ATTENTION: You are viewing my old blog archives, kept here for search engine purposes.
To view the new blog, please go to the homepage. To view the new archives, go here.
To find something on my new blog, search here.

May 31, 2004
Congradulations to Michael Badnarik!

[Updates below.]

News8Austin: Austinite picked as Libertarian Party presidential nominee

Michael Badnarik said "there's no reason'' he can't take President Bush's place in the White House.

The Texan bases his optimism on winning the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination Sunday in Atlanta.

Badnarik is a 49-year-old computer programmer from Austin who also teaches a course in constitutional law.

He defeated former Hollywood movie producer Aaron Russo on the convention's third ballot, after former radio talk show host Gary Nolan, who was eliminated on the second ballot, endorsed Badnarik.

Copyright 2004 Associated Press, All rights reserved.


Ledger-Enquirer: Austin computer programer wins Libertarian presidential nod
"If I can win the nomination, there's no reason I can't win this election," Badnarik told a cheering convention that drew more than 800 delegates.

Badnarik, whose name is pronounced "bad-NAHR-ick," quickly challenged President George W. Bush and presumed Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry to work to ensure he is included in the presidential debates.

"If they believe in the Constitution, if they believe in freedom of speech, and if they truly believe that the Libertarian Party is not a threat, then having me on the dais with them behind a podium to present our message shouldn't be a problem," he said.

Copyright 2004 Associated Press, All rights reserved.


Austin-American Statesman:
Austinite is party's pick for president (link will rot)
On Sunday, Badnarik was nominated as the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate for 2004 at a convention in Atlanta that featured something the two major-party conventions will lack: suspense.

[...]

In a phone interview with the Austin American-Statesman, Badnarik, 49, said he was in "stunned disbelief" after the vote.

His next move sounds like a page from the major parties' playbook: strategize, raise money and campaign.

"I finally got a microphone to the people who needed to hear my message," he said after his win.

Trailing Russo and Nolan when the convention began Friday, Badnarik attributed his win to undecided delegates who said they chose him because of his performance in Saturday's debates at the convention.

Following the first debate on Saturday, Badnarik trailed Russo by two votes -- 258 to 256 -- after the first ballot. On a third ballot Sunday, Badnarik won 423-344.

Copyright 2001-2004 Cox Texas Newspapers, L.P. All rights reserved.

Richard Campagna got the vice presidential slot.

I've met Mr. Badnarik before and he seemed like a decent man. Hardly more than a handshake and a hello between us, of course, but I noticed no glaring personality defects. As for his politics, he's pretty pleasing:

  1. Principled and firm on gun rights
  2. Principled and firm on education
  3. Principled and firm on the drug war, although I'm not certain when he says "decriminalization" he means for all drugs.
  4. He'd abolish the IRS and the income tax without replacing it with a flat tax.
  5. He'd abolish the Federal Reserve Bank and bring the US back to a "non-inflatable currency." In other words, a gold or silver standard. He teaches a class on the Constitution and only accepts Liberty Dollars/silver for payment.
  6. He's against the PATRIOT Act, the war in Iraq, affirmative action, and tentatively against abortion. He's a bit ambiguous on the death penalty.

For the most part, his approach appears good. According to that interview, he'd do the following things on Day One of his Presidency:
a) Declare that all four national emergencies are immediately terminated, as well as the presumption of Emergency War Powers. Senate Report 93-549 has found that the "national emergencies" announced by FDR in 1933 because of the Great Depression, by Truman because of the Korean War, and two initiated by Nixon because of the Vietnam War, are still in effect today. (Skeptical readers can search the internet for this report and read it for themselves.)

b) Declare that all 20,000+ gun control laws in the United States are unconstitutional and unenforceable. I would also issue a valid executive order to the BATF and other pseudo police agencies informing them that any agent who confiscates a weapon of any kind, from someone who is not currently engaged in a murder or robbery, will not only be terminated from their position, but they will also be prosecuted for violating the unalienable rights of the citizens they have sworn to protect.

c) Issue another valid executive order to my subordinates executives working for the IRS. That order would instruct them to come to work, make a pot of coffee, and begin working on their resumes' pending a federal grand jury investigation as to the legitimacy of the Sixteenth Amendment and the Internal Revenue Code. High ranking officials from that department would be closely monitored as flight risks, pending indictments for fraud in the event that evidence proves that they knew that no statute exists that requires Americans to fill out a 1040 form and relinquish a significant percentage of their hard earned money to an unconstitutional government that refuses to operate within a budget.

d) Declare the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 to be unconstitutional, and prohibit that organization from printing even one more dollar of fiat currency. I would immediate appoint Bernard Von Nothaus, Monetary Architect for the Liberty Dollar, to be my Secretary of the Treasury, placing the stability of our economy in his capable hands.

e) I would announce a special one-week session of Congress where all 535 members would be required to sit through a special version of my Constitution class. Once I was convinced that every member of Congress understood my interpretation of their very limited powers, I would insist that they restate their oath of office while being videotaped. Those videos could then be used as future evidence should they ever vote to violate the rights of Americans again.

f) I would take a short break for lunch.


Pretty sweeping, eh? No, he isn't an anarcho-capitalist and there are a few nit-picks I have with his particular emphasis on a few things over others, but he'd be a vast, vast improvement over Bush and Kerry. Despite the whining over a few legitimate quirks, I'd pick him over any other presidential candidate I'm aware of.

UPDATE(6/18/2004 5:02pm)
Whom to Vote For?

UPDATE 10/10/2004 2:43pm
Michael Badnarik has been arrested while protesting his exclusion from the presidential debates.

Posted by Drizzten at 12:05 PM
May 28, 2004
West Texas Oilfields Gearing Up

[Updates below.]

West Texas oil producers striking it rich

Oil prices have slipped a little since their 21 year high last week at more than $41 a barrel.

While the steep prices are hurting motorists at the pumps, it's a boon for oil producers in West Texas.

The gambling spirit is thriving again in the West Texas oil fields. In the Midland/Odessa area, oil field consultant John Bell is trying to bring two oil wells back to life for his boss.

"If I can fix it, then I can start making him another 50 to 100 barrels a day, then he'll be happy!" Bell said.

These wells haven't pumped oil in more than five years. But high oil prices have inspired oil producers to upgrade equipment and get old pumps running again.


This is an example of the harmony of capitalist interests at work.

As the price of oil increases, producers who might have otherwise stayed on the sidelines and devoted resources to other economic endeavors become more and more attracted to the higher revenues possible with higher fuel prices. As more and more production ramps up, this tends to drive down the price at the pump. The profit motive, despite the ravings of lefties and moderates across the country, helps drive the prices back down.

Then there's the consumer side. No one likes high gas prices. So consumers will adjust their behavior to either buy less fuel or consume it more efficiently. As consumer behavior changes from a low-price/higher demand force to high-price/lower demand force, the reduced demand increases downward pressure on pump prices. This promotes greater competition among sellers, adding further downward pressure to prices. Provided the market is left to it's own devices, "equilibrium" will be restored and a new price trend (both for crude oil and consumer gas prices) will establish itself.

And not once does the government need to get involved.

Bell has spent $200,000 on his wells in the last three weeks.

"With low prices I wouldn't be on this project. We wouldn't be out here. We wouldn't be talking about this," he said.

The true sign of a booming oil industry is how many drilling rigs are running. In West Texas, more than 60 rigs have started spinning into the earth in the last 18 months.

Don Sparks is drilling two wells a month, spending more than $1 million. But it's getting tougher to get the equipment he needs. He had to buy steel casings from a vendor in Eastern Europe.

"Our casing is supposedly on the ocean right now on the way to the U.S," Sparks said.

"When we've got over 200 rigs running that means we've got full employment, we don't have people sitting around wondering 'am I'm going to do anything today?'" Morris Burns of Permian Basin Oil Association said.


It'd be great to see a real revival in domestic oil production as the local benefits are obvious to observe. Unfortunately, through a combination of state interference in global oil markets and the distribution of oil around the world, it's cheaper to drill elsewhere and ship it back home.
But history has a way of tempering today's excitement. The last time oil sold for $40 a barrel was during the oil boom of the early 80s.

But what people around here remember most is what happened a few years after, when prices plummeted. The oil fields shut down and as one producer put it, "Small West Texas oil towns fell off the face of the earth."

Copyright ©2004TWEAN News Channel of Austin, L.P. d.b.a. News 8 Austin


The problem with basing an entire town around a single industry is illustrated above. Booms and busts affect everyone rather than just a segment of the population. Hopefully, they've learned their lesson and will diversify.

UPDATED 4/11/2005 5:26pm
Given the continual rise in energy prices, even more growth is happening across the US in the energy industry.

Christian Science Monitor: Gas bonanza shakes dust from Western towns

Landscape painter Alfred Jacob Miller set up his easel on the shore of Fremont Lake 168 years ago and rendered one of the most famous romantic portraits ever made of the wild American West. Today, in the small ranching and tourist community that grew up around the venerated lake, motel rooms in Pinedale are sold out, but not from traditional tourists exploring the haunting Wind River range.

The influx stems from an unprecedented invasion of oil-patch "roughnecks" creating a round-the-clock beehive of drilling rig crews, pipe layers, roadbuilders, and truck fleets.

Indeed, tiny Pinedale represents ground zero in one of the biggest natural-gas booms in the postwar era. Driven by high energy prices and looser government regulations, it is transforming many of the small towns here along the rumpled spine of the Rockies - creating thousands of lucrative jobs, pouring money into local treasuries, and, as always happens with sudden growth, producing new problems ranging from traffic to drug use.

"The US national energy policy is being played out on an epic scale in our backyard," says Ward Wise, the city manager whose folksy municipal attire is a pair of jeans, denim jacket, hiking boots, and a leather cowboy hat. "All of a sudden, our little rural town has come face to face with the hurricane force of the global energy market."

n many ways, the continuous drilling of new wells outside Pinedale is just one example of an energy boom being played out across the American West. Oil and gas prices at record highs (until adjusted for inflation) and the opening of more public lands to development have brought small wildcatters out of retirement and attracted the usual assortment of Big Oil interests.

In just the past year alone, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has approved 5,700 new drilling permits in Wyoming, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, and Montana - an increase of about 62 percent over the previous year.

[...]

As billions of dollars worth of gas is being extracted annually, output is expected to grow exponentially. At the current going rate of $5.75 per thousand cubic feet of gas, the spoils are the equivalent of oil companies planning to exploit a large untapped reserve of crude and counting on profitability at $30 a barrel yet to yield $90 a barrel.

www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2005 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.


The Market Will Correct Itself.

Posted by Drizzten at 04:10 PM
Principle Over Pragmatism

[Updates below.]

Some of the discussion in this Instapundit post is thoroughly disheartening. The most common complaint about libertarians is that they are "absolutist." This is a direct attack against being principled and against strong logical stands on every issue.

Let me explain a few things to those who complain about someone who strictly adheres to the principles of individual liberty, private property, and non-agression. Being unprincipled has led to:

  1. The income tax.
  2. The welfare state.
  3. Gun control.
  4. Prison terms for drug users.
  5. Unjust detainment and political criminals.
  6. Restrictions on your right to speak and publish your mind.
  7. Economic regulation that rewards the incompetent and punishes the skillful.
  8. The abrogation of national sovereignty to unaccountable international institutions.
  9. The horrors of the military draft.
  10. The protection of some groups of people at the expense of others.

You fools who dismiss libertarians as extremists, absolutists, stubborn, and whatnot are only helping to dig your own graves. And everyone else's.

UPDATE(12:35pm)
In case anyone wants to know what I'd like an honest-to-goodness Republican to do when in office can read about what real limited government means. I'm not going to help elect Bush - or Kerry - if they aren't willing to go at least that far.

Posted by Drizzten at 10:14 AM
May 27, 2004
Chiggers, FDA, and Market Intervention

I was gone for the last few days due to a visit to McKinney Falls State Park on Saturday. I was a dumbass and didn't wear proper clothing and didn't use insect repellant. The result was upwards of 50 chigger or chigger-like bites clustered around my ankles, thighs, and crotch. Several friends were also bit, but I displayed symptoms quicker and swifter.

Sunday night was spent contemplating not going to work. Very early Monday morning was spent cursing whatever forces of nature brought forth the necessity of the bastards that had bitten me. I didn't make it in to work Monday or Tuesday, and therefore didn't make it in to access the Net.

The itching was awful. I have never experienced anything like it. As Nina Bicknese said, "There is no creature alive that can cause more torment for its size than the chigger." Brushing up against a bite mark with clothing or furniture would set the welt off, so I spent most of my time either naked or mostly naked on my futon in front of the TV.

I went to HEB shortly after enduring a periodic "itching outbreak" and realized I needed something to combat the symptoms. I picked up a generic hydrocortisone cream and a unit of Chiggerex to complement a HEB anti-itch antiseptic spray I bought a while back. All of them took an hour or so to really kick in, they mostly cut down on the intesity of the itch, and they all lasted less than a few hours before the itching came back full force.

While shopping, I noticed all the various hydrocortisone-based creams didn't go over 1% in potency. It didn't matter if one was "maximum strength" or not; they were all at 1%. The other products that didn't have hydrocortisone had either benzocaine or lidocaine. Chiggerex had the former at 5% potency and the HEB Mercuroclear spray had the latter at 2.5% potency. Both benzocaine and lidocaine sound like they'd be up my alley; anyone who's heard of novocaine knows what I'm talking about. I wanted quick and real sensation deadening, chiefly because I knew I was suffering from temporary - yet acute - symptoms. Doctors know how effective benzocaine and lidocaine are for topical anesthesia.

Well, I was disappointed with the medications I tried and nothing else in HEB was available in stronger potencies, which meant that just about any place I might go to find over the counter drugs wouldn't have stronger drugs either. As I sat at home, trying not to bump the angry red welts all over my waist, crotch, and ankles, I began to wonder why the strengths of these drugs were so uniformly similar. The Food and Drug Administration immediately popped into my mind as a potential culprit. Certainly there are others out there in America who, like me, wanted fast and effective treatment of intense itching and preferred an anesthetic-based approach with enough strength to numb the are of application. There's money to be made here. The only reason I could think of why such products weren't available is government meddling. Are my antipruritic needs being oppressed???

So today, as most of the bites have calmed down and only a few itch with the same intensity as a few days ago, I decided to see if the FDA dicked around with the anti-itch drug market. And, of course, it has. I was able to find more than 50 pages of rules, deliberations, tentative monographs, and regulations regarding hydrocortisone and other external analgesics. The sickening degree of federal micromanagement in the drug industry is almost as annoying as the itching behind my knees. I was particularly pissed off with the exact requirements for labeling. A company can't even write it's own directions without the feds stepping in and taking over.

Spending a few minutes digging around the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research confirms my libertarian suspicions. Active ingredients are limited in many different ways: the dosage, combination with other ingredients, potency, and what they can be advertised to accomplish. For example:

Products containing colloidal oatmeal have been formulated in the following dosage forms: Lotion (1 and 10 percent colloidal oatmeal), cleansing cream (8 percent colloidal oatmeal), shampoo (5 percent colloidal oatmeal), and cleansing bars (30, 50, and 51 percent colloidal oatmeal) (Refs. 4, 46, and 47). The agency has calculated the approximate minimum and maximum concentrations of colloidal oatmeal that have been used as follows: For regular colloidal oatmeal, a range of 0.023 to 0.625 percent when used as a tub bath soak (Refs. 29, 34 through 38, and 44), a range of 0.24 to 1.2 percent when used as a foot bath soak (Refs. 30, 31, and 34), a range of 0.24 to 15 percent in aqueous solution when used in a wet pack (Refs. 30, 31, 32, 34, and 45), and a range of 3.75 to 15 percent in aqueous solution when used as a topical lotion (Refs. 30, 32, and 34); for oilated colloidal oatmeal, a range of 0.003 to 0.03 percent when used as a tub bath soak (Refs. 35 and 39 through 43).

That's from the Federal Register, Vol. 68, No. 107 last June. Page 33366. And that's just for using oatmeal as a barrier skin protectant! Imagine the bullshit the FDA throws in the face of people wanting to sell more complicated drugs.

Actually, that final monograph (available in HTML text or PDF) has some neat things worth quoting, such as:

Estimates of relabeling costs for the type of changes required by this rule vary greatly and range from $500 to $15,000 per SKU depending on whether the products are nationally branded or private label. The agency assumes the same weighted average cost to relabel (i.e., $3,600 per SKU) that it estimated for the final rule requiring uniform label formats of OTC drug products (64 FR 13254 at 13279 to 13281). Assuming 2,000 to 2,500 affected OTC SKUs in the marketplace, total one-time costs of relabeling would be $7.2 to $9.0 million. Because frequent labeling redesigns are a recognized cost of doing business in the OTC drug industry, these costs may be less. Manufacturers that make voluntary market-driven changes to their labeling during the implementation period can implement the regulatory requirements for a nominal cost. The final rule would not require any new reporting or recordkeeping activities.

The cavalier tone continues, amazingly, into the next paragraph:
This final rule may have an economic impact on some small entities. The agency's Drug Listing System indicates that about 700 marketers will need to relabel, and that this relabeling will be prepared by about 200 manufacturers, most of which are private label or contract manufacturers. Based on the Small Business Administration's determination that a small firm in this industry has fewer than 750 employees, roughly 70 percent of the firms are considered small.

"We're not certain this will impose a burden on doing business."

"But...you just mentioned what you think are the estimated financial burdens this revised rule will impose."

"We're not certain-"

"And you also take the time to estimate the breadth of businesses affected by this new rule. See, you say:

For example, assuming average industry costs, a small company that had 5 products with 3 SKUs each, for a total of 15 SKUs, would experience a one-time cost of $54,000 (15 x $3,600). A small private label manufacturer with the same product line and 10 customers per SKU, for a total of 150 SKU's, would experience a one-time cost of $540,000 (150 x $3,600). If one or more products needed to be reformulated, the costs would increase by $100,000 to $500,000 per reformulation.

...and you persist in trying to weasel your way out of being honest?"

"We're not certain-"

"Dammit! Listen to me!"

Finally, the crown jewel:

The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.31(a) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.

I understand this was written in the context of the woodsy, air quality, pollution definition of environment. However, the wording still strikes me as a terrible indication of the mentality in charge. The "human environment" no longer rhetorically includes our financial lives. Any honest assessment would show that these rules do indeed have a significant effect on the human environment and on humans directly.

Like how I really, really wanted a powerful topical nerve signal supressor to kill off the distractingly strong itchy spots all over my lower body. If, under a true capitalist system, I had been able to get ahold of such an OTC product and I had an adverse reaction to it, it's my responsibility to deal with the consequences. Rather than paying about $8 for what I got at HEB that day, I would have greatly preferred paying $10 for a mid-grade ointment containing X% of lidocaine or some other topical anesthetic knowing that within minutes of applying it, the itching would stop and I'd have to deal with a small patch of numbness for a while.

I'm not a doctor nor do I aspire to be one, so I could be dangerously wrong about the safety of this kind of drug. Perhaps if my free market system offered a lotion containing 10% benzocaine and I tried it, my skin would turn black and my breathing would drop precipitously. If those were the dangers such a concoction might pose, the manufacturer wouldn't be able to stay in business if it didn't warn of them.

In any case, I've suffered through my first bout with a chigger infestation and I survived.

They aren't lying about how bad it itches. It's rough.

Posted by Drizzten at 03:49 PM
May 26, 2004
Musical Cornucopia

The last time I went music shopping at 33º, I came back with some nice stuff. Their last sale on Saturday netted me the following...each for one dollar:

  1. Alias - The Other Side of the Looking Glass
  2. Amorphis - Am Universum
  3. Atmosphere - Seven's Travels
  4. Bad Religion - The Process of Belief
  5. Bob Schneider - I'm Good Now
  6. BT - Emotional Technology
  7. Darude - Rush
  8. Dave Ralph - Love Parade
  9. Division of Laura Lee - BlackCity
  10. EyeHateGod - 10 Years of Abuse (and Still Broke)
  11. Hot Water Music - Caution
  12. The Jon Spencer Blues Explosion - Acme
  13. Man or Astro-Man - A Spectrum of Infinite Scale
  14. The Mighty Mighty Bosstones - A Jackknife to a Swan
  15. Millencollin - Home from Home
  16. Plone - For Beginner Piano
  17. Red Snapper - Our Aim Is to Satisfy Red Snapper
  18. Themselves - The No Music
  19. Thievery Corporation - The Mirror Conspiracy
  20. Various Artists - Nuclear Blast CD Sampler
  21. Various Artists - Surefire Spring-Summer Sampler 2001
  22. Various Artists - Massive Brass, A Verve CD Sampler
  23. Various Artists - SNoisses Vol. II
  24. Various Artists - Swamp Surfing in Memphis

I've barely gotten started on this batch, so no reviews yet. However, the Red Snapper, Millencolin, and Man or Astro-man? discs are excellent.

Another e-mail the store sent has futher good news for bargain hunters:

Our sale is getting even better! Everything is on SALE at 50% off. Even the yellow tags. We mean everything! That's half off, mathematicians!

We now have boxes of $1 records up in the front - hidden gems seeking crate diggers.

There's still a lot of cool music left especially in our Jazz, Progressive, Psychedelic, and Experimental sections.

Please come by and score some great sounds at great prices during our last week.

NEW HOURS: We will be closing now at 9:00 pm starting tonight (Tuesday, May 24th).


Thirty Three Degrees
4017 Guadalupe - Austin - TX 78751
http://www.thirtythreedegrees.com


I've been to that place and unless they've gotten new supplies, the shelves are nearly bare.

But I'll stop by anyway.

Posted by Drizzten at 01:53 PM
May 21, 2004
The People vs. The Tobacco Industry

[Updates below.]

I apologize for any following outbursts of angry, vulgar sarcasm...but holy SHIT I'm unhappy.

Reuters: Louisiana Jury Awards $591 Mln in Smoking Case

The tobacco industry must pay $591 million to fund a 10-year program to help Louisiana smokers quit, a jury in a class-action suit decided on Friday.

Fucktards.

The people on that jury who choose to impose this fine - this socially-acceptable tax on a socially-inacceptable industry to pay for the self-imposed health problems of dolts too docile to take responsibility for their own actions - are fucktards.

The defendants include Philip Morris USA, a unit of Altria Group Inc.; R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., part of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings Inc.; Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., a unit of British American Tobacco Plc; and Lorillard, which is part of Loews Corp. and trades as Carolina Group.

The defendants promised to appeal the verdict, which is less than the $1 billion the plaintiffs had requested.


No less blame can be laid at the feet of the "plaintiffs" (such a benign term for these jackals). They encourage and enable additional feeble-minded assholes to bitch and claw for other people to provide for their own goddamn problems. One billion dollars. Out-fucking-standing. The heights of absurdity are certainly not limited by any ceiling.
The verdict is the second part of a case filed in the mid-1990s. A jury last year found the tobacco companies must fund the programs, and the second phase of the case was to decide how much that would cost.

© Reuters 2004. All Rights Reserved.


I missed the first phase, which is monumentally more important than this penalty phase. The jury then is the same jury now. Even back in the 90's when I smoked regularly and I lacked a great deal of my current philosophy, I was an ardent proponent of personal responsibility and never saw any reason for a business to be punished because the product it sold can cause serious diseases. I can't say I'd be as viciously opposed to this kind of dogshit as I am now, but I can say no plaintiff in this case would want me on that jury.

Bloomberg: Tobacco Industry Must Fund $590 Mln End-Smoking Plan

The jury, which decided in July to require the companies to help Louisiana smokers quit smoking, ruled today that they must pay the money into a court-administered fund that will finance 12 end-smoking programs for periods of five to 10 years.

The companies will pay $562.7 million to fund the programs, including $130 million for marketing and education to encourage smokers to quit and $102 million to fund reimbursement of smokers' medication. The jury also added 5 percent to the payment for the programs to cover administrative costs. The total payment for the companies is $590.8 million.


Fucking ridiculous, even if the individual plaintiffs aren't getting any direct financial compensation. At this stage in the game, now that the ground rules have been laid, why not just drop all the pretense and do the following:
  • Require car companies to cover the costs of the accidents that involve their vehicles.
  • Require music labels to pay for the costs of funerals for people who kill themselves to music the labels publish.
  • Require companies to give pension and health care benefits to anyone that is fired.
  • Require alcohol and drug companies to chip in for any related hospitalization from unhealthy use of their products.
  • Require magazines aimed at men and women to help out with marriage counseling for couples unhappy with the standards the magazines set for their readers.
  • Require keyboard and mouse companies to pay for all computer-related carpal tunnel injuries.
  • Require juries to individually - personally - pay for all the economic harm inflicted by these insane rulings.

Because personal responsibility in this country is dying and we live in post-reductio America where it is increasingly apparent more people believe other people should be forced to do what the first set of folks want.
The Louisiana smokers claimed the cigarette makers hid the health risks of smoking and committed fraud. The companies claimed the case shouldn't have been tried as a class action because individual life stories were too different for claims to be grouped together. They said the program was based on speculation about how many people would use it and how much it would cost.

©2004 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved.


Fraud would have been committed if tobacco companies told the public that it's products had no negative impact on consumers' health or if their products made people healthier. I've seen and heard of the documents unearthed in the previous decade of lawsuits against the companies. I don't have a decent picture of the efforts they made to present the best possible face towards their users. Perhaps they did act fraudulently. But such action does not justify the jury-created largesse I'm reading about now.


FOXNews: Jury: Tobacco Firms Must Pay $500M for Stop-Smoking Programs

The plaintiffs included any Louisiana resident who smoked before the mid-1990s when the suit was filed.

They wanted a 25-year plan that would pay for stop-smoking patches and gum, telephone hot lines, intensive counseling, advertising for the program, grants to churches and community groups to publicize the program, and training programs for quit-smoking counselors. The plan would be administered by the court through a trust fund set up by the tobacco industry.


These people are forcing an industry to exclude itself from it's own market, to assume the responsibility for the actions of it's customers, and to pay for their customers to stop using their products. I'd give up beer to see them apply their own standard to themselves.
The tobacco industry had said that a much-more modest program, lasting two to three years, would give smokers adequate time to obtain counseling and try various quit-smoking aids.

Copyright 2004 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.


And then there's the industry itself. It certainly did itself no favors by not being upfront and honest about the dangers of smoking. Some businessmen went further than that and lied and dodged direct questions. Through their stupid behavior, they made the transition into this quagmire much easier than it could have been. Personally, I'd fire the lot of them and bring in new management.

And I'd have that new management utterly oppose every single attempt to rein their companies in. I'd have them instruct their lawyers to not even offer a lesser, counter plan to the one desired by the plaintiffs. I'd tell them to remind the public that the choice to smoke is always with the consumer and anyone younger than 30 (that's been extremely generous) is a fucking idiot for thinking that the inhalation of burning matter is a safe act. I'd certinly not have them cave into demands that the FDA regulate cigarettes.

With Austin's smoking ban set to go into effect June 1st, I can only sit here and fume at a world that makes less sense every day.

UPDATED 5/9/2005 9:03am
The Additional Tyranny - The New Austin Smoking Ban Passes

UPDATED 8/30/2005 1:50pm
Deadline for the Austin Smoking Ordinance

Posted by Drizzten at 03:27 PM
Fiscal Responsibility?

[Updates below]

It's Democrats that now stand for fiscal responsibility.

-Markos Zuniga


If by "fiscal responsibility" Kos means "raising taxes rather than cutting spending," then sure. One route to balancing any budget is to increase the amount of money made. I can, for example, get another job or find ways to get my current salary increased.

Equally possible is a reduction in the amount of money spent. I could cut out some or all of my pub appearances and stop buying books and CDs.

But the government's budget isn't exactly analogous to an individual's. They share the essential characteristics: adding inputs and subtracting outputs. However, individuals earn their income by working for someone else. That income is rightly theirs because the working relationship was offered and accepted voluntarily.

Government's "revenue" doesn't work like that. It comes primarily from taxes and taxes are the result of coerced theft. Government, far from earning the money it spends, quite literally threatens society with jail and fines and property seizure if they don't fork over their "fair share." Millions of Americans choose each year to hand over their tax money because they feel they get something back for their pain.

The entire debate about fiscal responsibility has lost much of it's importance on me. I certainly agree it's better for a government to not run a deficit. I'd much rather have annual refunds of surplus tax money given back rather than a tsunami of red ink and the subsequent levels of government borrowing. Still, the debate rings hollow when you consider my point of view above: the argument is based on the assumptions that

  • A percentage of my wealth isn't actually mine, but the state's.
  • There exist people who are capable of handling that wealth without outrageous degrees of mismanagement, corruption, (further) theft, waste, and inefficiency.

Whom the power of the state goes to becomes irrelevant in my eyes. Unfortunately, Kos's totalitarian mindset doesn't assuage my fears at all.

UPDATE(6/3/2004 1:09pm)
Can't Cut the Budget; Politicians Will Eat Me!

UPDATE(6/18/2004 5:06pm)
Whom to Vote For?

UPDATE 1/18/2005 9:40am
Kos continues to amaze me.

UPDATED 4/19/2005 10:27am
The Democratic Party: The Party of Personal Liberty?, Meteor Blades Needs Economics, The Hypocrisy of Daily Kos, Economic Ignorance, For the Privatization of Freedom, Sacred Cows and Kossack Hypocrisy, and Kos Strikes Again

Posted by Drizzten at 11:47 AM
May 20, 2004
Austin Gas Prices - Free Market in Action

AustinGasPrices.com has a motto and it is "Informed Consumers are Wise Consumers."

The site tracks, via user submissions, regular unleaded prices around the Travis County/Austin area. I wish it had diesel prices, but given that diesel is almost always at or lower than regular unleaded, I just need to find the cheapest convienence stores on the chart that sell diesel.

Just about any legislator and politician today holds "principles" that would allow him or her to support a government-funded or -run operation that tracks local fuel prices in order to inform consumers. The AGP website is a simple and direct refutation of that hypothetical notion. Capitalism at work doesn't always mean millions of dollars in global inventory, corporate lawyers by the dozen, or irritating commercials.

Posted by Drizzten at 04:27 PM
Pagare Tutti, Pagare Meno - How to Explain Income Taxation

Some times, Reuters can prove to be useful. Link via Marginal Revolution.

I've now got the perfect term for explaining the twisted and immoral logic behind income taxation: Pagare tutti, pagare meno. It's Italian for "everyone pays, everyone pays less."

The good news is that the Sicilian Mafia has slashed the rates it charges "clients." The bad news is that it has vastly expanded its client base.

"Pagare tutti, pagare meno," roughly translated as "everybody pays, everybody pays less," is the new slogan Sicilian magistrates and mayors are using to describe what the Mafia is doing these days.

© Reuters 2004. All Rights Reserved.


A more apt and appropriate way to describe the state and its taxation I have not run across.

By spreading the reach of taxes to more people, you can reduce the amount taken from each individual so as to appear "revenue-neutral" or as a way to "save taxpayer money." Legitimate economic entities can charge less for their goods if they can get them sold on a larger scale, so you often see this kind of free market thinking utterly perverted by statists and anti-capitalists. From fraudulent programs like Social Security to publicly funding political campaigns, you find a spectrum of people - Democrats and Republicans - supporting an increase in the breadth of legalized theft in order to be "fiscally responsible" and in order to keep that damned important safety net up off the concrete floor.

Pagare tutti, pagare meno = taxing income = let's screw everyone so each of you is screwed a bit less


Keep that in mind.

Posted by Drizzten at 01:09 PM
Problems with Adult Protective Services

Report: Texas Elderly Care Must Improve

Poor training, understaffing and organizational problems afflict Texas' elderly care program, which is under scrutiny for failing to remove clients from putrid, garbage-filled homes, according to a report released Wednesday.

The preliminary review, which examined 200 El Paso cases and Adult Protective Services policies statewide, found that a third of the case investigations were insufficient and that workers often failed to respond to severe cases by increasing contact with clients. In 71 percent of the cases where mental illness was identified or strongly suspected, workers did not attempt to determine mental capacity and proceeded as if the clients were competent.

And although the El Paso cases were the focus of the preliminary review by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, it said the problems likely extend throughout the system.


The preliminary report is here for those who want the details. The Adult Protective Services (APS) program of the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) is the program under review. APS is "...responsible for investigating abuse, neglect and exploitation of adults who are elderly or have disabilities." Expanded:
To protect older adults and persons with disabilities from abuse, neglect and exploitation by investigating and providing or arranging for services as necessary to alleviate or prevent further maltreatment.

Unsurprisingly, it has failed it's task. The El Paso-based study of 1,200 cases involving 200 clients is the first in a three-part series, but the information within is damning. Some findings from the report:

  • In 35 percent [of cases], the investigation did not fully address all allegations of abuse, neglect or exploitation.
  • In 32 percent [of cases], the caseworker did not obtain and document enough evidence to reach a conclusion.
  • In 41 percent [of cases], appropriate action to prevent further abuse, neglect or exploitation of the client was not taken.
  • In 35 percent [of cases], where there was a threat or a risk to the client's health or safety in the client's environment, the service plan did not address the threat.
  • In 44 percent of the 41 percent [of cases] where mental illness was identified, no steps were taken to address any special needs related to the mental illness.

I said I wasn't surprised with the results. This is because I know APS is a government program. Why does that matter? Because neither it, the DFPS, nor the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) operate in order to be profitable or operate in the private realm where revenue and expenses determine whether you continue to exist or not.

Continuing from the Associated Press article:

"Preliminary findings confirm that serious deficiencies exist in virtually all aspects of the program," the review said. "These findings suggest that problems with the APS program may be fundamental and systemic."

The report says the El Paso office needs more staff, and repeats a previous recommendation that caseworkers be provided with handheld computers that can be used to instantly communicate with supervisors, including sending them photos of unacceptable living conditions.

"This preliminary review marks the first step in a process that I expect will remedy the serious problems that have plagued this program," Gov. Rick Perry, who ordered the review last month, said in a statement.


This is merely the rearrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic. You can't solve these problems by reforming the program, the people working inside it, or the agencies controlling it. The report is correct in saying the problems are "basic system-wide deficiencies" but it doesn't acknowledge the source of those deficiencies: the fact that the state runs the damn thing. Without the fiscal discipline of having to attract customers, making enough money to cover costs, and competing with rival private programs on even grounds, taxpayer money will continue to be wasted and the people who should be benefiting will continue to get bad service.

With additional non-surprise, I learn that APS was the result of federal law:

The Adult Protective Services (APS) Program began in Texas in the mid-1970's with the passage of Title XX of the Social Security Act, which required that states receiving Title XX funds assure that the states' human services systems would protect children, elder adults and adults with disabilities from abuse, neglect and exploitation. During the 72nd Legislature, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) was created, at which time the APS program was transferred under DFPS.

Never underestimate the folly of imposing rules and regulations from afar. On the other hand, the program's philosophy isn't all that bad:
Case resolution is client-focused, individualized, and based on a social work model of problem solving as opposed to a prosecutorial or law-enforcement approach.
  • The vulnerable adult is the primary client.
  • The client is presumed to be mentally competent.
  • The client participates in defining the problem(s) and deciding the most appropriate course of action.
  • The client exercises freedom of choice and the right to refuse services.
  • Service alternatives are the least restrictive possible.
  • In legal interventions, the client has a right to an attorney ad litum.

I'll always side with the options that restrict individual freedom the least, so this isn't so bad. Of course, the $30 million program budget doesn't come from people seeking help. It comes from coercing tax money from Texans. As a side note, I didn't know there was a $470 million-plus "Foster Care/Adoption Subsidy" in the Texas budget. *sigh*

The report continues to document other problems on the administrative side, problems familiar to anyone working in an organization, but problems that are less intense and solved faster and more efficiently when the organization isn't an organ of the state. Rampant bureaucracy can thrive when market forces are deliberately weakened.

From the AP:

In El Paso and around the state, elderly people have been left to live in homes without water or electricity and filled with animal and human excrement. Some of them moved out of the homes and were living in their cars through sweltering summers and freezing winters.

Adult Protective Services' policies have allowed caseworkers to walk away when an elderly person refuses services or successfully completes a five-question test to determine competency. The agency also has closed cases stating that filthy living conditions were "lifestyle choices."

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.


One more quote from the preliminary report and an indicator of worse things to come:
  • Policy favors an individual's ability to refuse services and does not provide appropriate or adequate guidance for intervention to prevent abuse, neglect, or exploitation. APS literature states: "APS philosophy, in most cases, is heavily weighted to client's liberty over safety. The fifth APS casework principle?asserts that freedom to choose is more important than safety." "An important principle of APS casework is that adults who have the capacity to make informed life decisions have the right to refuse protective services, even if they are in a state of abuse, neglect, or exploitation."
  • Emphasis on self-determination results in fewer court intervention requests to judges.

Since the general trend in government is towards more tyranny, more control, and more centralization, it would be a cuddly-safe bet to say the calls for more government intervention are needed will outweigh the calls for less.

Posted by Drizzten at 09:44 AM
May 19, 2004
Intellectual Blinders

No new schools for Wimberley

The Wimberley ISD won't be getting any more money from taxpayers, at least for now.

Sixty percent of Saturday's voters said no to a $45 million bond proposal.

The district won't be getting new schools to replace the ones school they say are at capacity.

"You have to pass a bond if you're talking about a new facility, because you're looking at something in the magnitude of anywhere from $15 to $25 million," Wimberley ISD Business Manager Randall Rau said.

A successful bond would have meant a new elementary and high school, and renovations to existing schools. The district expects enrollment to double in the next 10 years.

"I felt like it was really important that it pass, and I'm disappointed that it didn't," bond supporter Brenda Cusack said.

"What we're doing is just kind of sitting and trying to figure out what happened, what went wrong," Rau said.

Copyright ©2004TWEAN News Channel of Austin, L.P. d.b.a. News 8 Austin


If schools didn't have to rely on public funds to operate, shit like this wouldn't be an issue. The costs of running an educational institution would be limited to the operators and their customers. The financial problems with each free school or free school district wouldn't always have to spill over into the next one like they do with today's public schools.

But, no. The very consideration of seperation of school and state is tantamount to treason.

Posted by Drizzten at 04:46 PM
Comment Spammers Must Die!

My comment system is open to anyone. This means it is open for abuse and anyone who has visited here regularly knows that abuse is regular. Comment spammers are active and irritating.

So when one of them leaves the e-mail address of nospam@nospampreteen-sex.info in one of their own spams...I wonder about the personality behind the campaign to indirectly yet utterly ruin whatever partially acceptable reputation this "business" might have had. Adding in some clever quote months after a discussion is over doesn't absolve you of your graffiti; it's just a cover to make it look like a legitimate comment has been left. It's fraud, really.

Posted by Drizzten at 08:52 AM
May 18, 2004
Special Session Ends with Zilch

The session ended with nothing getting done.

The special session on school finance, which ended in spirit Friday, ended in fact Monday when the House and then the Senate adjourned for good two days earlier than expected - without approving a bill.

"For good," in this case, might mean lawmakers come back for summer school. Or it could mean a fall special session. Much will depend on progress made by two working groups that will be formed so lawmakers can plug away at the impasses that blocked all efforts to produce a consensus.

[...]

The special session, which would have run out its 30-day clock Wednesday, fell apart because of sharp differences on how to replace the current school funding system, which relies heavily on local property taxes and sends those tax dollars from wealthier school districts to ones with lower property wealth.

The proposals that went nowhere included efforts to change or create new business taxes, raise and broaden the sales tax, increase the levy on tobacco products and legalize slot machines at pari-mutuel tracks and on Indian property.

Copyright 2001-2004 Cox Texas Newspapers, L.P. All rights reserved.


From one perspective, this is good news. Any plan that includes taxing more Texans for the education of others is something I oppose. Any plan that imposes further state control over our education is something I oppose.

From another, this is bad news. Regardless of my stance towards the current educational system in Texas, it cannot be forgotten that there are millions of children stuck in these government schools and millions of adults paying taxes to keep them there. That has to end and it won't happen until either parents revolt (refuse to pay taxes, take their kids out of school, or remove the Constitutional mandate for public education) or the Legislature changes the bulk of the law to withdraw the state of Texas from educational matters and hand more and more decisions to parents and guardians.

Posted by Drizzten at 12:20 PM
Sweet Musical Bliss

[Updates below.]

I struck gold at the 33º used CD sale. At 11am Saturday morning, the record store opened it's doors to a small but growing line of Austin music nuts who wanted first crack at an estimated 4,000-5,000 used CDs the shop had in stock that constituted their selection of "promo and store play" music. Every item in that collection was up for $5.

Hell yeah I was waiting in line! Here's what I picked up:

  1. Jazz Moods: An Intimate Evening. It's a three CD set of downtempo "restaurant" jazz with an emphasis on a romantic mood. It's that kind of jazz that is perfect for drinks at a nice upscale drinking establishment, but it also straddles the near-cheesy line a few times. If you invite a female friend over and she walks in while this is playing, she'll probably get suspicious of your intentions.
  2. Dan the Automator - A Much Better Tomorrow. I'm still working my way through this, but the Kool Keith tracks have been good so far. I've been exposed to Mr. Nakamura's work before through Dr. Octagon, Handsome Boy Modeling School, and Nathaniel Merriweather...but nothing with him as the principle musician behind the music.
  3. DJ Spooky - Optometry. Absolutely awesome. I'm new to DJ Spooky and this couldn't have been a more pleasant introduction. It's jazz. It's proto-IDM. It's ambient orchestral harmonics. It's just damn good.
  4. Adam F Presents Drum 'n Bass Warfare. Two CDs of mixed DnB, one of them by DJ Craze. Haven't listened to them yet, though the remix credits include Dillinja, Roni Size, and J Majik.
  5. cLOUDDEAD - Ten. I'm not new to these guys but this is the first album of theirs that I've bought. Their newest LP rocks in that special subdued and abstract hip-hop way that no other act can compare to.
  6. Bob Schneider - Lonelyland. I've let this purchase linger for too long. It's rock, funk and blues all over the place, reminiscent of Scott Weiland's solo effort, 12 Bar Blues.
  7. Morcheeba - Charango. This is my first real Morcheeba experience and I'm happy with it. There are times when it meanders into a predicable middle of the road trip-pop, but for the most part the tracks make we want to dig up more of their work.
  8. Medeski, Martin & Wood - The Dropper. Damn. I've seen these guys get name-dropped all the time as must-hear musicians, but I never bothered to follow up. This is kick ass alternative improv jazz. I want more.
  9. Saul Williams - Not in My Name. Haven't listened to it yet.
  10. Cherry Poppin' Daddies - Ferociously Stoned. Haven't listened to it yet.

I got ten CDs for fifty bucks. Doesn't get much better than that. I had hoped for more IDM/drill 'n bass, grunge, and rock but I couldn't find any that interested me. I was also in a bit of a hurry since a niece of mine was turning 2 years old that day and the birthday party was in at El Mirador in San Antonio at 1pm.

Thanks for the business, Thirty Three Degrees!

UPDATE 1:33pm
Oh man. Just got this in my e-mail:

Our sale is getting even better! All new items are on SALE at 40% off.

We have the new Morrissey album "You are the Quarry" in stock. It's the special version incl. a bonus DVD and it's ON SALE!!!

And this Saturday, May 22nd at 11 am, we'll be selling all of the promo & store play CD's we've gathered for nine years at an incredible $1.00 each. That's 2500-3000 discs!!! There's a LOT of great discs left and we'll be leaving them out all weekend to give everyone a chance at the bargains.

There's still a lot of amazing vinyl left in our Punk, Jazz, Classic Rock, Prog, & Psych sections. C'mon you waxheads, what are ya waiting for?

Please come by and score some great sounds at great prices during our last month.


Thirty Three Degrees
4017 Guadalupe - Austin - TX 78751
http://www.thirtythreedegrees.com


Holy shit! I can't keep going on like this!

Then again, after the hoardes combed through the stock last weekend, I'm not sure there will be anything I like left over. There was a significant number of CDs without jewel cases that I skipped looking at that may prove worthwhile though...

UPDATE(5/26/2004)
My loot from that last sale is here. There's also a final, additional 50% off sale worth noting.

Posted by Drizzten at 12:05 PM
Microsoft PowerPoint is My Bitch

I spent all day Thursday and yesterday in PPT training. I know how to ungroup clip art. I know how to create new templates. I know how to manipulate the Slide Master. I know how to insert live, liked Excel data and charts. I know grittier details about slide and object animation.

Oh yeah.

Posted by Drizzten at 08:52 AM
May 14, 2004
Texas Rollergirls Hit it Big!

Felix Gillette has an article in Slate about the increasing popularity of the Texas Rollergirls.

Lone Star Skate: Roller derby makes a Texas-sized comeback

On a recent visit to the roller derby, I discovered my all-time favorite sports cheer.

It's a Sunday night in Austin, Texas, and the Hotrod Honeys are taking on the Hustlers in a low-slung roller rink behind a car dealership. Midway through the first period, the Honeys' manager - a rockabilly greaser dressed in coveralls and waving a wrench - turns to the crowd. Following his cue, we raise our arms, spread our hands in devil-finger formation, and salute: "Faster! Faster! Kill! Kill! Kill! Faster! Faster! Kill! Kill! Kill!"

It's no mistake that the chant evokes Russ Meyer's seminal girls-with-guns flick Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! If the lecherous Meyer invented a sport, it would look a lot like this - part girl-on-girl athletic competition, part burlesque show, and all covered with a thick coating of hipster irony. Austin's roller derby is a modish variation of the classically cheesy spectacle on wheels that won a cult following in the Bay Area during the '60s and on Saturday-morning television in the '80s. Austin's derby revival got started in the summer of 2002 and currently features two independent leagues, the Texas Rollergirls and the TXRD Lonestar Rollergirls, which share nearly identical aesthetics, rules, and shtick.

©2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.


There's more to read at the link. An altogether great column about a local sport I've had the pleasure of experiencing several times. Action, hot women, rowdy music, Lone Star beer...and I live right across the street from the main roller rink at Playland Skate Center. One of the many reasons I moved to Crossroads Apartments. *evil grin*

Hell Marys, Honky Tonk Heartbreakers, Hotrod Honeys, Hustlers. I have a soft spot for the Hell Marys and the Heartbreakers, but I root for the sport as a whole. Just one more reason Austin Is Weirder Than Your City.

Posted by Drizzten at 04:41 PM
My Opinon of the Nick Berg Event

Is best expressed by Billy Beck:

He saw the room where he died in a way that none of us ever will. Surrounded in a strange place by malevolent strangers, that must have been obvious to him with continuous shocking wonder. I haven't seen the entire video. (I've seen what's being broadcast, but I saw the one of the Chechens carving up a Russian soldier some years back, and that was enough for me to get the picture.) However, I have the impression that he was not aware of what they were going to do to him until they did it. He certainly knew the camera was there. I wonder what (if) he really thought about it. Was there anything at all hopeful about it to him?

Did it ever flash through his mind that it was the last thing that would ever connect him with home?


There's more and I suggest it be read.

Regardless of my opinion of the state of things in Iraq and the actions the United States government has taken against international terrorists, it must be said that the people who are willing to do this sort of barbarism and who have done it are utterly unworthy of any label other than inhuman.

Posted by Drizzten at 01:00 PM
Speaking of Canada...

I just get done with someone wanting Americans to act like Canadians, and then I browse over to Cal Ulmann's Where HipHop and Libertarianism Meet and discover that Canada hates metal.

Posted by Drizzten at 12:36 PM
John Derbyshire is a Homophobe

And he isn't afraid to talk about it.

That's fine with me. I think being homophobic - even if it's "mild" and "tolerant" - is a silly stance to take. I attempt to treat people as they individually deserve it, not by what kinds of groups they belong to.

But if we are to have government, I don't want people who sympathize (or worse) with his point of view running it.

My previous comments about Mr. Derbyshire are here: What's Up With John Derbyshire? and Derbyshire on Married...With Children.

Posted by Drizzten at 09:20 AM
John Kelso Wants Americans to Act Like Canadians?

[Updates below.]

This may be a somewhat light-hearted column with a soft but potentially sensible suggestion, but I still can't resist commenting on it.

Austin American-Statesman: Going overseas? Tell 'em you're Canadian

My fellow Americans: If you're planning to travel outside of the good old U.S. of A. anytime soon and you want to avoid a tongue-lashing from a bunch of annoying foreigners, just pretend to be a Canadian.

What about us poor folk who are of mixed nationality? I hail equally from Germany and Canada. Strictly speaking, I should be the one getting tongue-lashed here. Not that I think my friends aren't up to the task...
I don't know about you, but I don't want to hear a speech about the war in Iraq from some French know-it-all.

Something I certainly don't want to hear either, especially since our likely agreement on the necessity of the war would be tempered by the severe disagreement on why it was unnecessary. Living in Austin, however, means that you get to hear and read speeches about the war in Iraq from some Travis County know-it-alls.
So how do you pass yourself off as a Canadian?

Let's say you've gotten through customs and you're climbing into a cab in Egypt. And you don't want to listen to a ration of garbage from your driver, the Ayatollah Knowsitall. What do you do? Easy. Tell the cabbie you're from Canada. But how do you make him believe you?

There are all sorts of little tricks you can use.

"You could tell him you play hockey, and then you could take your teeth out," said Gerald Stoughton, a Canadian living in Austin who was one of the original members of the Austin Ice Bats hockey team. "That would show them you're a Canadian."

That's a start. But with your teeth out the cabbie might think you're from the front row at Willie Nelson's picnic. "No teeth? You from Texas? You got oil well?"


Mr. Kelso, being the semi-humorist that he tends to be, begins to list the other ways one could pass him- or herself off as Canadian.
So a better way to pass as a Canadian is to say, "You know, where I come from, we got pretty darned good health insurance."

No one's going to think you're an American if you're bragging about your medical coverage.


Ha ha and all, but I'll take the United States pseudo-private health care system over just about any other nation's...including Canada's. This is because state-controlled systems screw you on several levels:
  1. Taxes (a huge problem of their own right) are imposed to cover the costs of the system.
  2. Since people think the system is "free," they initially try to consume the available healthcare resources willy-nilly. This cannot be borne by a system that relies on a relatively fixed level of "revenue" so the government either has to increase taxes or impose service rationing. The latter is a common way to deal with the problem, thus creating resource scarcity where there once wasn't.
  3. Healthcare consumers have their choices restricted by the government and those choices rightly belong to individuals, not the state.
  4. Favored people and groups with political connections tend to get precedence over everyone else.

That's just a quick explanation. The basic stance I take is that people pay for their own health services. More can be found here: Laboratory Failure: States Are No Model for Health Care Reform and Health Care Reform: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
With the war in Iraq and those embarrassing photos of our troops mistreating Iraqi detainees, it's common sense to pass yourself off as being from someplace noncontroversial like, say, Saskatoon. Unless, of course, you want to put up with a bunch of snide remarks upon arrival in France, Spain, or any number of countries where they think we're a bag of walnuts.

So if you gotta go, your best bet may be to act like you're from Prince Edward Island. Nobody hates Canada. This is because Canada never invades anything. So what's to hate?


Canada did sorta invade Nazi-dominated Europe with the Allies a few dozen years ago...but bah, I do like this one. :)

I call the Yukon! Seems like a nice quiet place.

With that in mind, here are the top 10 moves to pass yourself off as a Canadian.

10. Lie. Brag about how you can buy prescription drugs back home without taking out a second mortgage.


I don't own a home, nor do I need to take out loans to afford the occasional prescription drug supply my doctor hands over. Anyone who complains that other people have high drug bills are missing the point: this is a diverse nation populated by individuals living with unique situations. Flippantly collectivizing the nation into a lump entity and making it sound like most people are simply getting screwed is misleading.
9. Sound Canadian. Remember that there is always a "boot" in the word "about." As in, "I was 'a boot' to admit I'm from Dallas, but I don't need the aggravation."

8. Get yourself into one of those funny-looking hats with the furry ear flaps.

7. Every once in a while, blurt out, "Did you catch that Leafs game last night?"

6. Ask, "Where's a fella find a decent order of seal blubber around these parts?"

5. When people start to catch on, hum a few bars of "O Canada! ".


Cultural body-blows!
4. If somebody accuses you of being an American, say, "I know I could stand to lose a few pounds, but I'm not that fat."

See mini-rant above.
3. Remind everybody that July 1 is Canada Day, and that the Grey Cup is a football trophy, not a protective device worn in the geriatric ward.

I found that second one funny. Old folks are always good for a few jibes.
2. If you get sick of all this Canadian stuff, switch countries and pretend to be a Swede.

My father might kick my ass, man!
1. And, finally, if somebody mentions President Bush, play dumb. Hey, it works for him.

Copyright 2001-2004 Cox Texas Newspapers, L.P. All rights reserved.


Funny only because it often seems true.

UPDATE(12:40pm)
Then there's the problem with Canada and heavy metal.

Posted by Drizzten at 08:54 AM
May 12, 2004
Pay for Your Own Health

Do you have an obligation to pay for others' health care? That post set off a small storm of comments and I have no doubt this one will be any more digestible to a certain segment of society.

Let's do the right thing: Insure Texas' children (link will rot)

Texas Children's Hospital is proudly celebrating a milestone this year: 50 years of providing exceptional health care to millions of children from Houston and all over the world. And although we have accomplished much over the past 50 years, we're deeply worried about the millions of children in this country who are uninsured.

First, let me say that I support the Texas Children's Hospital mission: high quality pediatric medical care. I see nothing wrong with starting a company, even if it's a non-profit, to help sick kids get healthy. There is also nothing inherently wrong, in my opinion, in being concerned with low levels of insured children...other than the assumption underlying this concern is that most (if not all) kids should be insured. Such a choice isn't ours to make for others. My healthcare situation is necessarily unique when compared to my neighbors', so I have different costs and benefits to weigh when making health consumption decisions. Similarly, if I have children, I'll be making their choices for them in light of their particular circumstances.

If my employer doesn't cover employee children, then if I value health insurance enough for my kids, I'll find a way to pay for it. When simple outpatient procedures cost thousands of dollars and the likelihood of my finances being able to afford such sudden economic shocks still far down the hypothetical road, having my children insured makes a lot of sense. Other people are willing to take their chances or ask their friends and family to pitch in, loosely connected in a support network. There are more than a few good reasons why some of the many children don't have health coverage.

Every day we see the health ramifications for children who have no insurance coverage. In Texas, more than 1 million children are without insurance and, thanks to funding cutbacks and tighter eligibility requirements in the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), this number will only get worse. These children need help from all of us -- legislators, business leaders, health care professionals and parents -- to ensure they have a chance at long, healthy lives.

This hints strongly at some "right" that children have of taxpayers to support their healthcare needs, a stance I disagree with.
This week is "Cover The Uninsured Week." It is our fervent hope that by drawing attention to this growing problem, we will all come together to find and implement affordable and practical solutions.

377,051 kids are currently covered by CHIP and I advocate that they have their coverage terminated. That is the only "affordable" and "practical" solution. The government (i.e., the taxpayers) should not be funding what is rightly the responsibility of parents to take care of. If parents cannot take care of this, that does not require the state to step in and do it for them.

Health care should be treated as the commodity it rightly is.

Children who come to Texas Children's receive the best care we can provide, regardless of their ability to pay.

The problem of our current medical system, summed up in one sentence. Hospitals, out of the yearning for as many people to be healthy and strong, are trying to subvert the laws of economics in order to continue doing business.
Thanks to the generosity of individual and corporate donors, as well as donations from our employees, we provided more than $15 million in charity care for more than 22,000 inpatient and outpatient visits in fiscal year 2003. But we know it barely puts a dent in the overall need, which is why Texas Children's is an aggressive advocate for access and coverage.

That generosity should be held high and saluted. If I had the excess funds, I'd donate to worthy charities as well. Fortunately, enough people make enough money to be able to donate effectively. Unfortunately, more than a fifth is taken from me in income taxes, thereby increasing the importance of each remaining dollar towards my personal needs.

It is even more unfortunate, however, when people advocate expanding coverage in the form of government programs. They know where the money for these programs comes from: you and me. They know it isn't exactly handed over willingly. It is the opposite of charity; it's taken from you under threat of imprisonment and fines; physical violence in all but name. We should not be encouraging this at all.

Uninsured children go without preventive care, which means minor ailments become major, last longer and are more expensive to treat. Parents who can't afford a doctor use hospital emergency rooms, which can cost up to 10 times that of visiting a primary care physician. Sick children miss more school, falling behind their peers, and their parents miss work to care for them, depriving employers of productivity.

I have no beef with this argument, because it's true. I have a beef with what it's intended to relieve: individual responsibility for the costs of raising children.
The problem of uninsured children and adults is not unique to Texas. It is a national crisis. Nearly 44 million Americans do not have health insurance -- including 8.5 million children under the age of 19 -- and the numbers are climbing.

Ronald Bailey takes this whimsical stat-tossing on directly in Reason Magazine:
First, how much of a crisis is it, really? Politicians typically claim that 41 million Americans do not have health insurance. Please note that lack of health insurance does not mean lack of health care. However, a new Congressional Budget Office study has found that the number of Americans who are uninsured at some point during the course of each year is 59 million. But before someone screeches that the "crisis" is 50 percent worse than we thought, the study also notes that the number of Americans uninsured over the course of the entire year is actually much lower, between 21 million and 31 million, depending on which of two surveys one accepts.

Who are the people uninsured for a year or more? It turns out that 60.5 percent are under the age of 35, and 80.2 percent are under 45. Furthermore, 86.1 percent of those uninsured for a year consider their health to be "good" to "excellent," and they are not wrong. Consider the risk of death faced by those under 35. In 2000 there were 134,419,000 Americans in this age bracket. Of the 2,404,598 Americans who died that year, 112,005 were under 35, or about 4.6 percent. Using death as a crude measure for serious health risk (can't get more serious than death), the under-35 uninsureds were risking one chance in 1,200 of dying from whatever causes in 2000. And while 60.5 percent seems like a high number, keep in mind that the rate of the uninsured among the population as a whole remained small - only 7.3 percent of those under 19 were uninsured for the whole year; the 19-24 bracket was at 14.4 percent; and the 25-34 group came in at 12.3 percent.

So the vast majority of those who died under age 35 died with health insurance. But it may be specious to emphasize such correlations anyway. After all, we don't blame the 1,801,459 deaths of people over age 65 in 2000 on the fact that they are the beneficiaries of the federal government's Medicare program.


Though it would be tempting...

At what point does this stop being a crisis? When 40 million Americans have health insurance? 20 million? 1 million? Half a percent? At the very least, I'd like to hear that the tipping point would be. Otherwise, we'd be heading into yet another "War On [insert here]" without end and without limit.

Many Americans who have private health insurance through their jobs are at risk of becoming uninsured. Rising costs are placing coverage out of reach for millions of working Americans and beyond the means of business owners who would like to provide their employees with affordable insurance.

The reality is that more than one in four uninsured adults has severe problems paying medical bills, whether their own or their child's, forcing them to skip meals, cancel utilities and even forfeit their homes. In fact, medical bills are cited as a reason for half of all personal bankruptcy filings.


So the solution is to make more people pay for the bills of others? To reduce our individual wealth further? Increase the weight of the socialized costs of providing services to people? This is injust.
Through strong leadership and the will to take action on the local, state and national level, there are ways to ensure that children and adults have access to affordable health care:

* Use the more than $469 million in state dollars that the Texas comptroller says are available now to restore the cuts to CHIP and shore up the shortfall in the Medicaid program.

* Of any additional taxes on tobacco, earmark a portion for insurance coverage.

* Move forward on applying for a Health Insurance Flexibility and Accountability waiver.

* Provide tax credits or other rewards to people who adhere to a healthy lifestyle and seek preventive care.

* Inspire insurers to take a more innovative approach to developing affordable coverage products.


Strong leadership: a euphemism for using the force of government in ways that doesn't quite resemble tyranny on the surface.

If we want to ensure as many people as possible "have access to affordable health care," how about stepping back and taking an axe to the government-imposed burdens of doing health care-related business? That'd drop costs without a doubt. How about cutting taxes - really cutting taxes - so more workers will have more money to spend at their discretion?

City and county governments must continue to look for ways to consolidate health care programs, eliminate duplicate services and add more federally qualified health centers. Chambers of commerce and elected officials must find ways to stimulate job growth and assist employers with providing coverage through employee plans.

L.E. Simmons is chairman of the board and Mark A. Wallace is president and chief executive officer of Texas Children's Hospital in Houston. Copyright 2001-2004 Cox Texas Newspapers, L.P. All rights reserved.


And further distort an already distorted market for health coverage?

No thank you. I say let people make their own choices, pay their own way, and let charity pick up the rest.

Posted by Drizzten at 03:16 PM
The Anti-Business ICC

American Daily: ICC To Target Capitalism As A Crime?

Well, the ICC is at it again! The International Criminal Court seems to be monthly changing its direction and expanding its scope. Now they have basically announced that they feel they should be able to prosecute any business man who has had the misfortune to have done business with any "Criminal" the ICC has targeted whether that business man knows he had such dealings or not.

[...]

What is it that is so scary about this new ICC direction? According to reports Luis Moreno-Ocampo has announced that bankers, capitalists and businessmen can be legitimate targets of the ICC. He is said to have warned the international business community that they can be held accountable by the ICC for directly OR indirectly assisting a government who might be accused of violating international law. He is further quoted as having "encouraged" international corporations to cooperate with the ICC to avoid such prosecution.

This is a shocking concept. What could it do to capital investment if international businessmen might have to fear being whisked from their offices and placed before this "court" for prosecution, even if they had no idea that the business they were involved in may have gone toward some sort of international crime against humanity? Wouldn't one expect businessmen to fear that the unstable governments they are dealing with might run afoul of the barely understood and ill defined rationale of this international court which would cause the poor businessman to be brought up on charges right along with them as well? Wouldn't you imagine that such businessmen might scale back the very kinds of investment that would help third world nations advance into the 21st century?

Copyright © 2003 Warner Todd Huston


One more reason to fear the International Criminal Court.

Posted by Drizzten at 10:44 AM
May 11, 2004
First, They Came for Your Gasoline

Now, they're coming for your diesel.

EPA Issuing Tough New Diesel Rules

The Bush administration announced tough new rules yesterday to curb harmful emissions from off-road diesel-powered vehicles, pleasing environmentalists after brokering a compromise with industry on deadlines.

Off-road diesel-powered vehicles, such as bulldozers, tractors and irrigation equipment, are among the largest sources of pollutants that scientists have linked to premature deaths, lung cancer, asthma and other serious respiratory illnesses. The regulations, which Environmental Protection Agency director Mike Leavitt will sign today, would reduce the emissions of nitrogen oxide and other pollutants from diesel engines by more than 90 percent over the next eight years.

"This is a big deal," Leavitt said, standing outside the White House after he briefed President Bush on the matter. "Nearly everyone will remember when we took the lead out of gasoline. We are now going to take sulfur out of diesel. The black puff of smoke will be a thing of the past."


Want to know why off-road diesels are the source of the most pollutants? Because the government outlawed highway-polluting diesel technology years ago and left off-road vehicles alone. Once the political process focused on other things and the level of pollution from that class of engine dropped and the level of pollution by the off-road engines either increased or remained the same, the relative levels changed to show off-road diesel engines responsible for more and more pollution. After a certain point, the environmental lobby got bitchy again.

Thus we march forward into further socialization of private industry. It's the same route taken for just about every problem these days. Incrementally, we lose more and more freedom.

Although the administration usually comes under criticism from environmentalists, yesterday's announcement brought plaudits from members of the green community, who said the rules would protect public health by preventing deaths, heart attacks and asthma-related emergencies.

"It's remarkable that these strong rules come from the same administration that has otherwise turned back the clock on 30 years of environmental progress," said Emily Figdor, a clean-air advocate for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. "It's great to see science win out over the special interests for a change."


Here's a quick hint for you, Ms. Figdor: you are a "special interest." You advocate for the government to injure an industry and it's consumers in order to protect the environment.
In recent years, scientists and environmentalists have focused on the dangers associated with high sulfur levels in non-road diesel fuel, which produce microscopic particles that invade the lungs and can cause cancer, asthma and other respiratory illnesses. EPA officials predict that within 30 years, the new regulations will prevent more than 12,000 premature deaths and will save billions of dollars in hospital and medical costs.

I'm waiting for the day to arrive when someone outlaws everything that causes premature deaths and imposes billions of dollars in hospital and medical costs. It will eventually; it's just taking small steps over a period of decades rather than a single large one in a matter of minutes.
The new rules require oil refiners to reduce the sulfur in non-road diesel fuel by 99 percent from its current level of 3,400 parts per million to 500 parts per million in 2007 and to 15 parts per million in 2010. It allows a slightly longer timeline for locomotive and marine engines, reducing sulfur to 15 parts per million in 2012. Figdor and other environmentalists criticized this delay, saying it was the one area in which the administration bowed to industry's wishes.

"With an opportunity to score a slam-dunk, at the last minute the Bush administration committed an unnecessary foul," said Frank O'Donnell, executive director of the Clean Air Trust. "It caved in behind closed doors to political pressure from oil companies and delayed cleanup for fuel used in marine and train engines."


You help impose a massive refinery regulation that is guaranteed to make doing business harder, Mr. O'Donnell, and you have the fucking gall to bitch about waiting two more years for trains and boats to get regulated? There is no pleasing you people.
Leavitt said the health benefits resulting from the regulations are worth $80 billion a year, "nearly 40 times the cost" of compliance.

Well. I see that these sorts of things are easy to decide on. It's almost as if these guys were running a business and they made a cost-benefit analysis.

It's almost as if they owned these refineries...

Diesel industry representatives voiced guarded praise for the policy shift. The National Association of Manufacturers praised the EPA for engaging in "a collaborative process with interested parties."

"While the rule has some problems, including stringent locomotive and marine fuel limits, blended fuel transportation and storage obstacles, and problematic compliance dates, the overall rule is a testament to how collaboration among affected parties can lead to a better way of achieving air quality reductions," said Jeffrey Marks, NAM's director of air quality.

Allen Schaeffer, executive director of the Diesel Technology Forum, an industry advocacy group, said that despite challenges ahead in meeting the new requirements, "there is no question about industry's commitment to meet these aggressive standards."

© 2004 The Washington Post Company


The lack of industry backbone in fighting this shit is almost as distressing. They should be opposing this full-stop.

Posted by Drizzten at 02:57 PM
Thin-Skinned Protectionists

This is just shameful.

Cato Institute and Fox News Columnist Use Web to Attack Grassroots Organization

A policy analyst at the Cato Institute and columnist for Fox News, Radley Balko, is using the web to throw down the gauntlet against a startup grassroots organization that is fighting for the American working class.

First of all, there is no evidence to support the assertion that Cato had a hand in Radley's post. None is produced in this entire press release. In fact, the title of the release contradicts the quoted section below.

The perverse mentality of the protectionists in that thread took it upon itself to declare all further comment from the capitalists at Catallarchy to be merely echoes of Cato Institute talking points.

So by extension, we can now dispense with the formality and just call those protectionists what they really are: socialists, right?

This is silly. Just because two groups of people have roughly similar political views and one group links to the other doesn't mean they are actually linked in coordinating activity. At least Wilde is taking this easily.

MESA, AZ,(PRWEB) May 11, 2004 -- A policy analyst at the Cato Institute and columnist for Fox News, Radley Balko, is using the web to throw down the gauntlet against a startup grassroots organization that is fighting for the American working class.

Radley dealt with this as best as I could.
A self-proclaimed "liberal libertarian" who works as a policy analyst for the Cato Institute, one of the nation's most powerful corporate lobbyist forces, called the authors of the American Joblog (www.AmericanJoblog.com) "Buchananite protectionists" and stated unequivocally, "This is what we're up against, folks."

Does Cato lobby for corporations? Is that it's purpose? No. It advocates free and freer markets. Sometimes that advocacy coincides with business interests. Sometimes it doesn't.
Rob Sanchez, author of the Job Destruction Newsletter from ZaZona.com, and one of the authors on the American Joblog, stated, "It's funny that he called us 'Buchananite protectionists'. I take that as a compliment. But," he continued, "We also have Naderite protectionists and everything in between, and most stand somewhere in the middle."

As if being a moderate is a virtue.
The American Joblog (www.AmericanJoblog.com) is a new web community from Rescue American Jobs (www.RescueAmericanJobs.org), and the blogs are authored primarily by outsourced American workers who have turned to activism within a myriad of organizations to bring awareness to the current jobs crisis in America.

What, there isn't enough attention already on the Job Issue?
Cato's analyst, Balko, threw the gauntlet down after an author on the American Joblog criticized an article written by Balko on Fox News. In the article, Balko suggested that Americans should buy more products from third-world sweatshops. Pete Johnson, an American Joblog blogger, criticized the Balko's support of worker exploitation and sweatshop labor and the effects of felt by workers in the U.S. who are displaced by sweatshop workers overseas.

Balko complained about this criticism on his blog, "TheAgitator", stating, "not everyone agrees" (with his proposal), with a link to the critique on the American Joblog. Balko's supporters quickly descended upon the grassroots organization's blog.


Like the greedy, self-interested, exploitive, thieving, free marketers they are! It's a Vast Agitating Conspiracy!
Micha Ghertner, a college student who is up for a summer internship at the Cato Institute posted criticisms on the American Joblog comments forum, saying, "What gives us the right to protect jobs for relatively wealthy Americans when poor workers living in third-world countries make so little? We should be encouraging outsourcing with every available breath!" and continued with "This 'country' is not my home. The house I live in is my home. My family and friends are my home. But anyone outside that small circle is no more a part of my home than anyone else in the world." She summed up the position of the Cato Institute and its supporters with, "There is no need for a 'country' or borders."

I'm not sure Micha is a female, but ignoring that, what's wrong with the argument Micha puts forth?
After these and other similar exchanges between grassroots activists at the American Joblog and Cato Institute supporters, Balko threw down the gauntlet, telling his supporters, "This is what we're up against, folks." and pointed a new link to the exchanges between Cato supporters and grassroots activists, fingering Rescue American Jobs as the opponent.

This is what he actually wrote:
Wow.

If you have an hour to kill, check out this eye-popping discussion thread between the kids at Catllarchy and the Buchananite protectionists at a site called American Joblog.

This is what we're up against, folks.


Hardly the assaultive mentality being asserted in the press release.
"This kind of thinking is a result of the deterioration of community values in America," states James Pace, "We now have powerful lobbying forces like Cato who have forgotten the value of the nation state and the community that surrounds them. They no longer believe that America should exist as a country, and they ignore the plight of American communities. If we cannot feed ourselves, how can we feed others?"

Cato, as far as I can tell, doesn't officially support the dissolution of the state. Maybe in the minds of some of it's more principled members it does, but not at the moment and not in the foreseeable future.

The rhetorical question at the end is meaningless. You don't have the right to restrict the trade of others in order to protect your economic health.

According to the Cato Institute website, the Cato Institute has an annual budget of just under $13 million and a staff of more than 166 full-time employees, adjunct scholars, and fellows, plus interns. Rescue American Jobs is manned by an all-volunteer staff and is self-funded by members and volunteers with an annual budget in the thousands.

I'm not weeping for these people. They choose to take a side on an issue, they better be prepared to defend that stance against anyone who opposes them.
"This is like David versus Goliath," says Dawn Teo, Public Outreach Director, "We are just regular Americans, and Cato is the epitome of radical one-world corporate special interests with a multi-million dollar annual budget and millions more in the corporate pockets where that came from. But we have faith that we will prevail. Americans believe in America, and they will stand behind us."

Do these idiots even understand what Cato advocates? It calls for limited government, strong individual liberty, and economic freedom. All three are in twined from the same principles; none support corporate welfare and "special interests," although the argument could be made that limited government is constantly under assault from special interests...such as the special interests of protectionists like these guys.
Rescue American Jobs is a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to safeguarding the economic security of the American middle class. Their fundamental objective is to restore and preserve the employment of the American workforce by ensuring balanced economic, labor, immigration, and trade policies.

What they advocate is the death of what makes the US strong: individual freedom.

Posted by Drizzten at 09:47 AM
BilLee and Rainbough are Coming to Austin

We're Moving!

No the site is staying put. But BilLee and myself are moving from Athens, GA to Austin, TX this week (OMG!!!). I'm going to start packing any minute now... Can't I just be there you know... beam me up scotty and I appear with all my stuff 4 states and 1000 miles away. Nope it doesn't work that way unfortunately. Hopefully I'll be able to get my animal rights essay up on Catallarchy... it's written, but I've got to rework it a bit and I don't know when I'll have time to do that. So we will try to keep stuff being posted this week but chances are it's going to be a bit sparse until we get settled in in Austin.

Welcome to the Central Texas Hill Country, guys. Let me know if you need help or want to hang out sometime.

Posted by Drizzten at 08:43 AM
May 10, 2004
Tony Woodlief is Back!
I didn't write much last week because I took the wife to San Francisco. I'm back to report that I don't think George W. Bush will be winning that city. By way of illustration, how many of you remember Dennis Kucinich ( D Socialist, OH)? Many San Franciscans seem to remember him fondly, having enshrined him on the bumpers of their hybrid Toyotas and squat Subarus. They're warming to Kerry, though the enthusiasm is less abundant; for all his bad hair and poor fashion choices, Dennis Kucinich never murdered babies in an imperialist war of aggression.
*grin*

Mr. Woodlief has been actively posting for a month now, but this bit stood out.

The greatest interaction I've had with him can be found in these posts:

  1. Tony Woodlief on Libertarianism
  2. Tony Woodlief on Libertarianism II
  3. Tony Woodlief on Libertarianism III
  4. Tony Woodlief on Libertarianism IV

Other mentionables are Viggo Mortensen is an Idiot and Sand in the Gears Interviews Rudolph!!!

Posted by Drizzten at 03:46 PM
Adding More Collectivism to Public Schools Won't Help

'Universal' curriculum proposal planned by senator (Link will probably rot in a few days)

As Texas lawmakers continue wrestling with whether school financing will be changed and how, one state senator wants to focus on teachers and their curricula in what she calls a cost-saving plan.

Sen. Florence Shapiro, who is authoring the legislation, said the universal curriculum proposal is designed to save school districts the estimated $600 million a year that they spend developing curricula for the courses they offer.


On it's face, it may seem like a good idea. In the current high-pitched climate of figuring out how to pay for Texas public education, just about any proposal that reduces costs seems reasonable at first glance. But real solutions should, at the very least, do more good than harm. This idea of further centralizing the education of millions of Texas children will do more harm than good.
"We've decided there ought to be a universal curriculum created by the state that would be made available to all school districts so they would no longer have to spend so much money developing curriculum," Shapiro, R-Plano, told The Dallas Morning News.

Experts, under the Senate proposal, would develop a daily instructional road map for each teacher based on the subjects they teach.

"We're talking about laying out a day-to-day planner for each course so that an algebra or English teacher would know what material should be covered on the first day of class," she said.

Although Shapiro said the universal curriculum would not be mandatory for school districts, many would likely embrace it because of the money they could save by not having to write their own course guidelines for instructing students in most of the courses taught in Texas schools.


The only consolation to me in this plan is that it wouldn't be required. That's a small consolation. As the Senator herself says, if given the choice of paying for curriculum development or getting the state (i.e., Texas taxpayers) to pay for it, schools under a budget crunch (which would be most of them) may jump at the chance. Just as federal transportation dollars provide an effective "voluntary" bludgeoning tool for Washington, D.C. to influence state policy, I see this as little different.

If this idea is passed into law, we'll have the educations of increasingly more children become determined by a few people under political influence. Those people would wield tremendous power when you consider how deep an impact a person's early education can be. Hell, the people and the jobs already exist, both on state level and federal level. Objections to my criticism that say only good, decent people will fill these roles are irrelevant. It cannot be guaranteed that those people will make ideal choices all the time, nor should we even expect to get such a guarantee.

But we'd need it if the choice is taken further away from the consumers of education services and closer to the bureaucrats in the state. More importantly, what constitutes "ideal" is different for every person.

This isn't to say that a fully privatized education system would be free of curriculum problems; far from it. People are fallible and make mistakes whether they are in the government or in private business. The crucial difference is that when private business screws up, the costs and burdens associated with that screwup are localized. Only the students in that school suffer from a bad education. The costs and burdens of the state screwing up are socialized. Every student using that "master curriculum" gets shafted.

In addition, only those who voluntarily pick a private school that fails get stuck with the tuition bills. Public schools spread those fees around the whole taxing district...and some want to spread them around the entire state.

Guidelines would be based on the curriculum standards that are the basis for the student testing program, the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills.

Copyright 2004, The Associated Press.


This statewide standardization of a testing program with serious problems of it's own isn't to be desired either. "Teaching to the test" will become more institutionalized than ever before as all manner of financial and public relations incentives become tied to the results. This would have the additional non-benefit of placing more influence on the writers of the TAKS test, resulting in additional education centralization.

Then there's the small matter of the test not even existing for high schoolers to take, assuming one of the bills/amendments being bandied about the special session gets passed. Kinda odd to place so much importance on a test that may get killed in a few weeks.

The tragedy in this is that since the cost issue wouldn't be a public issue if the public didn't have to pay the cost, some now think we have to cut costs in the important area of what we teach our kids. Of all the educational areas under the political gun, this may be the most important to protect. Hopefully this idea gets nuked early and is never resurrected.

Posted by Drizzten at 01:24 PM
May 09, 2004
Don't Kill Off the Economic Strength of the United States

[Updates below.]

Thomas Bray in The Detroit News has a nice op/ed on the current state of American capitalism as compared to the capitalism developing in other countries.

Rising competition stalks U.S. capitalism

A specter is stalking American capitalism: the rise of capitalism in other, far more populous, regions of the world.

Once upon a time - say, before the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 - it was assumed that the major challenge to American economic preeminence was the socialist/communist model. But that model has collapsed almost everywhere except on a few university campuses, where intellectuals - famously defined by the late Bishop Fulton J. Sheen as people who have been educated beyond the limits of their intelligence - still imagine themselves smarter than markets.

In place of the socialist model have come aggressive forms of capitalism in places like China, India and Eastern Europe. Such countries are still far poorer than the United States, but they are cutting taxes, deregulating industries and encouraging the kind of cowboy capitalism that powered the United States to world leadership in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.


Mr. Bray goes on to note changes in both John Kerry's and President Bush's stance towards free markets and the vast numbers of people scrambling for freedom in China, Eastern Europe, and India (thereby greatly expanding the potential and actual marketplaces for goods and services). He also mentions "the forces of reaction" and their aggression to free markets in the form of
...steep progressive taxes on the wealthy (the top 10 percent of U.S. income earners pay 52 percent of income taxes), high corporate taxes (the average U.S. corporation pays 40 percent of its profit in federal and state tax, compared with 33 percent in officially Communist China and 24 percent in Russia, according to the accounting firm of KPMG) and crushing regulatory and legal burdens.

He ends with a simple and obvious observation:
The challenge to America comes not from government-directed economies, whether of the socialist or the equally tattered Japanese model, but from countries that learned the capitalist lesson and now play by the same rules that made America No. 1. The U.S. response should not be to shut out the competition - an impossibility in any case - but to remember how it got to be No. 1 in the first place.

Copyright © 2004 The Detroit News.


The shortsightedness of so many politicians, media figures, and interest groups is shrouding this indisputable and straightforward concept. The reason why the United States of America became such an economic powerhouse isn't because we used the force of government to direct our energies. It's because we respected private property more, we tolerated freedom of speech more, and we hold less animosity towards profit. In short, we held individual freedom and personal responsibility in higher regard.

When other countries see the failure of the opposite approach and make gains in reversing their statism, it's only natural that America will face stronger competition. Going back on the principles that made us strong (and still make is strong, relatively), will not only make no real gains; it will make us weaker.

UPDATE(5/10/2004 8:10am)
Another good editorial, this time from the Las Vegas Review-Journal: Capitalism and the masses: Americans used to understand that the first was the best solution for the second

In San Francisco this week, Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto, who in 1980 founded the Lima-based Institute for Liberty and Democracy, accepted the second Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty.

The $500,000 award, named after Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, is awarded by the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, to an individual judged to have made a significant contribution to advancing human freedom.

Author of books "The Other Path" and "The Mystery of Capital," de Soto encourages peasants working in marginal jobs to consider themselves part of the "formal" economy. He argues that poor people should use their property -- farms, jitneys, pushcart taco stands, scooters, chickens, huts -- to apply for loans and expand their businesses.

But his philosophy -- which encourages taxi drivers and street corner gum vendors to consider themselves capitalists -- has resulted in political attacks from Latin America's landed aristocracy, authoritarian regimes, labor unions and Peru's Maoist terrorist group, the Shining Path. He's survived at least three attempts on his life, and his office has been sprayed with bullets.


It is one of the more harsh and unpleasant ironies of life that, for the most part, those radicals who claim they revolt against the power structure and say they want "freedom" for the oppressed have nothing but the vilest hatred for and act violent towards those few people who actually advocate real freedom for individuals.
The Associated Press commented that de Soto "is a rarity among economists: a champion of both capitalism and the rights of the impoverished masses."

[...]

But over the centuries -- despite the failed attempts of Keynesians and other collectivists to hold otherwise -- economists from Adam Smith to Ludwig von Mises to Murray Rothbard to Hernando de Soto have observed that prosperity is most widespread when men and women are left at liberty to accrue wealth and trade their goods and labor freely.

The AP writer is a victim of a common misunderstanding -- that those who champion capitalism favor only the interests of "the greedy rich," while anyone who feels compassion and sympathy for the poor must surely understand the necessity of sending men with guns to the homes of the rich, there to seize some quantity of their stuff and redistribute it to the poor.


This stuff wasn't taught in high school. It was presented as a simple, zero-sum dicotomy: you were either for the good of all or for the wealthy. The common man versus the rich. Serious capitalist economists have long ended the intellectual vacuum such teachings left, but they are ignored for the most part these days. Socialism - forced collectivization - doesn't work.
The Communists tried it in Russia for three generations. It failed utterly. The only ones who didn't end up broke were the millions who ended up dead.

If it seems unusual to today's Americans to find a learned economist who understands this, then perhaps we need to ask why so many of America's economists (both in our political capitals and on our college campuses) still embrace a mid-20th century redistributive economic model that had already proved a dismal and deadly failure by the time of the deaths of its greatest champions: Lenin, Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2003

Posted by Drizzten at 02:25 PM
May 08, 2004
Live Up to Your Contracts

[Updates below.]

I'm a big fan of property rights. I'm also a big fan of binding contractual agreements. So I'm not very upset about this story.

Patriotic signs stir neighborhood controversy

Yard signs are outlawed by deed restrictions in the Lakeline Oaks neighborhood in Cedar Park.

The rule, being enforced on signs of patriotism, is ruffling some flags and feathers.

"We have troops across the ocean. We support them. What other better way to do it than by putting a sign out," Sgt. Maj. Anthony Sandoval said.

He posted a sign in support of troops and the president in his front yard more than a year ago.

Last week he received this letter from his neighborhood association telling him to remove the sign or face a fee of $10 a day.

The Lakeline Oaks Homeowners Association says the sign violates a rule in their deed restrictions prohibiting the display of signs in yards.

"That's my home. I'm paying for that home. I should have some say as far as what's in my yard," Sandoval said.


You do have some say, Sergeant Sandoval. However, you abrogated a portion of that "say" when you signed up with the homeowner's association.
According to the homeowners' association manual, the rule doesn't just apply to political signs. It applies to any and all signs posted on the homeowner's property. An exception is made for real estate signs. Before moving into a neighborhood with deed restrictions, home buyers are given a copy of the neighborhood rules and are required to sign an agreement to keep the rules when closing the purchase of the home.

There you go. You should have been responsible enough to read the documents you put your name to, especially when those documents pertain to something as important as your home and your land.

The deed restrictions (PDF) say this is a "Minor Violation." It also mentions this:

    I. "Restriction" shall have the same meaning herein as given to that term in Section 54.237, Texas Water Code, which is a limitation on the use of real property that is established or incorporated in properly recorded covenants, property restrictions, plats, plans, deeds or other instruments affecting real property in a district and that has not been abandoned, waived, or properly rescinded.


It's plain that if you want to live in this community, you have to agree to their rules and those rules necessarily mean you aren't allowed to do certain things.
Sandoval and others went the homeowners' association meeting to ask for leniency.

"We're just sensitive about this thing. We think they need to be more flexible," resident Bill Bonner said.


If the association decides to change it's ways voluntarily, then that's fine. However...
Some residents who showed up say the subdivision's rules are there for a reason.

"People pay to go into a subdivision like this because they want rules defined. You just can't posterboard your house with your views of the world," resident Robert Kenny said.


...I'll take Sgt. Sandoval's side over Mr. Kenny's side on this particular issue. As the owner of your property, do start off with the right to do what you want with it. You have to take the step of voluntarily agreeing to not do certain things with your property in order for Mr. Kenny's remark to make sense. Otherwise, his statement is best responded with, "Why, do you own my property?"
"Let everybody have their will to have whatever they want to put on there. It's their piece of land. If somebody wants to say, we don't want the war, that's their freedom of speech," Sandoval said.

It's a freedom some residents say they didn't give up when they moved into the neighborhood.


On the other hand, I'd say these petitioners can't have it both ways. Either they live on their own in the absence of a homeowner's association, or they live with one and abide by the rules they adopt. You want real freedom?

Don't sign a contract with an entity that imposes rules on you that are formed by collective decision.

Sandoval and other active and retired soldiers in the neighborhood plan to contact various veterans groups to help them pursue other legal avenues.

Copyright ©2004TWEAN News Channel of Austin, L.P. d.b.a. News 8 Austin


This is just horribly misguided. You have no moral (or, I'd assume) legal standing to bring a lawsuit, man. You're in breach of contract and ignorance of the contract's details is your fault.

UPDATED 11/17/2006 11:55am
Live Up to Your Contracts, II

Posted by Drizzten at 11:45 AM
Stealing from Criminals

Deputies will learn Taser use

The Harris County Sheriff's Department has bought 161 Taser guns and will train as many as 200 patrol deputies in their use by July, according to sheriff's Maj. Mike Smith.

Sheriff Tommy Thomas said the devices, which fire high-voltage non-lethal darts to subdue violent or potentially violent suspects, cost about $1,000 each and will be paid for with money seized from criminals.

Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle

E. Joe Deering / Chronicle


My emphasis.

I hold no sympathy for people who violate the rights of others when they receive punishment, but this idea of seizing their property to pay for goodies like this seems wrong. I'm not certain how the property seizure laws work, but if the property is taken as punishment, it should go to the victim(s) of the crime, not to enrich the armory of the law enforcement agency who arrested him.

Posted by Drizzten at 11:14 AM
May 06, 2004
Politicians Don't Pay Taxes

It used to be thought that heroism and "courage" meant being willing to go out into the lists, candidly and unafraid, to battle the mighty and despotic powers-that-be. Can we really call it "courage" when a [Walter] Mondale or a [Bruce] Babbitt frankly calls upon the eager state apparatus to increase still further its already outrageous and parasitic plunder of the hard-earned money of honest and productive American citizens? Whooping it up for higher taxes is the moral equivalent of some Ugandan theoretician of a few years ago publicly urging Idi Amin to pile on his looting and despotism still further, or of a Mafia consiligieri advising the capo to add an extra ten percent to the "protection fees" imposed on neighborhood stores. We can think of many names for this sort of activity, but "courage" is surely not one of them.

It might be objected that, after all, a politician who urges higher taxes is not only imposing suffering on other people; he himself as a taxpayer will also have to bear the same deprivations as other citizens. Isn't there, then, a kind of nobility, even if misguided, in his plea for "belt-tightening" common sacrifice?

To meet this question, we must realize a vital truth that has long remained discreetly veiled to the tax-burdened citizenry. And that is: contrary to carefully instilled myth, politicians and bureaucrats pay no taxes. Take, for example, a politician who receives a salary of, say, $80,000; assume he duly files his income tax return, and pays $20,000. We must realize that he does not in reality pay $20,000 in taxes; instead, he is simply a net tax-receiver of $60,000. The notion that he pays taxes is simply an accounting fiction, designed to bamboozle the citizenry into believing that he and the rest of us are on the same moral and financial footing before the law. He pays nothing; he is simply extracting $60,000 per annum from our pockets. The only virtue of the United Nations' employees is that they are frankly and openly exempt from all taxes levied by any nation-state - which simply makes their position the same as other national bureaucrats, except uncamouflaged and unadorned.

The same principle, too, applies to sales or property or any other tax. Bureaucrats and politicians do not pay them; they are simply subtracted from the net transfer to themselves from the body of taxpayers.

-Murray N. Rothbard, Making Economic Sense, p. 212-213, "Babbity and Taxes: A Profile in Courage?"

Something to keep in mind when some jackass bureaucrat mentions how he and his brethren will be "sacrificing" along with the rest of us if taxes are raised. They won't be sacrificing anything; they merely soak up less productive wealth from the rest of us.

By the way, I'm glad I bought those Mises Institute books. I've finished them all except for Making Economic Sense. I'm about halfway through it and am quite pleased with the content. Some of it is obviously duplicated in Rockwell's The Economics of Liberty, but otherwise I'm struck by the clarity and fervor of Rothbard's writing. I still don't have any of his "serious" work like Man, Economy, and State, but reading these opinion articles from his days publishing at The Free Market has been enlightening.

Posted by Drizzten at 04:09 PM
May 05, 2004
Political Apologies Mean Nothing to Me

The Associated Press has a short recap of some memorable recent apologies: A Look at Political Apologies. The list includes President Richard Nixon (Watergate), Senator Edward Kennedy (Mary Jo Kopechne), President Ronald Reagan (Iran-Contra), President George H.W. Bush ("Read my lips"), President Bill Clinton (the Lewinsky affair), Senator Trent Lott (the Thurmond incident), and ex-White House counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke ("the government failed you" on 9/11).

It is nice to hear politicians going public and admit wrongdoing. It's nice to know that they will occasionally leave their offices and fund raising parties and attempt some level of humility. However, most apologies are made after dead obvious errors. They never apologize for the odious laws they foist upon us each year.

As far as I'm aware, no major politicians involved in the following have apologized for the following:


Those are just the big ones that come to mind at the moment. I'm open to read evidence that shows our representatives felt sorry about slowly taking over our lives and replacing our individual responsibility with collective control. I'm even more open to see our "leaders" actively try to roll back laws and rules they helped enact after understanding the damage they helped cause.

But I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by Drizzten at 04:43 PM
Thirty Three Degrees Closing It's Doors

[Updates below.]

I just got this through e-mail:

We would like to thank all of our customers, record labels, musicians and friends who have helped make 33 Degrees a success and an exciting place to work over these past nine years.

We have decided it is now time to move on and effective May 31st we will be closing our doors.
We've had a great time: making friends, turning you on to the music we love, and learning from y'all, too. But, now we're looking forward to achieving many other things in our lives. A chapter ends, but the book isn't finished.

Effective immediately all new items are on SALE at 20% off. This excludes items already sale priced and markdowns, but, heck, that means everything you've been lusting after is ON SALE!!!
Please come by and score some great sounds at great prices during our last month.

Thanks! Bob and Dan


Thirty Three Degrees
4017 Guadalupe - Austin - TX 78751
http://www.thirtythreedegrees.com


Good thing I get one more paycheck before 33º closes.

Of all the record stores in Austin, 33º is the one in which I feel the most comfortable. I'll miss the relaxed atmosphere, relaxed store clerks, and well-used listening stations. The store's e-mail newsletter has given me the heads up on too many upcoming concerts to mention as well as kept me abreast of new releases far from the Top 40 pop charts.

Given all the self-produced hype about Austin being the Live Music Capital of the World, it seems odd 33º would just close like this. Perhaps there's something going on behind the scenes. Or perhaps, like Orbital, they've decided to get out while ahead and at the peak of their business.

In any event, it appears I'll be spending more time and money at Waterloo Records. Now that Tower Records wil be leaving, I'll need another backup music store.

Alien Records isn't bad, but it's focus is on electronic music and the customer service has been iffy in the past. Cheapo Discs is a place I've never been to. It looks promising even though it's a high-volume used music store. Haven't been to Jupiter Records, either.

UPDATE(5/11/2004 12:15pm)
Just recieved another e-mail. The sale's discount has just been increased to 30%. All new items are now 30% off. Also:

And this Saturday, May 15th from 11am to 1 pm, we'll be selling all of the promo & store play CD's we've gathered for nine years at an incredible $5.00 each. That's 2500-3000 discs!!!

There's still a lot of amazing vinyl left in our Punk, Jazz, Classic Rock, Prog, & Psych sections. C'mon you waxheads, what are ya waiting for?


Sweet...

UPDATE(5/18/2004 12:07pm)
Thank you, 33º, for providing me with sweet, musical bliss! And a new sale!

Posted by Drizzten at 08:41 AM
May 04, 2004
The Texas Craft Brewers Festival!

I went last year and had a great if hot time. I plan on going this year as well. From the TCBF website:

The Texas Craft Brewers Festival is the largest beer tasting in Texas, featuring some of the best independent breweries from across the state.

With more than 40 handcrafted beers on tap, the festival will provide you with a unique opportunity to taste some of Texas' best beer.

Saturday, May 15, 2004
12:00 to 10:00 pm
4th and San Antonio Streets, Austin, TX


Scheduled to be there are the following breweries:
  1. Bitter End with their Bat City Lager, Poindexter Pils, Nobleweiss, Austin Pale Ale, E.P.A. - Environmental Pale Ale, 2XryePA, and 1100 beers. I don't think I've had a Bitter End beer before.
  2. Draught House with their Bayernischer Helles, Trolley Steam, Maibock, Biere De Garde, Calloway's Vanilla Porter, and Reanimator Dopplebock beers. This is my favorite Austin pub, by the way. I've tasted each of the beers they're bringing. My favorites are the Vanilla Porter, Trolley Steam, and Biere De Garde.
  3. Live Oak with their Pilz, HefeWeizen, Pale Ale, and Big Bark beers. Probably won't be visiting these guys too much as I like heavier beers.
  4. Lovejoy's with their Brother Bob's Bitter, Enns River Stout, and Old Horizontal (a.k.a. Old Whore) beers. I've been to the Lovejoy's pub a few times (their Honey Mead is excellent), but I haven't had any of these beers.
  5. North by Northwest with their Northern Light, Pilsner (Spring Seasonal), Duckabish Amber Ale, and Py Jingo Pale Ale beers. New stuff for me here.
  6. Jaxon's with their Borderland Lager, Cactus Jack Amber Ale, Chihuahua Brown Ale, and Andale IPA (ahn' da' lay) beers. Jaxon's is from El Paso and I haven't heard of them before.
  7. Two Rows with their Honey Blonde Light Pale Ale, Uncle Reds Raspberry, Illegally Blonde Pils, Osage Golden Wheat, Old Town Hefeweizen, Dos Rows Vienna Lager, Route 66 Amber Ale, Oatmeal Stout, India Pale Ale, Hopzilla, Barking Fish Porter, and Barley Wine brews. That's a hell of an impressive list and I haven't sipped a single one!
  8. Real Ale with their Fireman's #4 Blonde Ale, Rio Blanco Pale Ale, Full Moon Pale Rye Ale, and Brewhouse Brown Ale beers. I've had most of these Real Ales and I'm not much of a fan. The only exception is Fireman's #4, a very nice clean-drinking thirst-killer pint.
  9. Saint Arnold with their Saint Arnold Summer Pils, Saint Arnold Kristall Weizen, Saint Arnold Fancy Lawnmower Beer, Saint Arnold Amber Ale, Saint Arnold Brown Ale, and Saint Arnold Elissa IPA. Love their Lawnmower, everything else is new to me.

Also of interest is the 1st Annual Austin ZEALOTS Homebrew Inquisition, ZEALOTS being Zymurgic Enthusiasts of Austin Loosely Associated Through Suds. Heh. :)

I hope this year the setup is such that there's more shade or at least a way to get to some while still holding a sampler of beer in hand. That was the single biggest problem with last year's event. It was bright, clear, and damn hot. The only shade was under a few highly populated tents and a small cluster of trees just outside the festival entrance...but leaving the grounds with beer wasn't allowed.

Posted by Drizzten at 09:42 AM
How Much Does it Cost to Educate Texas Students?

With all the chatter about funding Texas public schools, I wanted to know at what level the government has set the cost of educating children. My rough calculations are below.

Generally speaking, the Texas Education Agency requires kids in Texas public schools to go to those schools for 180 days out of the year. It varies due to holidays and a few other things, but I'm using it as a benchmark for the moment. How the TEA arrived at this I'm not certain.

One estimate (PDF) I've read says the state spent an average of $6,503 per student, below the national average of $6,549. The recently released educational adequacy study estimates the "average minimum funding level per pupil of meeting state performance standards" is "between $6,172 and $6,271 (in 2004 dollars)."

Let's round the current figure to $6,500 per student, per academic year. With 180 days of instruction, that comes to roughly $36 per day, or $1083 per month. Note that this is for an "adequate" education, defined in the abovementioned study as:

  • 55% passing rate on the TAKS tests for grades 5-8 and 10.
  • A specific score on the SAT or ACT tests that an average percentage of graduates receive.
  • And an average percentage of students taking one advanced course.

In my opinion, that certainly counts as adequate. But I don't want my future children getting an education that's grudgingly labeled adequate. I want the best my money can buy and that is a wasted effort to pursue in public education.

Someone looking at the rudimentary calculations I did above may be shocked at the costs of educating their kids. I have two things to say to such shock.

First, only the economically ignorant are unaware of the immense benefits free markets create for a sector of the economy. What once cost the state (read: everyone) billions to do is now done by free individuals for far less and towards far greater output. Once you strip the inefficient apparatus of the state from education and allow schools to freely operate, costs will drop as they seek to attract customers and run a profit. I'm loath to predict anything since by it's nature such a system can't be exactly quantified.

Second, if that shock is so great, imagine how people who don't have kids in public schools feel when they hand over their a chunk of their wealth to the taxman to pay for the educations of others! The real costs of "free education" are disguised because they are spread among Texans. Those who object to paying for their own kids' education simply due to cost ought to consider what they advocate: everyone gets screwed by the government's education costs.

Objections that "everyone benefits from a good education" are made by either socialists or hypocrites. Everyone benefits from the information technology revolution, from inexpensive food, from effective indoor climate controls, etc...are we to socialize all industries that have positive externalities? Of course not. Education is too important to be socialized.

Posted by Drizzten at 09:06 AM