is woefully unaware of when a car has real problems," said John B. Townsend II, a spokesman for AAA Mid-Atlantic, who said 35 percent of inspected vehicles failed inspection last year in the District. "It's not only about unsafe roads in the District, but Maryland and Virginia as well."

Employees of the inspection station also fear a rise in accidents:

At the inspection station in Southwest, several mechanics raised concerns, although they declined to be identified because they are not authorized to speak for the DMV.

The inspection "is a process that protects everybody," one employee said. "We see what everyone else doesn't see."

Another employee predicted that the changes "will take a life" because he sees "lots of unsafe vehicles everyday."

Oh, the agony of personal responsibility! The citizens are so helpless! They won't take of their cars and look out for their own safety. Nor will private mechanics look for "missing seat belts, balding tires, worn brakes, cracked windshields and inoperable lights" when servicing vehicles. That's too much responsibility for the people and private mechanics, even though inspections were required annually or every two years (depending on how long the car is registered) and people generally perform routine maintenance on their cars four or five times a year. No, no, no, no, no, no, no!!!! Only the State cares enough for the people to protect them from their own incompetence. Better let the State relieve the people of such burdens as caring for their own property and safety!

The "Services" of the DMV

I purchased a car last weekend and I am not at all looking forward to my upcoming trip to the DMV. I went to the DC DMV website today to find out what papers I needed to receive permission to drive my car. Any time I visit a government agency's website, I like to click on the "About Us" link to read the propaganda said agency uses to justify its robbery and oppression. The ostensible mission of the DC DMV is "to provide excellent customer service and to promote public safety by ensuring the safe operation of motor vehicles."

I am not surprised to read "public safety" as part of the mission. As H.L. Mencken once said the average man does not want to be free, he only wants to be safe. Safety is probably the most popular reason given by the State to justify its violations of our natural rights. According to this history of the California DMV,

The early day "motor wagon" was also considered a dangerous instrument. Several California counties passed ordinances requiring motorists to pull to the side of the road and remain standing when horse drawn vehicles approached. One court decision characterized the new contraptions as "highly dangerous" when used on county roads. Ordinances prohibited operations of the horseless carriage at night.

In 1901 California authorized "cities and counties to license bicycles, tricycles, automobile carriages, carts, and similar wheeled vehicles." The Vermont DMV did not even wait until automobiles arrived in the state before passing laws to regulate them. The laws were passed as a preventive measure. Given that the purpose of the State is robbery, I am not at all surprised that such laws were passed. This account of Idaho's DMV history does not even bother to hide the Idaho government's impudence: "[t]he state of Idaho learned early that there was money to be made in the distribution and sale of vehicles." But when crafting legislation, politicians generally cannot be so candid about their motives. They must cloak their schemes with some plausible rhetoric and safety always compels the masses to give up some of their freedoms.

The Feckless FAA

Southwest Airlines is facing the wrath of the FAA. What is Southwest's crime that could cost the company millions of dollars? They used "unapproved parts" on some of their planes. To illustrate just how useless the FAA is, FAA officials admit that these unapproved parts "didn't pose an immediate safety hazard." FAA spokeswoman Beth Harbin "called the parts 'perfectly safe' but acknowledged they were made by a subcontractor who wasn't approved for the work by the FAA. The subcontractor was hired by a maintenance company hired by Southwest" (emphasis added). Thus, Southwest's real "crime" was using a contractor not approved by the FAA. A contractor who used parts which the FAA itself says were "perfectly safe."

In March Southwest agreed to pay $7.5 million to "settle FAA allegations that it operated nearly 60,000 flights using planes that had not been examined for structural cracks as required by federal regulations." Again the presumption of the FAA is that Southwest Airlines, which started operations in 1971 and earned a total revenue of $9.861 billion and a profit of $645 million in 2008, would intentionally neglect its aircraft and put its customers, pilots and flight staff in jeopardy to make a profit. A profit which would evaporate through lawsuits should it become clear that the reason an accident occurred was due to neglect by Southwest's upper management. Thanks to this bureaucracy and the violence which backs its edicts, Southwest must divert resources to address this foolishness rather than improve its business. It cannot lower prices for consumers or add meals or increase employment or increase its employees' salaries. It is silly to think that Southwest would deliberately put customers on planes which might crash. The company could go bankrupt if this were to happen. ValuJet, for instance, never recovered from the crash of flight 592 in 1996. Although the company merged with AirTran in 1997, the name of ValuJet was forever spoiled.

The problem with the FAA and all government regulators is that their incentives are not aligned with the firms they regulate because they are government monopolies which receive their income through taxation. An airline regulatory agency in a free market would receive its income either by contracting with an airline company to inspect its fleet or selling its findings to consumers like Consumer Reports. In both cases the reputation of the regulatory agency would be at stake if there were any accidents or plane crashes. Consumers would blame not only the airline company but also the regulatory agency which told consumers that the airline company's planes were safe.

More Cuts, More Freedom

One significant benefit of economic crises is that they usually force bloated states to cut their budgets and subsequently become more efficient (well, efficient for monopolies, anyway).

In California, Guv-nuh Ah-nuld is faced with the prospect of cutting billions from proposed spending plans in order to balance the budget.

Slammed by an epic housing bust and massive job losses, California faces a $24 billion budget deficit and could run out of cash by late July if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature cannot reach a budget deal.

To balance the budget, the governor has proposed closing more than 200 state parks, releasing prisoners early, selling state property, laying off state workers and cutting health care.

Under the governor's plan, K-12 schools and community colleges would lose $5.3 billion over the coming year - on top of billions of dollars in recent reductions and payment delays.

The state would spend $7,806 per K-12 student in 2009-10, almost 10 percent less than two years ago, according to the Legislative Analyst's Office.

These cuts would only result in more economic and political freedom for California residents. Closing state parks and selling off property is a great way to repudiate debt immediately. Eliminating state programs has the dual benefit of saving taxpayers money in both the short- and long-term -- everyday maintenance costs disappear along with the state workers who would otherwise draw government-funded health and pension benefits. And many of the prisoners likely to qualify for early release would no doubt be those who have committed nonviolent "crimes" and who never should have been locked up in the first place.

Of course, you can never cut state spending without the teachers unions wailing the loudest and hardest. But despite complaints from school officials who argue that less funding will "shortchange" students and result in lower acedemic proficiency, laying off teachers, increasing class sizes, and cutting funding for educational fads will force the state to economize, which could allow it to become more productive if it took a few lessons from the private sector.

Generally, schools will weed out teachers beginning with those who don't have tenure, which is a formula for retaining many who are unmotivated and unproductive. However, if the governor instructed the districts to make these decisions based on merit (I know, fat chance), it would allow the state to weed out the worst teachers and keep only the best.

After all, this apparently is indicative of what California schools have been churning out so far:

"I think we won't be able to learn as much [if budgets are cut]," said freshman Andrew Taylor, 15. "They should put more money into schools. If you take money away from schools, you're going to end up with more people going to jail."

Seriously, folks, I'm pretty sure the only direction the state can go is up.

Virginia DMV Bans Smiling

Via Karen De Coster, Virginia has banned smiling at the Department of Motor Vehicles. In the spirit of giving credit where it's due, props to the headline writers at the Post, who prefaced this message with "As if it needed to."

Few places in Virginia are as draining to the soul and as numbing to the buttocks as the branch offices of the Department of Motor Vehicles. And yet, until recently, smiling was still permitted there.

No more. As part of the DMV's effort to develop super-secure driver's licenses and foolproof identification cards, the agency has issued a smile ban, directing customers to adopt a "neutral expression" in their portraits, thereby extinguishing whatever happiness comes with finally hearing one's number called.

Just another step down the well-greased slope of liberties lost under the guise of "security."

Thankfully, this is one mandate that wouldn't impact me one bit. You'll never catch me smiling while ensnared by the state's grubby, coercive paws.

We the Sheeple

Even as Mexico was scaling back its own estimates of deaths related to the swine flu -- at this writing, only 19 of 100 suspected deaths from the H1N1 virus in that country have been confirmed -- my parents were stuck floating around the Pacific last week on a cruise ship instead of docking in the Mexican Riviera after the CDC issued its warning discouraging travel to the area.

Given Americans' general tendency to place their faith in the state, I suppose it's understandable that Carnival chose to defer to what seems to be an almost reflexive sense of paranoia these days instead of rationality and common sense. After all, I can only imagine the lawsuits the company would face if even one person on the ship came down with the swine flu in the event that it disregarded a Perfectly Normal Suggestion by the federal government -- in this economic environment, such negative publicity and the resulting settlements could quite realistically spell financial ruin for any company that depends on customers' disposable income, of which we seem to have less and less with each passing day.

However, it appears that the swine flu isn't exactly living up to the hype the state was hoping it would. Lest you're tempted to think I'm the one being paranoid by saying the government actually wants to provoke crises and instill fear in the rest of us, allow me to direct your attention to one Margaret Chan, bureaucrat-in-charge at the World Health Organization, who is already warning us that the swine flu may return "with a vengeance" in coming months.

"We hope the virus fizzles out, because if it doesn't we are heading for a big outbreak." But she said: "I’m not predicting the pandemic will blow up, but if I miss it and we don't prepare, I fail. I'd rather over-prepare than not prepare."

Is there a word that describes hubris and intellectual vapidity? Oh yeah, actually there are two: "politician" and "bureaucrat." According to Chan, if the virus doesn't "fizzle out," we're ipso facto heading for a "big outbreak." But then she tells us if she misses said outbreak, then she fails. So she'd rather over-prepare than under-prepare, even though "succeeding" in her capacity of Big Cheese at the WHO would really only mean identifying a "big outbreak" that was apparently destined to occur anyway as a result of the virus's inability to "fizzle out."

Boy, thank goodness we've got Maggie Chan on the case! Clearly none of us is capable of merely identifying a pandemic as our friends and family members begin to drop dead. (At this point we'll just let Chan slide in referring to the swine flu as a pandemic even though it's not -- she's got enough on her plate already with the logic failures contained within those three short sentences.)

Despite all the attention the swine flu has been getting of late, one has to wonder how this virus compares to the regular old flu. Much has been made of the Mexico City toddler who died last week in Houston, marking the first U.S. death from swine flu. However, while the death of children is particularly devastating, we need to keep things in perspective. The "regular" flu kills 36,000 Americans annually -- on average, that's 3,000 people a month -- yet we haven't heard much about the roughly 1,500 folks who've likely succumbed to this illness in the past few weeks alone.

Vigilance in the face of disease is always sensible and particularly so when concentrated outbreaks are identified, but so too is caution when we clearly identify actions by statist politicians and bureaucrats who insist on maintaining a climate of fear.

Ironically, Barack Obama has urged us to remain calm during this alleged health crisis while many of his underlings, including his VP, seem to be doing the exact opposite. Astute individuals will identify this good cop/bad cop routine for what it is: a calculated ruse intended to convince the hoi polloi to remain confident in the very same state that causes conflict and then presents itself as the solution to problems it created in the first place.

No Statute of Limitations on Government Incompetence

If you're tempted to believe the state exists primarily for our protection, just get a load of this story.

I'll set the background. My wife and I built a house in Calvert County, Maryland, in 2002 shortly after we were married. At the time, our headaches brought on by hassles with county inspectors were sufficient to convince us never to do that again; and until only recently, our builder, who was and still is based in adjacent St. Mary's County, refused to as well.

Primarily, a number of inspections failed that should have passed -- for example, the electrical inspector failed us twice: once because he applied trailer housing standards for bathrooms to our single family home, and again because he was too lazy to go up to the attic to make sure there was a functional light switch (there was) -- and getting consistently accurate information from county staffers about the building codes probably would have felt like winning the lottery. But we'd never have known; it seemed if you called the county on two separate occasions, you got two separate answers to the same question.

Anyhow, we finally completed construction in 2003 and moved in. We figured since we were already in the throes of the inspections process, we might as well build a deck as soon as possible. So we applied for the permit, paid the extortion fee, and dug the footers. They passed inspection, we built the deck over the span of a couple weeks, and we called for our final inspection.

To our amazement, we were told we didn't need one. My wife and I turned to each other with a look that said, "We live in Maryland. If you can breathe around it, it's regulated and you're taxed to use it. This can't be right."

So my wife called back the next day. Same answer. (But hey, at least we were starting to get some consistency from the czars!) At that point I decided to personally call the guy who inspected our footers and tell him the county said we didn't need a final inspection. He suggested we call them back.

So we did. Again. And again we were told we didn't need a final inspection for our deck.

Fast forward five and a half years to the present, after the deck has sustained its share of parties, cookouts, and general abuse. I received a letter from Calvert County Inspections and Permits three weeks ago informing me that my deck permit is incomplete, that a final inspection was never performed (!).

The best part about the letter is that it wasn't even addressed to me or my wife; it was simply addressed to "Homeowner." And I don't think I even read three sentences before encountering the ol' "As you know, permits and inspections are required for the safety of you and your neighbors" rigmarole.

Oh yes, I "know" the permit process has nothing to do with money and control, only with "keeping us safe." That's apparently why it took more than three years before the county even realized the process was never completed in the first place (the permit technically expired in the summer of 2005). I can barely comprehend how no one has lost life or limb on my deck since!

Anyhow, after a few friends of mine told me just to shred the letter because it wasn't sent certified mail, I consulted with a couple lawyer friends who suggested it was best to play this little game and acknowledge receipt. (By the way, not only was the letter not sent certified mail, but apparently this was the second attempt at contact -- it actually was mailed along with a returned envelope from back in November.)

To be sure, once you're on the grid you can only hide for so long, so I reluctantly called the county a couple weeks ago and spoke to the permit coordinator, who actually seemed very nice (they always do at the beginning, I suppose). I explained my situation to the lady and told her I didn't necessarily agree that I should be the one responsible for bearing the burden of proof here, but that I could also do without a visit from the county SWAT team. She laughed and said that's not how it is -- never is until it is, though, eh? -- and she actually admitted that an audit revealed that many homeowners were given incorrect information regarding the need for final inspections on decks.

Of course, even though the county admitted error, it mattered not; the coordinator scheduled my final inspection for today. The state reserves a monopoly on the use of force, meaning that our glorious overlords bear no responsibility or repercussions for their mistakes -- which obviously means union-protected, pension-lavished parasites on the taxpayer dole have no incentive (and thus obligation) to even understand their own job descriptions or exhibit even minimal productivity. And you wonder where bureaucracy comes from.

Thankfully, and altogether surprisingly, my deck passed inspection this morning. Surprising not because I didn't follow building codes when it was under construction, but because there's always something these government inspectors can ding you with if they really want to (and don't forget, I've been failed before despite meeting "regulations"). And though the inspector didn't leave before pointing out that my deck wouldn't meet current standards, I thanked him for not being a douche (not in so many words, of course) and mentioned that we wouldn't even be having this conversation if his office weren't incompetent.

But there's the rub. There is no statute of limitations on government incompetence (I apologize to all my former English teachers for that redundancy). Practices that would put any private company out of business in short order are of no consequence to the state, for it can simply continue to steal from taxpayers to subsidize its inadequacies.

No government has a moral right to force itself upon homeowners and private builders and require permits and inspections in the first place. While Maryland has its share of shoddy and questionable construction companies -- who, interestingly enough, all meet the state's idea of "certification" -- any individual who wishes to verify the quality of his contractors' work can hire private inspectors provided by the market.

But then again, that would provide much too stark a contrast for the state to continue to justify its substandard oversight, now wouldn't it?

Liquor in the Front, Poker in the Rear

Via Radley Balko, such an advertisement (among many other things) is strictly prohibited under Virginia's tyrannical liquor laws.

It's nothing new for states to use promises of violence to get nonviolent people to conform to their criminal mandates, so we really have to thank the petty tyrants when they offer up arbitrary diktats that are so absurd that we simply cannot avoid noticing how worthless these people are. The VABC does not disappoint.

We're All Porn Stars Now

If we want to fly the government skies, anyway.

Abolish the SEC

From the "The Government Can't Protect You" File, Example Number ... well, pick a number. This time, though, it's the Securities and Exchange Commission failing to protect private investors from fraud allegedly committed by Bernard Madoff.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has faced heavy criticism over its failure to discover the $50 billion Ponzi scheme allegedly run by Madoff, the prominent Wall Street figure and money manager now fallen into disgrace -- despite credible allegations against him that were brought to the agency over the course of a decade. Against the backdrop of the worst financial crisis since the 1930s, the SEC also is accused of contributing to that disaster with lax oversight of Wall Street and the markets, and lawmakers of both parties are calling for a shake-up of the agency to help restore investor confidence.

Writes a buddy of mine: "Thank the lord we graciously and willingly give so much of our tax money to the SEC.  So they can ignore 10 years of warnings with respect to Madoff.   Seriously...how much worse would it be without them?"

The fact of the matter is we will be much better of just as soon as we learn to place less trust in government regulatory agencies, not more.

Just as it was the market, not the SEC, that discovered Enron's shenanigans, so too the Madoff debacle. But there's no shortage of outrage from politicians and bureaucrats, who pretend that the Fed's expansion of money and credit, in addition to federal regulations giving investors a false sense of security, have nothing to do with corporate fraud.

The state represents tyranny, which is the polar opposite of freedom. Therefore, whenever there's a problem, a good rule of thumb is to do the exact opposite of what the government suggests. Whereas the scandals at Enron, Tyco, and WorldCom led directly to the putrid Sarbanes-Oxley Act, don't be surprised if federal lawmakers exploit the Madoff case to add even more layers of auditing requirements to regulations that are ineffective to begin with.

Increased competition between private investment firms, not heightened bureaucracy in the form of tighter reporting requirements and disclosure rules, is the remedy if the actual goal is a freer market. Sadly, I'm hardly confident that's the case when it comes to the state.

The Government Can't Protect You

Not even a full day into his term and Obama has already reneged on a campaign pledge. And it's kind of a biggie. Instead of closing the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Obama has ordered a four-month suspension of prisoner prosecutions.

Interestingly enough, the order raises questions about how the military is to proceed with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks who has a hearing scheduled for today.

The U.S. government has had Mohammed in custody for almost six years. First captured in March 2003, he wasn't even charged with war crimes until February 2008 and is still on trial. Not only was the federal government unable to protect Americans on 9/11, but if it hasn't even been able to wrap up a conviction yet for a man considered to be one of al-qaeda's top operatives, what do you think the chances are it'll actually be able to prove the guilt of the 200-plus suspects currently detained at Gitmo?

If this failed despotic experiment isn't enough to prove the government is more interested in exerting control than "protecting" anyone, nothing is.

UPDATE (11:00 p.m.): Barry, like, so reads my blog. (Of course, if that's true he's probably got a special Gitmo just for me.)

Mr. Obama, I Want Out

Dear Barry,

Tomorrow you will take your place as America's next tyrant-in-chief. Heretofore you have made it very clear that the lives of ordinary Americans should revolve around the state. Like the vast majority of your predecessors, your vision of the federal government comprises the severely misguided notion that coercion and violence can be used as forces for good.

Your mantra of "change" is tiresome at best, mostly because I haven't heard you mention any federal agencies or programs you would eliminate upon taking office. Indeed, you will simultaneously be the most popular thief and thug in the United States, as were the men you will follow.

If you actually wanted to be different, you could begin by pushing for repeal of the 16th Amendment, thus eschewing the notion that the property of all those workers you claim to care so much about actually belongs first and foremost to the state. Instead, you've already promised to continue the time-honored tradition of deciding how much treasure will be pirated from the serfs before leaving the balance of this hard-earned booty to its rightful owners. And as if that weren't bad enough, you plan to "spread the loot around," punishing the most productive members of society in order to prop up the least.

You also intend to couple this fleecing of the citizenry with the expectation that we should not only accept such totalitarian behavior, but literally serve the state with a smile as well. You foolishly admonish us to "take responsibility" -- not for ourselves and our families, mind you, but for perfect strangers, under the guise that we can "make government work."

Well, sir, I want no part of it. The government can provide nothing that can't be provided more efficiently and proficiently by individuals taking responsibility for themselves.

In the immortal words of Murray Rothbard, the state is a gang of thieves writ large. Theft, which is rightly illegal in private, cannot suddenly become a moral affair simply because a group of people decides to get together and call it "taxation"; involuntary servitude -- slavery -- is hardly legitimate just because a government refers to it as a "draft" or, better yet, "civilian service"; economic fascism isn't proper just because it's better known as "regulation."

You get the point. Therefore, if it's all the same, you are not "my president." Don't take that the wrong way -- I simply don't view my neighbor as my provider, government police as my protectors, or the president as my savior. We shall simply peacefully coexist, with no mutual assumptions of responsibility toward one another. You won't compel me to live my life according to your standards, and I won't expect you to live yours according to mine.

Just so you understand, you will absolve me of any responsibilities to pay income taxes, adhere to federal gun regulations, obey onerous drug laws, toss my mouthwash if I decide to board a plane, display a passport if I leave or enter the country peacefully, refrain from shooting birds or other vermin that destroy my property -- or generally act in any nonviolent manner that would otherwise get me shot in the face by government goon squads if I failed to obey the state's many tyrannical edicts.

In short, I'll go my way and you'll go yours. And if you were to argue that you cannot honor the terms of our new agreement because there would be a chance I'd, say, use government services along the way even though I'm no longer paying for them, I'll simply remind you that I've never asked for them. In fact, by quickly putting an end to them outright you will be able to eliminate the possibility of incurring this problem in the first place.

I can think of no better change than removing myself from the menacing grasp of the state. Given some of your recent comments, I trust you understand why I want to help "heal this nation" and "seize my future."  Yes, yes I can!

Will you let me?

Thank Goodness for the TSA!

Our indispensible state agents are so concerned about our safety that they're willing to do the tough job of harassing 3½-year-olds for us. 

I virtually refuse to fly commercial due to the many idiotic and invasive "security" measures implemented post-9/11. And if the inane requirement of getting my 1-year-old a passport isn't enough to convince me to pass on a family vacation over Easter, this story might just be.

My One-Year-Old Needs a Passport

So I can legally tote him to Mexico for a family trip in a few months.

The best part, per my wife's research: His passport will be good for five years. You know, because he'll totally look the same when he's six.

Swimming Pool Nazis

Mike Tennant shares a nice example of what life is like when reality and satire intersect, courtesy of your beneficent public servants.

The Poor Quality of Jury Justice

Manuel Lora links to an article which reports that the Supreme Court of New Hampshire will suspend jury trials due to budget cuts. He makes some keen observations and I encourage you to read his post. I want to examine a deeper issue: the enslavement of individuals to provide justice services, aka, jury duty.

I don't know if coercion is used in other jurisdictions, but given that most people would rather do anything rather than serve on a jury, I think it a safe to assume that all jurisdictions use some sort of threats to compel people to appear. If this is not the case where you live, please let me know in the comments section.

In DC, jury duty is a requirement backed by the coercive power of the State. According to DC ST § 11-1907 (b), "A prospective juror who fails to appear for jury duty may be ordered by the Court to appear and show cause why he or she should not be held in contempt for such failure to appear. A prospective juror who fails to show good cause for such failure, or who without good cause fails to appear pursuant to a Court order, may be punished by a fine of not more than $300, by imprisonment for not more than seven days, or both."

How are we to expect that justice will be rendered true when the twelve people assigned to decide these matters are not there voluntarily? Yes, DC pays it jurors and requires by law that private firms pay their employees while on a jury, but the arrangement is still not voluntary. Conscripted soldiers were paid. Even African slaves were paid. Some slaves were allowed to hire themselves out and then their master took a percentage of their earnings. Frederick Douglass had such a relationship with his master when he was a slave. Do not deceive yourself into believing that since jurors are paid they are not being enslaved. As long as there are threats of fines and jail, jury duty is not a free market service. Such threats are exactly what we would expect from a protection racket, however. 

American Airport Security Is a Joke

I know I'm telling you something you probably already know, but here's some living proof from Jeffrey Goldberg.

A Phrase Which Never Enters the Lexicon of the Central Government

"Budget Cuts". Several States have discovered that their expenditures will exceed their tax loot revenue for the upcoming fiscal year. Several States have been hit hard by the slower housing market. This means that they cannot inflate their property appraisals to extort money from home owners and cover their shortages. Moreover, States are not allowed to counterfeit. Since they can only raise money through bonds and taxes, the weight of the burden is more readily felt by the citizens of the States, unlike inflation which the central government can blame on rising energy prices or greedy corporations. Thus, the central government rarely cuts expenditures because it can create the funds ex nihilo whenever it wants. Certain programs may occasionally end, but since the State views everything we produce as its own property, it simply reallocates these resources into something else it wants rather than give the money back. This is what all congressmen and congresswomen intend when they advocate a budget cut; they want to take money from someone else's pet projects and spend it on their own. The only person in the entire apparatus of the central government who advocates cut cuts is Ron Paul.

Times such as these would be a good opportunity for citizens in these States to find out what "goods" or, more likely, "bads" their money is being spent on; perhaps they would prefer that either the market produce these goods or the States cease producing these "bads." The public indoctrination education systems should be first on the list.

'Public Education' Is an Oxymoron

Apparently one of the new perks being offered in an attempt to attract teachers to Florida public schools is the constant and omnipresent stench of B.O. throughout the school day.

A new Florida law will require elementary schools statewide to offer 150 minutes of physical education a week, a mandate that works out to be 30 minutes per day of running, jumping, and sweating.

PE teacher Michele Rivera called physical education "as important as any subject taught in schools.''

''The kids are not only getting an education that moves their bodies, they're learning lifetime healthy habits,'' she said.

It's all well and good to integrate PE into a child's education curriculum -- something private schools undoubtedly do, as well -- but don't put too much faith in schools filled with teachers who actually think doing jumping jacks is as important as mastering academic skills.

Maryland State Police Spy Review Complete

On Wednesday, Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley -- AKA Martin "Owe'"Malley, AKA Governor Douchebag -- and former Attorney General Stephen H. Sachs released an "independent" review of the state police department's domestic surveillance program.

I say "independent" review because Sachs, though a former attorney general apparently no longer on the state's payroll, is obviously still too close to the players involved in this case at the highest levels to legitimately be trusted to render an honest assessment of the state's methodical spying on civilians.

In the words of a friend:

Looks like the State Police Spy Review is complete. And yes, there is nothing about

1.) Sorry folks, we infringed on civil liberties and
2.) No, we won't do this again.

More like

1.) Oops, we got caught (we will try hard to not get caught next time)
2.) We won't use that software again to track our spying activities (but there are several other software options available)

Then sweep, sweep! This topic is going under the rug. See you next election!

But have a great day!

Sounds about right to me. Read the full report here.

The Evil FDA

Lew Rockwell interviews Bill Sardi on the FDA. Sardi reveals how the FDA's actions or inactions lead to more death. He also shows how the drug companies work with the FDA to gain power and money. Unfortunately, he thinks that the only way people will wake up to their fleecing is if drug prices become unaffordable and they are forced to look for alternatives. He and Lew also discuss the American perception of the State as a deity whom they trust in all things, something I write about all the time.

The Misdirected Anger of the American Public

In a recent discussion on this blog I wrote that the American people frustrate me because they continue to run to the State for protection, completely oblivious to the fact that this State is the very source of all of their suffering. The reaction of Americans to the financial crisis is an example of this frustration. They almost see the truth, but they have such blind faith in the State to protect them that they run from serpents into the lions' den. Many see the Wall Street fat cats making out with millions at their expense and are rightly upset. However, they continue to believe that the problem is a lack of State oversight. They completely fail to see that the sole cause of this financial crisis is the State. It is the State through its legal counterfeiting entity the Fed which creates booms and busts. And it is the State that is protecting these fat cats from losing their money. Yet in this article no one, not the author, not the regular people interviewed, not even the economists quoted realizes that.

The American people continue to believe that the State must regulate these entities so that these "greedy executives" will not continue to rip them off; however, the regulations themselves breed the very secretive actions that destroy our freedoms and livelihoods. For instance, Christopher Manion at LRC blog found this line in the text of Congress' emergency act ostensibly designed to save us from financial ruin:

"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

This provision would essentially make the Treasury Secretary a financial dictator. One man or woman would have great power to regulate our financial markets. Now if you give one person such powers, what do you you'll think he or she would do with them? Do you think he or she will help the people or help his or her cronies? Even if the person really wanted to help the economy, he or she would suffer from what Hayek called the pretense of knowledge, i.e., the false belief that one person or a group of people can understand every detail of complex networks. Markets are complex entities which evolve continuously; the only being who can understand everything about such entities is He Who Understands All Things.

But the American people continue to believe that just because a couple of folks have PhDs in economics or finance, they can guide and regulate a multi-trillion dollar economy. Such an assumption is just absurd. Moreover, it demonstrates that Americans have no faith in freedom. They do not believe that the free market can do a better job of self-regulation than the State ever could. While I may sound harsh, truthfully, I have more faith in the American people than they do in themselves. As I have written in previous posts, I don't know what a Stateless society would look like, but I believe the American people can solve any problem, whether it be ownership of roads or production of law and order or energy woes or financial crises or education among a myriad of issues, if they would only free themselves from their mental prison of State worship. As long as they cling to the State as their protector they will continue to suffer untold miseries for this is the greatest trick the State has ever pulled: it has convinced the people that it exists to protect them. And the suffering of the American people will be furnished with their own resources.

A final quote from the article:

Mark Gertler, a professor of economics at New York University, also thinks Americans have a right to be angry, both at the regulators who failed to police these financial institutions and at the companies who didn’t see this mess coming.

While many Americans may have assumed that the denizens of Wall Street had a keener understanding of the situation than they did, he said it’s been sobering to realize that even executives at some of the biggest financial companies, such as insurance giant AIG, didn’t fully appreciate the risk involved.

“The thing you learn is people who seem smarter than you may not be,” he said. “That’s the scary thing.”

Actually the Austrian economists did see this coming because they understand that State interference in the economy is the source of unnecessary uncertainty. Regarding the last quote, the scary thing isn't that the "people who seem smarter than you may not be." The scary thing is that we Americans continue to elect and empower such people to run our lives. If these people are just as clueless as to how to run the economy as we are, why do we continue to give these people the coercive power of the State to control our economic livelihood?

Why You Should Avoid Doing Business with the State

Hans Hermann Hoppe points out regularly that the State is the ultimate judge of conflict including conflicts involving itself. Thus, it should be no surprise that the State regularly rules in its own favor. Here's a real-life example involving CareFirst and the DC Government. The DC Council says that CareFirst is not living up to its obligation as a "charitable and benevolent institution." The Council has drawn up legislation to force CareFirst to establish “a percentage of gross premiums from all sources that must be devoted to community health reinvestment[.]” Extortion at its finest. According to the legislation, "CareFirst has a mission to reinvest in the community’s health 'to the maximum feasible extent' and 'should not be permitted free rein to accumulate surplus. …'" Note the dubiety of the statements and, moreover, note who the final judge of the meaning of the statements is.

CareFirst disputes this claim, arguing that it paid $88 million in taxes to the federal government and District premium taxes last year. It also claims that it has given more than $100 million to worthy community causes over the past three years. Of course, in the minds of the greedy council members, this sum is not a sufficient ransom; more is owed. The Examiner notes that this conflict arose because CareFirst was disobedient to its rulers. The Council wanted CareFirst to give $5 million to Healthy DC, a council initiative aimed at reducing the number of people without insurance. CareFirst said "no" and is now incurring the wrath of the council. Hell hath no fury like a government bureaucrat scorned.

If a genuine third party were available to judge this "contract," CareFirst may have a chance to win. But it has to present its argument in a DC court of law. One tentacle of the State gets to interpret what the exact mission of CareFirst is using deliberately equivocal language in legislation that another tentacle wrote. Thus, the State is judging a conflict between a business and itself. Just whom do you think will prevail? Should the State win this conflict, and in all likelihood it will, CareFirst will have to surrender a percentage of its premiums to satisfy the cupidity of the council. But if in the future the council deems that percentage not enough, guess who gets to judge whether this "contract" can be voided and a new, higher percentage be enacted?

Your Government at Work

FEMA continues to demonstrate its competence, this time in the wake of Hurricane Ike.

Don't Trust Government Firefighters, Either

Lately, Trevor and I have been pounding the police for their inaction and abuse. Here's a writer who pounds government-controlled firefighters. To be fair, the firefighters mentioned in the article actually did want to help the citizens save their property; it was the government bureaucrats who prevented the firefighters from doing their jobs.

Making More Friends with the Po-Leece

My letter to the editor of the Enterprise newspaper (St. Mary's County, Md.) runs today and argues for the immediate dismissal of deputy David Goff from the ranks of the county police force.

Goff, you'll remember, was charged and convicted after his drunken off-duty assault of a Maryland man who was minding his own business riding an ATV along the highway.

I didn't have space to address this in the letter, but I'm wondering if Goff even would have been charged with a crime had he assaulted this same citizen in the same manner while on-duty and sober.

More Asphalt Fascism

Totalitarian New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin is not only preventing property owners from returning to their homes following Hurricane Gustav, but he's also bragging about his decision to continue forcing families to bunk in shelters or spend their own money on motel rooms.

"I would not do a thing differently," Nagin said. "I'd probably call Gustav, instead of the mother of all storms, maybe the mother-in-law or the ugly sister of all storms."

(Via LRC blog.)

UPDATE: Via Manuel Lora: "Thousands in New Orleans are now virtually trapped in their own homes. Those who refused to evacuate are subject to arrest now that the local tyrants have established a dusk-till-dawn curfew."

The notion of private property rights essentially is mythical where the state exists. As if property taxes alone weren't example enough, this is further proof that the government believes ownership of private property ultimately originates with itself.

And Here I Thought My Master's in Reading (Education) Was Worthless

Turns out that if a few TSA inspectors knew how to read, however, maybe they wouldn't have jeopardized the lives of hundreds of airline passengers. Thank goodness they're here to keep us safe!

One pilot nailed it:

"The brilliant employees used an instrument located just below the cockpit window that is critical to the operation of the onboard computers," one pilot wrote on an American Eagle internet forum. "They decided this instrument, the TAT probe, would be adequate to use as a ladder," the pilot wrote.

On a side note, I apologize for the short absence over the weekend. I had a couple friends in town that I haven't seen in over a year and we had some catching up to do.

Newest DC Public Schools Incentives

Our illustrious mayor of the nation's capital plans to pay middle schools students $100 every two weeks "for attending school, staying out of trouble and getting good grades under a new program meant to inspire achievement with cash," you know, things children are just supposed to do. There is no shortage of idiocy in government officials. Hans Hermann Hoppe was quite correct; the open entry into democracy has led to a fierce competition in the production of bads and our government excels at producing ever more worse ideas, products, and services each day.

Man is a moral creature. We learn early in our lives that there are things that we are just supposed to do and that sometimes there is a price to pay for doing the right thing. The very idea that good behavior should then lead to financial gain will utterly destroy the moral fabric of these children. Inevitably they will place more emphasis on the outcome and make choices purely on the question of "What can I gain from this?" Suppose these children find themselves in a position in which the right moral choice will lead to pain and suffering and bad behavior will lead to gain. Just what choice do you think the children will make? But these children who will become unscrupulous citizens will make excellent politicians in the future. Perhaps that's whole purpose of the program.

Highway Fascism

I've been looking for an old muscle car for about five years now. I've been close to grabbing one a couple different times, but given that I'm no gearhead and know absolutely nothing about restoring classic cars, I'm resigned to buying one that's in decent condition both mechanically and physically. I'm also looking for a car within reasonable driving distance of my home -- up to 400 miles or so -- so I don't need to spend the money on professional delivery, which is every bit of $1,000 or more depending on where it originates.

I found a couple potential candidates in Ohio and Pennsylvania, both within reasonable driving distance of Maryland, so I called the MVA this morning to see how I'd go about obtaining a temporary vehicle tag so I could go buy a car and drive it home.

Surprise, surprise! There's absolutely no legal way to do this without having the title in hand -- which means that you have to purchase a car before applying through the almightly state to drive the friggin' thing home. And, of course, the reason you make the trip to see a car in the first place is because it's pretty stupid to buy a 30- to 40-year-old car site unseen, no matter what it looks like in pictures.

How much time, cost, and headache will be involved in buying an out-of-state car, or at least one that's not located within 15 miles of your house? I have no idea, but there's a good chance a couple flights or long drives will be involved just to finalize purchase before you can even think about titling it and driving it home. Unless the owner is willing to let you drive on his tags, which is a liability and something I wouldn't let any stranger do, you're looking at trailering a car or forking over the money for delivery.

I wouldn't doubt that rental/delivery companies play a part in lobbying in favor of titling restrictions so they can profit from these idiotic government restrictions -- which at the end of the day are nothing more than taxes to drive on roads we already pay for -- but in a free country, you wouldn't have to first check in with statist bureaucrats before traveling harmlessly on property you're forced to subsidize in the first place.

The Joys of Living in DC

Our illustrious mayor is having problems with his summer jobs program:

A team of 30 accountants and managers has worked at least 300 hours of overtime in Fenty’s $53-million-plus jobs program, according to figures provided by the finance office. Hundreds of teens and college-age students have gone without pay or with inadequate pay in the Fenty administration’s jobs program.

The 10-week program was originally budgeted to cost $14.5 million, but Fenty managed to spend at least $32 million in its first three weeks. How the **** do you spend that much money that fast? Oh, that's right. It's not his money. And since it's not his money, he had no qualms paying people for not working:

Part of the problem, according to high-ranking City Hall officials, is that Fenty has ordered that every teen be paid for the maximum hours per week, regardless of how many hours they actually worked.

Every so often our rulers do something do stupid that I'm left speechless. This is one of actions.

This program was started by Marion Barry when he was mayor in order to show poor youth the value of hard work. Why government officials have no faith in the free market to this is beyond me. If these idiots got rid of the minimum wage, any teen who wants a job could find one.

The BDO Is Watching Your ASS

Next time you fly, you might want to think twice about rolling your eyes or snarling under your breath when one of our trusty TSA bureaucrats confiscates your flammable lip balm or explosive toothpick. Yes, keep all those incendiary glares to a minimum because the State is going nationwide with its arsenal of BDOs -- behavior detection officers -- by the end of the year.

If you can be manhandled by the state's thugs and arrested for "distracting" or "ignoring" faux flight security, I can't wait to see what happens when you look at them the wrong way.

The Amish Are Coming! The Amish Are Coming!

That's what the state of Maryland would have you believe, as government busybodies masquerading as health department officials have begun swooping in on farmers markets and threatening the viability of local Amish businesses with suffocating bureaucratic licensing and regulatory requirements.

Here's but a glimpse at some of the inane mandates dictated by Maryland's food police:

Products that require licensing through the state include relishes and pickled products, butter, milk, cheese and yogurt, and canned products. Canned products require additional training from the state. Eggs must be clean, with no cracks, fresh, labeled and in cartons, and refrigerated. This posed a concern for the Amish, who do not refrigerate eggs but said they never sell those more than seven days old. Poultry can be sold directly on the farm, but meat must go through a U.S. Department of Agriculture-certified facility. Eggs must be labeled on each carton, but only once on a case from a wholesale seller.

Each processing license for products sold costs $350. Vendors must also submit a recipe for each item’s different sizes. For example, a 12-ounce jar of grape jelly needs a separate recipe and a separate fee than the same grape jelly in a 16-ounce jar, and for each vendor. Some of the Amish women voiced concerns that the dozens of baked good recipes they use would cost thousands of dollars and lots of precious time.

Remember, Maryland, this is all being done for your own good. Clearly none of us is capable of determining what to put into our own bodies.

I particularly appreciate this comment by Amish farmer Uria Yoder: "Our customers come for the food we sell that doesn't look like the store-bought food. We're doing it well as it is so why not leave well enough alone?"

If only it were that easy, Mr. Yoder.

What's next, Maryland? Harassing kids with lemonade stands and monitoring church bakes sales?

Yet another example of profligate govt spending

An article in today's Examiner details more wasteful government spending. According to the General Services Administration, the government owns 642,233 cars and spent about $3.4 billion of tax payer money in operating costs.

Some examples:

At the Department of Housing and Urban Development, fuel consumption and inventory are down, yet overall costs have increased significantly. Officials there can't figure out why.

The Interior Department was told by its own watchdog that it should cut its inventory, but it's added hundreds of vehicles.

Transportation Secretary Mary Peters has two drivers. Their salaries totaled more than $128,000 last year.

The driver for Health and Humans services Secretary Michael Leavitt earns about $90,000 a year.

There are some who are fighting to control government spending, which is a little like cat herding, except harder. For instance, Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste says

"From a management standpoint, this is something that can easily be handled...It's critical use or necessary use versus 'well, we've got the money, let's go out and buy some more cars.'"

While I applaud the efforts of people like Mr. Schatz, his quote reflects a naivete about government that affects many opponents of wasteful spending. If the government is the ultimate judge of what is necessary and what is not, everything will be necessary. Especially since the government has no real budget. If it needs more money, it just steals more through taxation or inflation.

This quote from Bradley Jewitt, director of HUD's facilities management division is priceless:

"Where that spike in overall costs came from, I have no idea...We can't explain it."

Perhaps this is because your agency doesn't produce anything and is not subject to the discipline of the market, yes? If firms in the free market want more money, they actually have to produce goods and services that people want. If Mr. Jewitt had a real job at a firm in the private sphere, he would be fired. I can't imagine any stockholders accepting such ignorance as an explanation for a 70 percent increase in fleet costs since 2004.

Where Are All the Pictures?

If our masters really believe war is necessary, asks Lew Rockwell, then why hide its costs?

Beer Bureaucracy

The blogging's a little light this weekend because I'm in New York for my brother-in-law's 40th birthday party, but I just had to share this.

My sister spent about two hours this morning trying to buy a keg of beer for the festivities today, but because of New York liquor laws it's virtually impossible to get one the same day you need it.

Apparently there's so much regulatory paperwork involved in selling kegs these days that liquor stores need at least a few days notice in order to have enough time to wade through the bureaucratic mess involved with allowing you to roll beer to your party instead of carrying it in boxes.

Tyranny Security Agency Blames Airlines...

for the "false positives" that flag passengers for "enhanced security" when being herded through security lines. From the article:

TSA administrator Kip Hawley says many airlines, knowing that the government will soon take over the passenger pre-screening function, have declined to make enhancements to their own database systems that would eliminate innocent passengers by checking for more data to resolve potential matches.

Hawley, of course, is upset at the airlines for not improving their systems. Why would they? If you were an executive at Southwest or American and you knew the government was going to take over this function, what incentive would you have to invest any money in developing a system that would be useless in the near future? Sure, this system would be better; in fact, if the airlines were freed from the FAA Plantation, their security system would probably be nonpareil. Perhaps if pilots had been allowed to carry firearms, September 11, 2001, would have been an ordinary day, but I digress. The airlines will receive no long-term or possibly even short-term benefits from creating their own system. Thus, the government will develop a system that will probably have more false positives than the system in place now since everything the government does is inevitably worse than the free market. If your name is Robert Smith, expect to be detained for enhanced security more often.

Gee, Thanks a Bushel

The FDA says it's OK to eat tomatoes again. Well that sure is a relief...you know, since it was never bad to do it in the first place.

The government still doesn't know just what caused the salmonella outbreak, and Thursday's move doesn't mean tomatoes are cleared. Early on, there was good evidence linking them to the sick, but it's unlikely that any field where tomatoes were harvested in April and May still is in production.

Of course, it doesn't mean all the people thrown out of work and the millions in lost revenue due to the government's incompetence are "OK," now does it?

This Is Why I Don't Fly

You'd have to send me on a pretty sweet vacation to get my ass in a commercial airplane these days. If you think taking your shoes off and throwing your lip balm in the trash before you board a plane is asinine, check out the story of Robin Kassner, who was manhandled by a police officer at Reagan National last year and charged with disorderly conduct and obstruction of justice.

Robin Kassner says "I was thrown across the room, into a metal chair and into a lady, and I was on the floor and realized I was being beat up."

Kassner says police officer Michael Urbina then used excessive force in handcuffing her.

Robin Kassner says "they picked me up and slammed me onto a metal table. Officer Urbina took his forearm and smashed me against the table."

Well, don't just take her word for it. Check out the video of the assault on the website I linked above.

Today Kassner is suing for $10 million over the arrest, which she says was unwarranted and abusive. I hope she gets every penny, too. The only way American taxpayers, who are too fat and happy most of the time to give a damn about this kind of government thuggery, might start paying attention is if these lawsuits start costing them money.

Given that anything apparently goes nowadays as long as the state can pass it off as imperative to the almighty War on Terra, I don't like Kassner's chances. After all, even though the disorderly conduct charge was dropped, she's still fighting the ubiquitous "obstruction of justice" charges.

Funny, but I thought justice first had to exist before you could obstruct it.

(Thanks to Wolf.)

Roy Hart -- Latest Victim of Maryland's Fascist Bureaucrats

A St. Mary's County zoning appeals board told Hollywood residents Roy and Jane Hart that they cannot complete construction on a home they have been remodeling since 1986.

The zoning appeals board ruled that the building permit did expire, that there was never a vested right to continue its construction and turned down an application for after-the-fact approval.

The house cannot be finished where it is now, but it could be physically relocated farther away from the water.

The decision can be appealed to circuit court.

The unfinished house is in within 100 feet of the shoreline. Chesapeake Bay Critical Area regulations prohibit structures in the buffer, but the foundation of the house was poured before the regulations were adopted locally in 1990.

The house can be "physically relocated?" The "decision can be appealed" to a higher court? At what cost to these homeowners? Certainly the fascist bureaucrats who have no vested personal interest or stake in the outcome of these hearings will bear any costs, whether monetary or emotional.

Anyone who thinks the building permit process exists for any reason other than to serve as a tax on construction is pathetically naive. For the most part, homeowners go along to get along and pay their fees to the state and county so they can get on with actually enjoying the property they've paid for. But when these criminals in suits who sit on planning and zoning boards start casting votes that essentially rob homeowners of their land and rights, there's no denying the fact that when push comes to shove, there really is no such thing as property rights as long as government is involved.

This is yet another example of the government punishing people for the mere potential to do harm; it's apparently too much to expect our public "servants" to resign themselves to sanctioning only those who've actually caused property damage as a result of their actions.

No doubt these county regulators believe they're serving a greater purpose as they assert unilateral force upon non-violent citizens, but they're nothing more than cowards hiding beneath Mother Nature's skirt as they bully the rest of us under the guise of protecting the environment.

Sad Story of Pfc. Joseph Dwyer

Long Island native Joseph Dwyer, who became a well-known face of the Iraq war after being shown carrying an Iraqi boy to safety in an Army Times photo by Warren Zinn, has died here at home after succumbing to the effects of post-traumatic stress disorder.

After being lionized by many as the human face of the U.S. effort to rebuild a troubled Iraq, Dwyer brought the battlefield home with him, often grappling violently with delusions that he was being hunted by Iraqi killers.

His internal terror got so bad that, in 2005, he shot up his El Paso, Texas, apartment and held police at bay for three hours with a 9-mm handgun, believing Iraqis were trying to get in.

Last month, on June 28, police in Pinehurst, N.C., who responded to Dwyer's home, said the 31-year-old collapsed and died after abusing a computer cleaner aerosol. Dwyer had moved to North Carolina after living in Texas.

Dwyer, who joined the Army two days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and who was assigned to a unit of the 3rd Infantry Division that one officer called "the tip of the tip of the spear" in the first days of the U.S. invasion, had since then battled depression, sleeplessness and other anxieties that military doctors eventually attributed to post-traumatic stress disorder.

Unfortunately, as is the case with so many veterans, Dwyer did not receive adequate medical treatment once his value to the U.S. military expired.

Some readers may recall my article last year, which told the story of southern Maryland native James Emerick Dean, an army reservist who contemplated suicide upon suffering Afghan war-induced PTSD and was ultimately executed in his father's home by Maryland police as a result.

Here's a Good Bet

Maryland Democrats are corrupt statist hacks who think they're entitled to control every waking minute of your life. (Republicans are little better, but Maryland's status as a one-party state generally encourages the GOPers to resist the tax-hiking, welfare-spending, rights-trampling Democrats at most turns.)

Listening to state comptroller Peter Franchot and other current and former politicians argue like schoolgirls over whether or not to allow slot machines and other gambling devices is enough to drive one to drink.

According to Maryland State Comptroller, Peter Franchot, Maryland’s leading voice against slot machines, “It has been proven, in state after state, that slot machines offer nothing more than false hope to desperate communities.”

The Honorable Franchot states on his website that [slot machines] have destroyed families through addiction, bankruptcies and crime, and have left governments scrambling to cover their enormous and social costs by any means necessary. They have driven small businesses out of existence and left Main Streets across the county a boarded-up shell of what they once were.

Too bad Franchot seemingly would never consider the fact that slot machines might just offer hope to private entrepreneurs looking to capitalize on an identified demand in the community; or that it's none of the state's business if one is "addicted" to gambling; or that no taxpayer should ever be robbed so the government can cover losses suffered by any businessman.

The state should be in the business of gambling no more than it should prevent individuals from partaking in it. It's a shame Maryland legislators and bureaucrats can't even see past their own statist ideology long enough to realize that freedom itself prevents them from forcibly restricting consenting adults from participating in non-violent activities.

Oh, and just in case you were wondering, the Maryland Lottery Mega-Millions jackpot currently stands at $16 million.

Your Children Are Property of the State

As you might have guessed, Texas CPS has thus far refused to release hundreds of children from its custody despite a ruling last week by an appeals court that it has no right to detain them.

Self-Promo

My latest article runs today in the Baltimore Examiner and points out the real intent behind Maryland's tightened restrictions on waterfront development. (Hint: Lawmakers want to outlaw it altogether.)

Right Idea, Wrong Plan

Maryland Sen. Roy Dyson argues in a recent op-ed that the Thomas Johnson Bridge that spans St. Mary's and Calvert counties is in desperate need of replacement, or at the very least relief from the volume of traffic it's expected to withstand each day.

I don't agree with Dyson about much, and not least his general outlook that all problems big and small can be fixed by the government, but he's right that this bridge -- colloquially known as the Solomons Bridge -- is frighteningly unsafe.

About 20 years ago, the bridge was closed for months, due to structural deficiencies. It got another band aid treatment. That's all it ever gets. A boat's eye view of the underside of the bridge is hair-raising. It is braced and over-braced. Its pilings appear to be in various stages of rot. For years, I have said…and I repeat it now "I don't think it's (the Thomas Johnson Bridge) safe."

It's funny that the shot of the "band-aid" braces included with Dyson's article only shows two reinforcement rods. One day I'll grab some photos from my boat showing braces containing at least eight rods.

This bridge needs to be replaced. My wife and I are so sick of traveling over it every day that we're in the process of trying to move to St. Mary's county so we won't need to cross it to get to work anymore. But aside from the hassle of traffic congestion, sooner or later many people are going to be killed by this bridge when a section plummets into the Patuxent River. Take a second and write that down. It's a virtual certainty.

While Dyson has the right idea here, it's too bad he doesn't push for outright privatization of the bridge. At this point, I'm not sure how many contractors out there would want to assume ownership given the headaches associated with building on or over the water in Maryland, but it would certainly speed up the improvement/replacement process if we didn't have to put our faith in the state to clean up this mess. Governments generally don't act until it's too late -- and that usually means that someone has to die before any money is allocated to fix anything.

We can kill two birds with one stone before we have to kill dozens of people with one bridge. Privatizing the TJ Bridge would mean saving taxpayers the burden of footing the bill while at the same time removing much of the bureaucracy that will ultimately hold up this project for years.

(Thanks to Rick.)