« February 2004 | Main | April 2004 »

March 31, 2004

Helping the Libertarians Get on the Texas Ballot

[Updates below.]

Despite several posts on this blog that generally lament the voting process and the system it upholds, I have decided to help the Travis County Libertarian Party and the Libertarian Party of Texas to get ballot access for Texas libertarians this election. I asked for and received the volunteer packet in the mail and have begun asking people to sign. Picturing myself helping others jump through the imposed hoops of government interference is unsettling.

Why am I doing this? For one thing, last year I promised the TCLP I'd help the ballot access effort through a donation. Since my finances can't support donating in any useful amount, I figured gathering my own set of signatures would make up for the $100 I pledged. I gave them my word and I intend on following through with it.

For another, I wish to see the Texas's political direction change. I'm under no illusions as to the impact I have on Texas politics with my website. If libertarians aren't even on the ballot for the November 2004 elections, then the vicious cycle of mainstream Republican-Democrat dominance can continue. It isn't likely major positions will be drawn to libertarian candidates and I'm also under no illusion just having libertarians on the ballot will solve any problems. Individuals still have to vote for these candidates and if individuals don't understand the core principles that drive libertarians and can't comprehend the importance of their application, then this effort is wasted. But if it can be done, making the statement that there is a significant number of people fed up with the way the duopoly works is a good thing.

It comes down to the question of how do you want to change the way things work. The choices are limited to just a few:

  1. Violent resistance and overthrow.
  2. Democratic resistance and the peaceful exchange of elected positions.
  3. Politically inactive education and voluntary disassociation with the system.

I refuse to get involved in the first unless things get so bad and so awful that there is no point in restraining oneself from physically fighting back. I don't see that happening in the near future, but with the slow decline of things, it isn't impossible.

The second is what is commonly accepted as the best means of accomplishing political change. But the entire basis is on majority rule. Even though the United States of America is a republic and not a democracy, in the end, political change is at the discretion of whatever voting block has the largest number of supporters. So, in order to get anything done that way, your supporters have to have reasons to support you. If they don't agree with your stances, you've got nothing but the shell of potential hope without votes to fill it. The last general election Texas held was in November, 2002. The results were dismal and fairly consistent: most Libertarian candidates earn less than 3% of the vote in their district. And this is in good 'ol pro-property rights, individualistic Texas. It's this political reality, fueled by intellectual rot, that makes participating in the ballot access drive so hard.

The third is what principled market anarchists would likely prefer. It's the collective "screw off" and willful self-extrication from the system of government meddling and the deliberate attempt to change the minds of others through reason and debate. This confronts the problems of the second approach more directly, but in all likelihood, will have even less of an impact than the second approach.

There is a fourth option. One can just give up attempting to change society for the better (thus shedding yourself of an easy "social planner" label) and focus on making your own life better. It's tempting in the face of such overwhelming opposition. But I won't give in to it yet.

UPDATE(5/26/2004 2:24pm)
The final tally is in. On Monday the 24th, 80,107 signatures were handed over to the Secretary of State's office. John Williams, the reporter for this Houston Chronicle article, "Libertarians in;, Green, Reform out," got the numbers mixed up and attributed the signature count to Nader's ballot effort.

UPDATE(7/22/2004 1:16pm)
News8Austin: Libertarians will be on Texas election ballot

Election officials on Tuesday announced the Libertarian Party has met the requirements to get its candidates on the Nov. 2 ballot in Texas.

As a third party, the Libertarians were required to submit a petition with 45,540 signatures of registered Texans who did not vote in the GOP or Democratic primaries.

Secretary of State Geoff Connor said Libertarians produced more than 82,000 valid signatures.

Copyright 2004 Associated Press, All rights reserved.


UPDATE 9/24/2004 5:27pm
The Austin American-Statesman, Voting, Free Speech, and Information

Solidifying my Foundations of Capitalism

The dividends of buying those Mises Institute books are already arriving and ready to be utilized.

While reading Chapter 3, "Economic Calculation," in An Introduction to Austrian Economics by Thomas Taylor, I think I experienced more epiphanies than I've ever experienced while reading a book. Things just clicked; logical connections were made and reinforced. The relationships among money, knowledge, resource scarcity, the subjective theory of value, marginal utility, and economic calculation (to name a few) are becoming clearer. This has been a thoroughly enjoyable and concise read so far.

This is probably because while I'm quite familiar with the practical necessities of a free market and the importance of keeping it "free," I have always been weaker on the theoretical side. And it's always the theoretical side you have to be proficient at in order to win an argument. The moment you make assertions, you've got to back them up with reasoned theories, otherwise those assertions can and will be ignored. If I can't explain the critical nature of a system of free market pricing, there's no point in trying to convince reasonable people that government efforts to intervene in the marketplace cause incalculable and unpredictable harm.

This may have been the the best $5 I've ever spent on literature.

The tendency to ascribe to the market economy the characteristics of being something other than the events caused by the choices and actions of individuals is incorrect. The market arises as a result of the willingness of individuals to interact. Every development in the market is the outcome of purposive actions on the part of individuals who are seeking to improve their own state of affairs.


- Thomas C. Taylor, An Introduction to Austrian Economics, pg. 52


The quoted statement above will now become Magnifisyncopathological's new banner motto. Quot homines tot sententiae ("many men, many minds") I liked and actually like even more considering the material I've just read on the subjective theory of value. It will now become the individual post banner motto.

March 30, 2004

Um...Ouch

[Updates below.]

Spam e-mails continue to pour in and they haven't stopped getting weirder:

From: "Bernard Kenney" accessibilityscorer@bigpond.com
To: drizz
Subject: achieve an e_rection up to 36 hours
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 12:48:58 -0500

save MONEY and enjoy 10nger with your every C1ALI~S & LEV1T~RA purchase.

CIA-L1S works in as litt1e as 3O minutes and lasts f0r up tO 36 h0urs.
LE|VITRA works in as 1ittle as 25 minutes and 1asts fro up tO 24 h0urs .

NOw V1SIT 0ur W'EBS1TE : C-l-I-C-K H E R


I'm not going to link to the site in question.

Obviously, the syntax, grammar, and spelling of this marauding advertisement are all atrocious, eye-rolling, banish-to-the-6th-Circle-of-Hell variety. But get a load of that subject line: achieve an e_rection up to 36 hours

Dude. There are times a Man must cease his Manly Activities and do other things, things that support the life of the Man who may then go back to doing his Manly Activities. Eating, scratching, drinking, working, sleeping, driving...these are all essential to furthering Man's life. A 36-hour erection marathon interferes with those functions! Besides, hasn't "Mr. Kenney" ever suffered from blue balls?

This guy's trying to sell something that no right-thinking man would ever want to buy! Assuming the drugs work as promised. I'd rather test my testicular fortitude on a strip club bender than waste money on that stuff.

UPDATED 7/23/2008 10:32am
More spammy-ness here.

Finally, an Austin Tax Issue to Be Proud Of!

Austin is slacking when it comes to taxes

With less than three weeks left to the income tax deadline, Austin is dragging its feet.

According to the makers of Turbo Tax, Austin ranks fifth among America's top 10 tax procrastinating cities.

Other Texas cities also ranked high on the list.

Houston came in first, Dallas was number seven and San Antonio ranked ninth.

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


I wonder what the IRS would do if an entire city decided to get together and just not report income and pay federal taxes? Does it have the resources (along with what I assume would have to be FBI, Treasury, and U.S. Marshal involvement) to arrest, indict, and try thousands of tax resisters at once? It isn't like the feds have acted modestly in the past against tax offenders.

I resent the implication that Americans have a duty to pay income taxes. It wasn't always like this.

My father handles the family taxes through his local contacts in New Braunfels, so all I have to do is send him my forms and wait. And ponder the waste, fraud, misuse, and abuse a portion of my income suffers through.

Go Fish (elsewhere)!

Leaders seek federal funding for transportation projects

Almost two dozen Central Texas leaders traveled to Washington D.C. on Monday to discuss transportation issues with U.S. legislators.

The delegation is made up of area business leaders and elected officials who want federal funding to pay for mobility projects that could curb traffic on major roads such as MoPac.

So a local problem should be pushed onto the shoulders of the federal government, and by extension, onto the shoulders of national taxpayers? Odd concept.

Does this work in reverse? How about forcing people in El Paso to help pay for the winter road maintenance budgets of the northeast states? Knowing scarce resources are being taken away to pay for things most will never have the chance benefit from...then again, considering the thousands of things federal taxpayers pay for and the relative quiet on the limited government front, I wouldn't be surprised to learn most people'd just shrug it off.

Rush hour traffic on MoPac is so thick, in fact, that it drove Susan Pickett to move.

"I found that the traffic was taking too much of my time, so we ended up moving closer to the schools to avoid traffic on MoPac," she said.


An example of the exit problems involved with government-run projects.
"Our congressional delegation needs to understand our priorities here in Central Texas," Austin Mayor Will Wynn said.

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


Assuming they're from Austin, of course they know what issues the city faces. I bet they get to hear from hundreds of bitching constituents every week, explaining how only a little more government involvement might fix things in their bedroom, neighborhood, and local grocery store.

But why go begging to the federal government for local concerns? It would be far more honest if Mr. Wynn toured Texas asking for spare change to go towards Austin's transportation problems.

It would certainly lead to a far more honest outcome.

Tower Records Leaving the Drag

Tower Records to close in June

For 13 years, Tower Records has been a source of music for students at The University of Texas.

But the times are changing. More people are turning to the Internet for their music purchases.

"If you can order it online, why leave the house, go to a store and waste your time?" student Adam Cocek said.

"I don't want to waste $15 to buy 19 songs when I only want one," student Ben Hayes said.


Raw expressions of free market cornerstones. Why waste money and time, indeed, when you can acquire the goods and services you want other ways? Though these students aren't likely to be economists, they should ponder the larger implications of their statements.
"Frankly, I don't think I need to pay for music because the artists are making millions of dollars anyway," said student Rohan Shah.

An unfortunate misconception because the vast majority of musicians are not millionares. Of course, he could be talking about the megastars. Regardless, Mr. Shah should also ponder what he's saying here. To him, some people make enough money and they don't deserve any more whether they earn it or not. Does he have a objective standard that he uses to judge who makes enough, who doesn't, and who's needlessly wealthy? If so, how did he arrive at that measurement and why is that measurement important?

If he doesn't, then perhaps he'd like to hear an angry homeless person's opinion of his social status as a consumer of higher education in one of America's nicer cities with the money and time to burn to enjoy music...

If you can't beat them, join them -- that's the mindset at Waterloo Records.

The store added iPod listening stations and offers song downloading on its Web site.

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


Neat! I wasn't aware of this. You can buy physical copies here or use their Liquid Audio store and buy single tracks priced in the $1 range.

von Mises Book Bonanza!

I was tinkering around the Mises Blog last week and came across this entry where the Institute decided to sell off copies of Rothbard's Making Economic Sense for one cent because the books they have on hand have "brittle bindings" but are otherwise new.

So I decided to jump on the deal (especially considering the number of books I already own and haven't even started yet...), and was pleasantly surprised to discover many of the books they have for sale are very inexpensive.

So I went nuts.

For the low, low price of $38.76 (including S&H), I received through UPS:

  1. Making Economic Sense by Murray Rothbard
  2. Education: Free and Compulsory by Murray Rothbard
  3. The Economics of Liberty by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
  4. Economic Science and the Austrian Method by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
  5. An Introduction to Austrian Economics by Thomas C. Taylor
  6. The Philosophical Origins of Austrian Economics by David Gordon
  7. Mises and Austrian Economics: A Personal View by Ron Paul

Seven works for less than $40. Most of them aren't book-length, but the breadth of the topics is what I need at the moment.

I read Congressman Paul's booklet first, confirming the belief in my mind that he's probably the only decent elected official in Washington, D.C. and even though the booklet was written in the mid-80's, the tone he takes with the Reagan Administration could be just as easily applied to the Bush Administration.

I started Taylor's Introduction book and didn't get far before it was Evangelion time, but I look forward to getting his overview and perspective before hitting the heftier works.

March 29, 2004

Website Maintenance

I'm switching host servers within my host's system and need to update my DNS configuration to point to the new server. I don't know how long or if things will act screwy, though Register.com says anywhere between 24 and 72 hours.

Be back later.

UPDATE(1:27pm)
Meaning, in case yer bored, go check out Noam Chomsky's blog, "Turning the Tide." Expect hilarity to ensure.

Don't forget to hold your nose when wading in. Many of the comments threads already crest 150 posts.

UPDATE(3/29/1:47pm)
Looks like Noam disabled commenting for the time being. A pity.

I think all the kinks have been worked out of the server move. That was an unnerving 72 hours...

Diesel Days Are Here Again...

[Updates below.]

[This is a repost. Original article and comments lost after the recent server move.]

Gas Price Hits Record High Again -AAA


For the second consecutive day, the price at the pump for U.S. regular gasoline hit a record high, the American Automobile Association said on Wednesday.

The average price for regular gas hit $1.74 a gallon, up two-tenths of a cent from the prior record reported just Tuesday in the AAA's survey of more than 60,000 stations. The high before that had been set late last summer.

The U.S. government has already warned retail prices would average $1.83 per gallon in April and May, even before the summer driving season, which traditionally begins on the Memorial Day weekend in late May.

Copyright 2004 Reuters News Service. All rights reserved.


Once I get my car back from the body shop (revised estimate: $2,300+), I can once again enjoy my awesome mileage in the low 50's to high 40's. Even better, it is often the case that diesel costs little more than super grade gasoline, frequently coming under or matching the price of regular unleaded. The fuel cost of operating passenger diesel vehicles is low.

There is the issue of the diesel smell...but being able to literally smoke tailgaters more than makes up for it. :)

UPDATE(5/20/2004 4:28pm)
Unfortunately, the government continues to meddle in the diesel market. But at least we have purposeful individuals willing to do the right thing to find lower fuel prices.

City of Austin Survey on Building Regulations

[Updates below.]
[This is a repost. Original article lost after the recent server move.]

You can take the survey here. Flex those statist muscles! See what it feels like to just decide to force businesses to adopt the standards you feel they should adopt.

My prior comments on the issue of City-imposed design standards still stand. I oppose this.

I took the survey and left this comment:

If the City of Austin decides to further burden the businesses of this area with additional regulations based on the flimsy premise that the subjective issue of aesthetics is a government concern, the City of Austin might as well drop it's pro-growth lip-service now and avoid the embarrassment of standing proud in hypocrisy.

UPDATE(5/18/2004 11:22am)
The results are in. About 84% of the 5,495 survey respondents said they'd at least like "to see all buildings of a certain size or in certain areas subject to some design regulations."

Michael Newdow vs The Pledge of Allegiance

[This is a repost. Original article and comment lost after the recent server move.]

[Updates below.]

Supreme Court to Consider Pledge's 'Under God' Phrase


The U.S. Supreme Court considers on Wednesday whether the words "under God" must be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance during its recitation in public schools, an important case on church-state separation.

I posted about this briefly last year, but now the case is going to the Supreme Court today.

Last Friday, I watched part of a discussion between Newdow and Aden on the merits of the case. C-SPAN (who cut out halfway through it to air something else, tha bastards) had coverage, as did the Washington Times:


A key court member in the matter of Elk Grove Unified School District vs. Newdow, the Supreme Court case contesting the controversial "under God" clause in the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance, participated in an American University forum Thursday to discuss the forthcoming dispute.

The discussion featured plaintiff Michael Newdow, the Sacramento, Calif. atheist contesting the pledge's secularity, and Steven H. Aden of the Christian Legal Society representing the government's position. American University Law Professor Stephen Wermiel moderated the hourlong event.

[...]

If upheld by the Supreme Court, which will begin hearing the case on March 24, the omission would continue to apply in Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Alaska, Hawaii, California and perhaps nationally. Justice Antonin Scalia, who publicly criticized the 9th Circuit's ruling, subsequently recused himself from the hearing, leaving the court with just eight justices to decide the case. A potential 4-4 decision in Elk Grove vs. Newdow would then carry the weight of a majority vote, thus continuing the ban.

© 2004 News World Communications, Inc.


Information regarding the case:
  • Jurist links to this summary of the case, which contains links to the PDF briefs for Dr. Newdow, the Solicitor General, and the Elk Grove Unified School District.
  • Also linked is this history of the pledge case on the Restore our Pledge of Allegiance website. Not unbiased, but a useful guide to the actions leading up to today.
  • Howard Bashman has three link-filled posts concerned mostly with opinion pieces and "day of" specials in newspapers.

    Where do I stand on this? I side with Dr. Newdow, especially after the ridiculous displays of faith GOP politicians went through after the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the pledge to be unconstitutional.

    A Big Case Over Two Little Words


    When Michael A. Newdow urges the Supreme Court today to ban the mandatory recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools, he will be up against not only the Elk Grove (Calif.) Unified School District, where his daughter attends classes.

    Newdow will also be battling the school district's supporters: the Bush administration, the Republican and Democratic leaders of Congress, dozens of members of both the House and the Senate, the governments of all 50 states, the National Education Association, and even a group billed as "Grassfire.net and Hundreds of Thousands of Americans."

    But the California atheist does have one advantage -- consistency.

    An unabashed proponent of extirpating all religious references from public life, Newdow has no problem standing before the court and urging it to edit "under God" out of the pledge, even if that logic, extended, would probably doom "In God We Trust" on currency and even the cry of "God save the United States and this honorable court," with which the Supreme Court commences its work each day.

    His opponents, by contrast, must negotiate a minefield of Supreme Court precedents that have interpreted the constitutional prohibition on the official establishment of religion to mean that government must stay neutral among religious beliefs, avoid actions that have the purpose or effect of endorsing any religious belief, and refrain from coercing individual citizens to express a religious belief.

    © 2004 The Washington Post Company


    Consistency and logic are what should rule the day, not how many people support keeping the pledge as it is, not about removing religion from "public life", and not about being anti-tradition. It's about keeping the government out of the religion business.

    As I said back in my post about Texas passing a law requiring students to recite the pledge:

    The fundamental question all people must face at some point is whether or not they believe in Gawd. Not any specific Gawd, but just whether they believe in one, many, or none. It's the fork in the intellectual road: faith in this or faith in this? To have those words in the Pledge of Allegiance is to have that choice made for us...to establish then and there that there is a Gawd and that Gawd has certain qualities. For example:

    • It is concerned with human life.
    • It protects those who merit protection.
    • It has power that extends beyond human ability.
    It explicitly establishes a theocracy and I don't mean that as hyperbole. If the nation is "under God" then the nation, it's laws, and it's citizens are also "under God" as well, meaning we are subservient to It and lesser than It. Arguments that the insertion is a symbolic gesture miss the point entirely. The government has NO RIGHT to establish these things and certainly NO RIGHT to try and force people to follow them and recite them.
    I'd only change this from that passage: the fundamental question is to have faith or not. The substance of that faith is unimportant at this juncture. Once the establishment of faith is accomplished, you've taken the single biggest step. And when it's the state that is taking that step by making it obvious it assumes there is a Gawd, the state has lost it's neutrality.

    Even worse, you've got arguments saying that the reason this case is important is because the pledge affirms the idea that our rights are derived from Christianity. That stance is abhorrent on a number of grounds:

    1. If rights are derived from the existence and will of a superhuman entity, then that entity can just as easily take them away, ending the notion that those are "rights" to even begin with.
    2. If rights are derived from the existence and will of a superhuman entity, then the creation of those rights is entirely arbitrary and have no basis other than the whim of the entity. They would be, in other words, floating abstractions and it would be logically perilous to attempt consistency based on such a foundation.
    3. How do we determine what religion is the "correct one"? I can't begin to delve into the problems this question creates.

    Then there is the little problem I have of millions of children pledging Allegiance to a state that violates our rights every day.

    Kick ass today, Michael Newdow. I hope you win.

    UPDATE(3/25/2004 12:20pm)
    Howard Bashman is on a roll, posting numerous links to news articles around the country on this issue here and here. Several smaller posts are scattered inbetween.

    A lengthy excerpt from the Court's proceedings is available from the NYT here.

    UPDATE(6/15/2004 7:45am)
    Yeah, I heard about the court ruling in favor of the government and against Mr. Newdow...and on the rather lame grounds of not having legal standing to bring the case. But he won't take it sitting down.

    Newdow: We will challenge Pledge again.

    UPDATE(6/24/2004 1:29pm)
    Dr. Newdow isn't Giving Up

    UPDATED 9/14/2005 3:11pm
    Michael Newdow is at it again!
    U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton rules school pledge is unconstitutional

  • A Confusing Mess of Contradictions

    [Updates below]

    [This is a repost. Original article lost after the recent server move.]

    Do We Need Free Market Principles in Education?


    Monopolies or Competition?
    Supply and Demand or Price Controls?
    Market Demand or Government Demand?
    Pay Well for Quality or Pay MORE for Poor Quality?

    I am really pondering now, but I don't have an MBA.

    Recently the Governor of Texas set forth a proposal for incentives to promote excellence in education. Rewarding good behavior is a foundation for parenting, business, and society. Rewarding bad behavior only produces more bad behavior, right?

    Seems like a simple concept.


    Janelle Shepard, the author of this article, is the director of Texans For Texas. I suppose that's better than Chileans For Texas or Iowans For Texas. Don't want other people messin' in our affairs.

    Ms. Shepard asks a series of important questions at the beginning of her article. Given the way they are asked and the nature of the organization she runs, it would seem the answers she would use would be:

    • Do We Need Free Market Principles in Education? Yes
    • Monopolies or Competition? Competition
    • Supply and Demand or Price Controls? Supply and Demand
    • Market Demand or Government Demand? Market Demand
    • Pay Well for Quality or Pay MORE for Poor Quality? Pay Well for Quality

    What's her solution to the Texas educational trainwreck? Does she advocate abolishing the government grip, near-monopolistic as it is, on grade school education? Does she suggest we should eliminate the price controls of government regulation and taxation? Does she believe the market in education should be left alone by government interference and demands? Does she say we should take responsibility and pay for the services we desire rather than forcing others to share the burden, whether those services are cheap, expensive, high quality, or poor quality?

    In other words, does she truly propose we apply free market principles to public education?

    No.

    The state should:


    1. Establish statewide training requirements only when it is clear that one mode of training is most effective in all cases.
    2. Allow experimentation not only with new ways of training and certifying teachers and principals but also with new ways of assigning, compensating, and evaluating them.
    3. Make teaching and school leadership attractive to people who want to be judged and paid on the basis of performance.
    4. Eliminate job protection for experienced teachers whose efforts fall off. Performance should be expected throughout one's classroom career, not just at the beginning.
    5. De-couple pay from seniority.
    6. Signal the importance of performance by paying for it.
    7. Allow schools to experiment with new combinations of teaching and technology.
    8. Recruit principals who are effective executives, seeking them in many fields, not only education.

    She chooses to re-engage the state in increasing administrative minutiae, trying to encourage better behavior with "incentives" that she erroneously considers to be free market-like.

    It's the equivalent of complaining about the dangers of a loaded handgun being pointed at your head, and then being relieved when the person pointing the gun at your head is replaced with someone else. Her proposed ideas don't address the fundamental problem of having the government (be it federal, state, or local) run and fund schools: other people messin' with our affairs.

    UPDATE(5/4/2004 9:07am)
    I did some quick 'n dirty educational cost calculations of my own.

    Ted Kennedy's Priorities

    [This is a repost. Original article lost after the recent server move.]

    From last night's Meet the Press:


    (Videotape, March 19, 2004)

    PRES. BUSH: Who would prefer that Saddam's torture chamber still be open? Who would wish that more mass graves were still being filled? Who would begrudge the Iraqi people their long-awaited liberation?

    (End videotape)

    MR. RUSSERT: What the president's saying, Senator, if you had your way the torture chambers, the mass graves, and the hostile holding of the Iraqi people by Saddam Hussein would still be in place.

    SEN. KENNEDY: Look, this nation, this president, brought us unilaterally to war. They have had a unilateral foreign policy where they rejected the Kyoto treaty, they got out of the ABM treaty, they have basically taken us to war alone, and that has fracture the whole alliance, the whole world community, from having the kind of cooperation that is absolutely essential if we're going to deal with the problems of terror and al-Qaeda in the world.

    Sure, there are dictators that we want to free ourselves from. But, you know, we have sacrificed in terms of lives, American lives, we have sacrificed in terms of treasure and we have most of all sacrificed in terms of the credibility of the United States around the world.


    My emphasis.

    Lives. Treasure. Important things, yes. But Gawd forbid we squander international credibility!

    Bye Bye, Asshole

    [This is a repost. Original article and comments lost after the recent server move.]

    Hamas Vows Revenge After Israel Kills Sheikh Yassin


    Israel assassinated Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin Monday, striking its heaviest blow against the Palestinian Islamic militant group behind dozens of suicide bombings and provoking threats of revenge.

    Israeli security sources said Prime Minister Ariel Sharon personally ordered and monitored the helicopter attack on the paralyzed cleric, whose wheelchair lay smashed in a pool of blood after three missiles exploded outside a Gaza mosque.

    Hamas, which is committed to Israel's destruction, has killed hundreds of people in a decade of suicide attacks. But previous assassinations have triggered more bombings and deepened violence that has stalled U.S.-backed peace moves.

    The assassination was Israel's biggest since the April 1988 killing in Tunis of Palestinian commando chief Abu Jihad. At least seven other people were killed in the Gaza strike and two of Yassin's sons were among the 15 wounded.

    Copyright 2004 Reuters News Service. All rights reserved.

    Some caveats:

  • I doubt this will lessen anti-Israeli terrorist attacks in the short run, say 3-9 months. It'll probably make them worse. The majority of Palestinians love retaliation as much as hawkish Israelis do.
  • Taking Yassin out won't dismantle Hamas by any meaningful degree, assuming he was as much a figurehead as reports suggest. He provided the Kindly Old Man spokesperson for media contact.
  • I believe it would have been more proper for the families of those killed or injured by Hamas attacks to have gotten together and taken care of him by themselves, rather than socializing the costs.

    However, the man almost worshipped violence inspired to create political change. Change that was ultimately intended to wipe out Israel as we know it, along with the Jews living there. He was a terrorist, a terrorist apologist, and willing leader and inspiration for Palestinian terrorists.

    Good riddance.

  • The Internationalization of Iraq?

    [This is a repost. Original article and comment lost after the recent server move.]

    I hear from the Democrats that the US has been too "unilateral" in it's actions towards Iraq and as a corrective measure they generally endorse outright or imply, we should "internationalize" the occupation forces. We should hand over transition authority to the United Nations or something; get more countries involved.

    But if you examine the current discussion around the Madrid terrorist bombings, it seems a great deal of people believe the attacks were carried out primarily because Spain was militarily involved in the war. There is also talk of al Qaeda (whom it's believed is either tied to the group that did the attacks or directly responsible) openly pondering terrorism on other nations that supported the US in Iraq, such as Britain, Australia, Italy, or Japan. So step back and add two and two together.

    If we reconfigure our strategy and go all multilateral on Iraq's ass, doesn't that mean all of a sudden our terrorist enemies will have a much greater selection of nations to attack? Doesn't that mean we expose the nations in the internationalized force to direct reprisal? Wouldn't that be a serious consequence worth considering before just falling back on one of the most irritating default Democratic positions: that any efforts abroad be done in coalitions and through multilateral institutions?

    It is well-known that large majorities in most western industrialized nations (the ones most likely to participate in any such coalition action) are opposed to Iraq War II and are facing tough financial times. Wouldn't it be in their interest to want to stay out of the Mesopotamian Meat Grinder? Wouldn't it be in the interests of their political leaders? Domestically, it isn't hard to draw a line from Democratic statements to the outcome of reducing US troop losses...and thereby increasing the proportion of casualties other nations suffer. It often seems the Democrats are more aligned with the political systems of other nations than ours, but the stance they take on the Big Issue of the day would necessarily cause harm to the armed forces of those nations and further expose them to terrorist attack.

    So why advocate such a course of action?

    March 19, 2004

    The Anniversary of the Iraq War

    Back when I began this blog, I supported going to war in Iraq, all the way up to the initiation of hostilities. I did this on several grounds. Here they are in order of importance:

    • I believed Iraq posed a demonstrable threat to the United States by it's weapons of mass destruction.
    • I believed Iraq was complicit in an international terrorist network that threatened the United States.
    • I wanted to see Saddam Hussein removed from power and individual liberty restored to it's people.
    • I wanted to see the Arab Middle East undergo a fundamental change away from tyranny and towards freedom and believed Iraq would be the initial "domino" that moved the others towards the correct way.

    Since that time, I have undergone a fairly significant philosophical change. Independent from the situation in Iraq, I began to question if my positions on some political issues contradicted my positions on others. If that were the case, then I'd have to rethink my principles and either reconcile them with my stance on the issues or adopt new ones. Since that time, I've remained convinced my principles are fine...it's my application of them that needed work.

    I once described myself (on a my much lesser personal website) as "a screwy mix of Republican/Democrat and Libertarian/Green Parties! You never know where I'll lean!" That was the initial realization that I couldn't identify with any major political party and that if questioned on only one or two issues, I could come off as just about anything. I realize now that "screwy mix" was due to two things: the misunderstanding of what those parties actually stand for and an inability to logically apply what I considered to be axiomatically true to human action.

    These days, when taking yes/no stances on most issues, my political alignment would be indistinguishable from libertarianism. As I ventured further into the blog world, I discovered other bloggers and writers who I'd normally agree with on domestic economic and social issues taking stances that contradicted what I believed to be the correct course of action towards other countries. This was the problem. Was I to be an interventionist libertarian or an isolationist libertarian? By default, I was the former. It took me two years to realize I wasn't asking the proper question. But even before then, I began to question the US government's actions and plans.

    The proper question I should have asked is why should others be forced to pay for what I want to happen to other people and other governments? I find myself talking about the injustice of socialized healthcare and the socialized education often; it came to be that I realized I was contradicting myself if I held those positions and turned around to say a government and it's objectives should be supported by taxation.

    I supported the intended outcomes of Gulf War II. I wanted a safer, freer world. I still do. But the means by which I advocated that to happen are anything but. Ends do not justify means.

    So, on this first anniversary of the second American-Iraq War, I choose to formally drop my support of continued foreign occupation and intervention. In my opinion, the only just thing to do at this point is to do what should have been done in the first place: let the Iraqis choose their own destinies and decide if they want freedom, limited government, social democracy, religious tyranny, or any of the options among them. Questions of Iraq supporting international terrorists, WMD, or regional liberty don't necessitate my attention because I am concerned with myself and my freedom first and I don't want to impose on the liberty of others in order to fight the battles that rightly belong to the parties actually injured.

    In abstract, it's entirely possible a terrorist would delight in killing or harming myself or the things I value. I don't discount that from occurring. But I shouldn't have to pay for the retribution or protection of others and I demand no such favors in return. Such a stance implies anarcho-capitalism and that does not bother me.

    What bothers me is an ever-increasing state apparatus and ever-decreasing degree of personal freedom.

    March 17, 2004

    Making Sense of 'Making Light'

    [Updates below.]

    You can't simultaneously attack the NEA and claim you support teachers.

    -Teresa Nielsen Hayden

    I call bullshit.

    I consider a person's education to be one of the most important qualities they possess. A strong knowledge of history, effective arithmetic skills, and coherent communication abilities are, among other things, crucial to anyone who wants to go beyond everyday labor and living and lift themselves to a higher standard of living. I'm of the opinion that the intrinsic strengths young humans have can only take them so far without professional direction. The distance they may go before peaking might be considerable, but humans start off with a lack of understanding about the world around them and it sometimes takes a third party to bring awareness of the world to them. This is doubly true when you wish to expand your horizons beyond just being able to get by in life.

    Educators, therefore, are important. High-quality, intelligent teachers and instructors are needed. And when enough of them are in existence, common goals and interests are likely to produce associations that work together to further their goals. These associations are abstractions, socially-constructed entities that cannot, by their nature, represent every person associated with them 100% nor appeal to everyone outside the association. The National Education Association is no different.

    What is the purpose of the NEA?

    To fulfill the promise of a democratic society, the National Education Association shall promote the cause of quality public education and advance the profession of education; expand the rights and further the interest of educational employees; and advocate human, civil, and economic rights for all.

    That is it's current mission statement. Elevating "the character and advance the interests of the profession of teaching and to promote the cause of popular education in the United States" was a founding motto back in 1857. Who can join the NEA?
    Anyone who works for a public school district, a college or university, or any other public institution devoted primarily to education is eligible to join NEA. NEA also has special membership categories for retired educators and college students studying to become teachers.

    So there are the basic characteristics of the NEA: what it does and who it represents. Anyone with the time can read through the NEA's take on various issues.

    I note that it's obvious there is a fundamental slant at the base of the NEA's structure: it supports public education (read: government-run schools) and opposes shifting the system of education from the state to the private sector, even if that shift is limited to a few school-supporting services. Thus, the NEA is actively associated with continuing and promoting socialist education. I mean no insult in saying that; it's simply the truth.

    From my point of view, the government does not belong in the education system at all. Therefore, I could foresee myself "attacking" the NEA at some point in the future for a policy or a statement. I wouldn't call it a "terrorist organization," but I might call it "misguided" or label it's stance on some issues "egalitarian nonsense." I venture that I'd have many beefs with the National Education Association, primarily because it and the vast majority of it's members believe I must be forced to provide for the educations of others and others must be forced to provide for my education. Up to a certain age, of course. Don't wanna get too crazy with all that coerced wealth transfer...

    And yet I have plainly explained my support for teachers as demonstrated above. I support free individuals deciding to provide a service to those who want to buy that service. I support people who wish to enter into a profession for the purpose of helping children and adults increase their knowledge of the world. I support parents having the liberty to choose among institutions of education to pick the best options for their family.

    I support teachers. I don't support the continued collectivization of education in this country. I hope this makes sense to Mrs. Hayden. It makes a lot of sense to me.

    UPDATE 9/24/2004 10:50am
    Oh boy. Go read the Vice article written by Gavin McInnes: Trenchcoat Mafia - The NEA Is Here to Shoot Up Your Classroom

    In Sacramento recently they threatened to destroy anyone who opposed them, even an eight-year-old boy (a lawsuit is pending). In Indiana they hired a tire slasher to become one of their members and he immediately got to work destroying any car owner that stood in the way. In Michigan they killed a pet cat to show the owner what happens to blabbermouths. They have goldplated champagne coolers, lavish holidays all over the globe, and more politicians in check than any group in the Western world (not even the Republicans and the Democrats have as many lobbyists on Capitol Hill). They only very recently started paying taxes, and the little tax they do pay is a minuscule fraction of their annual income. They are above the law, make over a billion dollars a year, and control the hearts and minds of every newspaper in the country. They are the mafia. A group of chubby gluttons who squeeze the working man dry and then use that money to beat him further into submission. This is not the mafia featured on HBO. They're not even Italian. This mafia is actually a labor union known as the National Education Association (NEA). A gigantic, hydra-headed extortion machine that charges every teacher in America hundreds of dollars to "represent" them but is really only concerned with getting more money and crushing more opponents.

    March 16, 2004

    Liberty Mutual Rocks!

    I once said that USAA kicked ass. I've since left them to get my insurance coverage with Liberty Mutual (cheaper premiums) and after last weekend's lapse of personal responsibility, I called LM today to get the claims process started.

    Three words: Quick, easy, and painless. The woman I talked to was courteous and clear-spoken and had answers to all of my dumb questions. Of course, it helped to have almost all the info she wanted in mind before I called. I've already got a date with a body shop to get the TDI's damage estimated for tomorrow and it's hardly a block down from where I work.

    So far, so good...

    March 15, 2004

    My Lack of Personal Responsibility

    In the end, memories are all I have of the events and people I experience. It's the memories that matter most to me. They may be unpleasant, funny, or unsettling, but at least I have them and an internal record to refer to. That's why my problem with alcohol is so troubling.

    I didn't notice it until two years ago. I was at a friend's party and we were all drinking. I guess that night I surpassed my previous limits because I awoke outside the house and didn't know how I got there. Even worse, I couldn't remember anything that happened about an hour before I fell asleep. My friends told stories of me acting silly and how we all laughed, but I couldn't remember. I brushed it off as an anomaly and went on with my life.

    My memory lapse happened again a few months later under almost identical circumstances. Apparently I had gotten drunk with everyone and for perhaps an hour and a half before I fell asleep, I talked to two attractive women whom I had wanted to go out with. The three of us chatted about all sorts of things and they implied later the next day that some of them were somewhat personal. However, even though such an event would be important for me to remember, I couldn't recall any of it. That bothered me mainly because I wanted to know what I let slip out and if I had said anything embarrassing. In addition, the idea of going through a blackout annoyed me, as if I were above such weaknesses. But since I had essentially been under supervision, I didn't let it get to me.

    These memory holes began appearing about twice a year and they all involved situations where I had been drinking enough to prevent my mind from storing memories, but not enough to set off alarms with my friends; I was always outwardly fine. Certainly drunk, but none of my friends considered me a risk to myself or others. There was even been a time I drove a friend and myself to Denny's after a night at the pub, drove back, and made it to my friend's apartment, spending the night there...the whole time driving fine and holding respectable and coherent conversations. The next day, I didn't remember a thing after arriving at the restaurant. My friend had to tell me what happened.

    It was after that incident that I began to worry about the memory thing. If I couldn't remember an activity as complex and demanding as driving my car (and according to my friend, driving while an Austin police car was behind us), even though 80% of the time I'm drinking is at that friend's apartment or within four miles of it, I was concerned I might hurt something or someone and not be able to do anything about it. Or get in trouble and forget what happened. Or forget something somewhere and lose it forever. Just pick a potential horror story and play with the possibilities. None of these memory blackouts came with a hangover stronger than a mild headache and a dry mouth from snoring...to the best of my ability to remember, I did not damage property or cause pain to people. Go Ask Alice describes this more succinctly. I indeed suffer from some sort of alcohol-induced periods of amnesia. Still, it hasn't changed my behavior to any great extent. It's been this way for a while now. I was comfortable with it.

    So last Saturday, some of my friends went to an early St. Patrick's Day party off 51st street between Airport Blvd and Lamar Blvd, to the east of Whitaker Fields. The plan was to visit and hang out for an hour or two and then head over to the Poodle Dog Lounge to check out a band performing that night. We got to the party when it started at 8pm. The friend I drove with believes we left between 11pm and midnight. I don't remember when we left.

    I do remember trying the ice luge with Rumplemintz, Jägermeister, and Hpnotiq. I had two cups of beer mixed in between and I munched on some of the snacks. I had finished off three bottles of ZeigenBock before we left. I was not sober by any means, but I don't remember stumbling around, slurring my words, or throwing up and neither do my friends. I remember acting like a fool and directing traffic along 51st street; just waving cars along whether they were stopping by for the party or not. I remember not drinking any more after my second beer. I remember it lightly raining all day and part of the time we were there. I remember having fun and meeting a few new people. I remember a particularly attractive woman and how I wanted to draw her away from what I can only presume was the guy she came with.

    And then I remember waking up at my friend's apartment.

    My throat was a little sore, I was thirsty, and I had to piss. I sat up and looked at my watch, noting that it was early. Waking up at 9am after a party wasn't anything new to me, so I stood up and stretched and walked to the bathroom. When I got there, I became aware of a growing pain in my left knee. I looked down and my jeans were dirty and torn over the spot that hurt; it looked and felt like I had fallen on my kneecap. As I finished in the bathroom, I was seized by the realization that I didn't remember how it happened. I sat down on the couch and examined myself closer. The cut in the jeans was unusually "clean" and straight; it looked as though it had been done with scissors or a knife rather than a scrape with a rock or concrete. There was dried mud mostly below the cut, but it wasn't clumped in any quantity; rather, it looked as though it had came in contact with a slightly dirty wet street. My knee wasn't on fire at this point but the pain wasn't anything I could ignore. I pulled up my pant leg and gave it a look. It had scabbed over hours ago and the scab covered most of the skin directly south of the patella. There was light bruising around the sides and the whole joint was beginning to get stiff.

    I couldn't remember what happened at all. Worried, I stood up and peeked in my friend's room and he was there, sleeping. The things we brought in when we got back were strewn haphazardly about the floor in the living room. I picked up my keys, put on my shoes gingerly, and walked outside. I semi-limped over to my car and gave it a once-over. I didn't remember parking it. I didn't remember driving it. And I did not remember what had happened to the right front wheel well and bumper.

    I was missing my VW wheel cover and a piece of plastic bulkhead separating the wheel well from the engine compartment. The bumper had been knocked out of alignment and there was a puncture-crack from the inside. Looking closer at the area where the plastic was missing, I saw what appeared to be my intercooler (it's essentially the radiator-looking thing in this picture) and one of it's corners was aligned were the puncture came through the bumper. The street grime had been wiped away from the right corner of the front bumper and the lower piece of black trim under the bumper had been dislocated. The black steel rim had a rather nasty dent in it along the edge where it contacts the tire, which was dented and scraped as well. I had left my car stereo faceplate attached to the stereo and my cell phone had been left on the steering column in front of my gauges. I have those things in place when I drive and I religiously remove them when I arrive at my destination.

    None of this I remember. There wasn't any blood or damage to the interior. No airbags had deployed. No vomit or broken glass on the floorboards. I was stunned and slowly limp-walked back to his apartment. I poured myself a small glass of water and nursed it for a few minutes, wondering what I had done.

    He woke up shortly later and I immediately asked him what happened. Unfortunately, he wasn't in any condition to remember much because he had consumed too much hard alcohol too quickly and spent the last half of the evening sitting down, occasionally vomiting and sipping water. He couldn't recall what happened to my knee, but he did remember parts of the car accident. We talked about it for a while and decided to get something to eat and stop by the house the party was held at to see if the street we parked on had any clues.

    After quietly eating at Schlotzsky's, he and I visited the crash site. The best we could figure out: when we left, I drove straight down that street we parked on, driving away from 51st. The street T-bones into another street and I didn't slow down and make the left turn properly, sliding into the curb and bouncing up onto someone's property. The right front tire left a trail leading up from the curb in an arc back down to the street through the grass. He and I were damn lucky. An inch to the right and I would have hit a tree. A foot to the right and we would have hit a telephone pole. Had I driven straight over the curb, and we would have plowed right through that person's fence and into their front lawn. Judging from the dent in the rim and the trail my front tire made in the wet grass, I was probably going about 10-15 miles per hour. I didn't see any slip or skid marks. We found and picked up the hubcap and the piece of plastic separating the wheel well from the engine compartment. Both were cracked.

    My friend said after the accident I drove on and pulled up to the next stop sign and checked my car. I don't remember any of it. I know that normally, I would have gone back to pick up my wheel cover after losing it, but I guess that didn't occur to me. Maybe I didn't see the wheel damage. Perhaps I had wanted to just get the hell out of there. Upon driving around the area again, I noticed that another, much more obvious, route back to 51st street (an immediate left onto a connecting road rather than driving to the T-bone) would have been a better idea than going straight.

    As for my knee, we still have no idea. Everyone I've talked to said I was acting and talking fine before we drove off and when I said my goodbyes. I wasn't hurt anywhere else; no scrapes on my palms or anything. My jeans had only one spot on them where there was blood and dirt, and that was over the knee that got hurt. The material was also cleanly cut right across the knee cap...no way the "fall" could have caused that cut. There was some dirt ground into the wound. No marks in the car leading me to think it happened during the accident. Fucking thing still hurts and I don't have any bandages big enough to cover the wound in one piece. I contacted the other friends we drove with (they took their own car) and they don't remember what happened to us either, though they did say I wasn't acting any differently that I had in the past when drinking.

    This is damn scary, dear readers. At least two significant events happened to me that night and even after attempting to jog my brain by revisiting the scene of the accident and the house that hosted the party, I cannot remember anything. Even worse, now that I've been able to visualize what might have happened, I can picture the car wreck occurring. I can't tell if what I might be able to remember is any different from the mental projection of what probably happened. I can't be sure anything I recall now (if I'm able in the future) can be reliably compared to what happened. A few hours of my life were "disappeared." My friend and I could have gotten badly injured, I could have flat-out wrecked my car; any number of ugly things might have taken place.

    I used to have a principle to which I held firm from high school until I moved back to Austin in 2001. I promised myself that I would not drink AT ALL if I were driving. I would abstain entirely from drinking and any other drugs if I was the designated driver...and I was the DD quite often. I still am to this day as I took it upon myself to be in charge of transportation. I'd rather be in control of my life than leave it to someone else whom I couldn't be certain of. I've long since violated that principle regularly over the last few years because I knew I was able to handle, two, three, up to five full pints at the pub and still be completely fine to drive myself and my friends home.

    I recognized that it was too strict to deny myself alcohol on every occasion because I had demonstrated many times over that my capacity to drink responsibly was large enough to fit short range, city speed driving into my plate if I wanted to. And after months and months of being the sober guy, I wanted to participate as well.

    I'm not screwing about anymore with drinking and drinking. Not after this. I've spent a good deal of time reflecting how lucky I was things turned out the way they did. The party was hardly a ten minute drive from my friend's apartment, but a cab should have been called to take us home. Taxi fare split between us would have been so much better than the body shop estimate I fear I'll face. We should have slept over and handed my keys to the host and hostess. I can't trust myself beyond one or two drinks anymore, if even that. If my friends can't distinguish between my normal demeanor and my blackout demeanor - and I certainly cannot - then I need to dramatically lower the bar and raise my standards.

    I have been deeply irresponsible and getting the fruits of my irresponsibility repaired is something I deserve.

    *Nelson Voice*

    Calif. Officials Nearly Fall for H2O Hoax

    Ha ha!

    March 13, 2004

    Link Collecting

    • Billy Beck points out the upward trend in collectively-enforced mindlessness.

    • Don Watkins discusses the rational and irrational aspects of his life and rededicates himself to his inner philosophy and then goes on the kick the bastard back who missed the whole point of his change of heart.

    • Ronald Bailey notes Bjørn Lomborg has been cleared of the nasty charges levied against him by the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty. I want to read The Skeptical Environmentalist even more now.

    • Captain Mojo demonstrates one direction the energies of creation went rather than towards sleek hover cars: assault weapons.

    • Joe at Coldfury publishes some wonderful quotes.

    Using the IRS to Squelch Free Speech

    Watchdog group reports church to IRS for political rally

    A religious liberty watchdog group accused the Westover Hills Church of Christ in Austin of violating Internal Revenue Service rules by allowing the Legacy Political Action Committee to hold a fund-raiser in its sanctuary.

    Rob Boston, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the IRS code prohibits tax-exempt organizations from intervening in political campaigns.

    A member of Legacy PAC, which supports anti-abortion candidates, said the church had nothing to do with the event. Bill Crocker said the PAC rented the church.

    Copyright 2004 Associated Press, All rights reserved.
    Copyright ©2004TWEAN News Channel of Austin, L.P. d.b.a. News 8 Austin


    I don't particularly care what the motives are of the AUSCS when they did this. I support keeping the state completely separate from religion in regards to the state forcing people to engage in or disengage from religious activity. But I don't support laws and people who use laws that attempt to prohibit speech or free association.

    From the AUSCS press release:

    In a formal complaint to the Internal Revenue Service today, Americans United asserted that the Westover Hills Church of Christ engaged in illegal partisan politicking by allowing Legacy PAC to hold a Feb. 5 "Call to Victory" event at the church. The meeting featured state Republican Party officials and GOP candidates, and during the event, the PAC collected money for Republican campaigns.

    Federal tax law prohibits 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations, including churches, from intervening in political campaigns on behalf of candidates for public office.


    I see a few things that can be done to fix the problem:
    1. Change the law so it doesn't discriminate between tax-exempt and non-exempt organizations.
    2. Eliminate tax exemptions entirely and tax all organizations and individuals equally.
    3. Repeal the Federal Election Commission and the body of law surrounding it.
    4. Abolish taxation, the IRS, and the body of law surrounding the two.

    They are, of course, listed in the order of their likelihood of passing.
    The partisan character of the event at the Austin church was confirmed by William O. Pate, a local university student who attended "Call to Victory" and drafted a written summary of the meeting. The student's report of the event and documents about it from Legacy PAC's website were submitted to the IRS by Americans United.

    Two officials with the Texas Republican Party spoke at the event - party Chair Tina J. Benkiser and Treasurer Susan Howard Chrane. During their remarks, Benkiser and Chrane promoted Republican candidates, including President George W. Bush. Republican candidates also distributed literature and sought votes at the event, which opened with a prayer led by a church elder.

    During the meeting, an official with the Legacy PAC announced that he intended to collect $5,000 for Republican candidates in the church that night. Church collection plates were then passed through the pews.

    Said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, "I am shocked that politicians and clergy would convert a church sanctuary into a smoke-filled back room. Houses of worship are supposed to focus on winning souls, not winning elections."


    It's a good thing we have the Reverend Lynn here to remind us what churches are for. Perhaps he has something to say regarding nondenominational or nonreligious church outreach to disadvantaged or needy communities and people. Those activities have little to do with "winning souls."

    The irony of this incident should be obvious to anyone with adequate intellectual capabilities. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, according to their website was founded to educate "Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom." And yet what they've done by reporting this fundraiser to the IRS is to help restrict religious freedom; the freedom of religious organizations and churchgoers to actively use their property and minds to support political candidates that agree with them on the issues they feel are important.

    This AU page makes their motives clear to anyone still not on the same wavelength as I:

    Houses of worship and religious leaders may address political and social issues, but federal tax law bars most non-profit groups from endorsing or opposing candidates for public office. Churches, temples and mosques must refrain from outright electioneering. It is not the job of religious leaders to tell people which candidates to vote for or not vote for.

    This kind of mentality is at the root of the problem. They say they know what is proper for religious leaders to do. If the government stepped in and passed a law based on some assumption of what the right thing for religious leaders to do, the AUSCS would (hopefully) be outraged. But this is precisely what they advocate: the tyranny of others over peaceful and voluntary action.

    March 12, 2004

    Australia Bans Personal Sword Ownership

    Details at Catallarchy. For all practical purposes, this is a ban. Only as a "collector" can you own a sword now.

    C'mon, Aussies! Fight back against this crap.

    March 11, 2004

    The Madrid *Terrorist* Bombings

    Madrid Bombs Kill 192; Purported Al Qaeda Claim

    Simultaneous bomb blasts ripped through four packed commuter trains in Madrid on Thursday, killing 192 people and injuring 1,421 in Europe's bloodiest guerrilla attack for more than 15 years.

    My emphasis.

    I don't know what's wrong with the editors at Reuters or this story's author, Daniel Trotta. What happened in Madrid doesn't fit my definition of a guerrilla attack at all. This is terrorism, plain and simple. Guerrilla attacks are done in the context of a civil war, most often against military or government targets. What happened today doesn't fit that profile.

    Whoever thought that word accurately describes what happened is either lying to themselves and the public or knows something we don't. The ETA seperatist movement might be considered a guerrilla civil war, but as the article itself says:

    Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's government focused blame on the Basque separatist group ETA, but a purported al Qaeda letter to an Arabic newspaper claimed responsibility for the 10 blasts, which triggered jitters in world financial markets.

    [...]

    After initially blaming ETA outright for the attack, three days before Spain's general election, the government later said a stolen van had been found near Madrid carrying seven detonators and an Arabic tape of verses from the Koran.

    "The conclusion of this morning that pointed to (ETA) right now is still the main line of investigation... (But) I have given the security forces instructions not to rule out anything," Interior Minister Angel Acebes told reporters.

    No authentication was available on the purported al Qaeda letter, a copy of which was faxed to the Reuters office in Dubai by the London-based al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper.

    "We have succeeded in infiltrating the heart of crusader Europe and struck one of the bases of the crusader alliance," it said, calling the attack "Operation Death Trains."

    U.S. intelligence agencies said it was too early to say who was responsible but saw the hallmarks of both ETA and al Qaeda, which has threatened to attack countries such as Spain that supported the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

    Copyright 2004 Reuters News Service. All rights reserved.


    No one knows who is responsible for this, so the best description is to default to terrorism.

    In any case, it's a horrible day for Spain. It very well might be a new date in terrorist history: 3/11.

    I'm All for Property Rights...

    ...but occasionally the punishment for violating them outstrips what justice requires.

    Woman Gets Criminal Record for Petting Dog

    All Tamar Sherman wanted to do was pet a dog and give it some water. Sherman's act left her with a criminal record.

    A few months ago, Sherman was walking near her South San Jose home and encountered a dog left outside in the cold while its owners were inside.

    Sherman, a member of a national group called Dogs Deserve Better, decided to pet the dog on a few occassions and once gave it water. That didn't please the dog's owner.

    "When I went out there to fill up the dog bowl, this woman was standing in my back yard," attorney Ron Berki told the San Jose Mercury News. "My response was, 'Who ... are you?' She told me, 'I'm here to pet your dog.'"

    For that, Sherman pleaded guilty this week to two misdemeanors trespassing and prowling and was sentenced to 75 hours of community service and a year of probation. She also was ordered to stay at least 100 yards away from Berki's home.


    According to the article, this is a clear-cut case of trespassing. I wouldn't have pressed charges, but I wouldn't have a problem with a small fine of less than $50. But "prowling," 75 hours of community service, and a restraining order? Unless Sherman has a history of trespassing on private property, theft, assault, and other such crimes, I can't imagine any reason to sentence her so harshly.
    Berki denies that his dog, Bailey, was abused or neglected, saying the dog sleeps inside with him every night.

    "If Miss Sherman was so concerned about my dog, it would have been easy to come to my front door and speak to me directly," he said.

    Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.


    Quite right; that's what Ms. Sherman should have done. But without malicious intent (from the article, it's hard to find it), she doesn't deserve the punishment she received. A small fine perhaps.

    At the same time, I do enjoy hearing about strict property rights protection in the courts. I certainly don't see the courts doing this in enough cases...such as radio and television broadcasters.

    That attempted push to further the invasion of private property I watched live on C-SPAN during lunch today.

    Godless Americans' New PAC

    I was watching C-SPAN yesterday after work and it had switched from it's coverage of the House to the National Press Club. Interestingly, it was rebroadcasting the Tuesday announcement of the formation of the Godless Americans Political Action Committee. It's purpose:

    GAMPAC endorses candidates for public office who support the First Amendment separation of church and state; defend equal rights and protections for our nation's godless Americans; inform our community of the voting records of their elected representatives on issues of concern; and support our goal of having "a place at the table" in formulating public policy.

    In addition, GAMPAC will facilitate the training and development of those godless Americans seeking to bring their organizations talents to the field of electoral politics.


    The organization has a number of issues, both federal and state, already on display on it's website for people to read and take action upon.

    Doubtless, this formally adds one more to the list of "special interests" the government will have petitioning it for changes. And even though my regard for voting and democracy continues to wane, these people have got a great and important task ahead of them. There is a serious bias against nonreligious and atheist political candidates these days. It's an unmentioned insitiutional adversion to candidates and politicans and people who don't believe in mainstream religious beliefs or have none altogether.

    I wish GAMPAC luck in accomplishing it's goals.

    March 10, 2004

    The CD Settlement Money has Arrived

    Last year, I wrote about the CD pricing litigation settlement. I did apply for the fruits of the settlement when I blogged about it and I received the check earlier this week along with this letter:

    February 2004

    Dear Texas Music Purchaser:

    As Attorney General for the State of Texas, I am pleased to enclose payment for your claim in the settlement of the compact disc minimum advertised price antitrust litigation. This lawsuit was brought by the attorneys general of 43 states and three territories and by council for Private class Plaintiffs on behalf of purchasers of music CDs. In accordance with the terms of the court-approved settlement, payment is being made to music purchasers who filed a valid and timely claim.

    Whether you filed your claim online at the settlement website, www.MusicCDSettlement.com, or by mail, the attached payment represents full payment of your portion of the Settlement. Please note that the attached payment instrument must be cashed by May 20, 2004.

    It is a pleasure to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion and to return value to consumers who purchased CDs while the challenged pricing policies were in effect.

    Greg Abbot
    Attorney General of Texas


    My efforts netted me $13.86 and I deposited the money in the bank today. Note that the money is distributed regardless of how many CDs you bought from 1995 through 2000. I hadn't thought about this, but the money is also going to entities other than individuals: schools and libraries are also getting in on the action.

    My views regarding things like antitrust have changed since early January 2003. Charges of price-fixing don't resonate as much with as they used to because even in the event that record company CEOs conspired to keep compact disc, cassette, and vinyl prices higher than an otherwise untampered market would set, I still made my purchasing choices freely and without coercion. I might have complained about the cost of some albums (I remember a distinct anger/amazement my friends and I held towards Soundgarden and their label when the Superunknown tape cost almost $19 at Fort Knox's AAFES PX), but I still weighed my opportunity costs against getting what I considered a near-perfect album.

    That freedom - and the freedom of the distributors and retailers to name their own prices - matters more to me that getting a check in the mail anyday.

    Libertarian's Don't Have to be Utopians, Dammit

    Libertarianism to me is a matter of defending and extending the zones of free action, not dreaming up a utopian endstate that has no connection to the world we live in now.

    -Jesse Walker

    The Individualist Anarchists: A Critique of Liberalism

    While browsing a Halfprice Books store, I found this book for $5.98. It's written by William Gary Kline and it has dramatically increased my knowledge of the history of American anarchism. That subject didn't get any useful exposure when in my classes at school, something that I might have been just as receptive to as I am now.

    Some of the anecdotes are worth remembering, such as how "Rogues Island," one of the freer proto-colonies eventually became known as "Rhode Island."

    The book starts off with the death of Benjamin Tucker and the effective end of the Individualist Anarchist movement that he helped expand. It talks about Roger Williams and his slow withdrawal from his initial libertarian practices, thereby inciting a rebellion on the aforementioned Island. It discussed Anne Hutchinson and her desire for absolute religious freedom so each person could find their own salvation. Kline brought up William Penn and both his desire for freedom and his trouble in collect taxes from the Quakers. Some space was also reserved for Thomas Paine, who was, according to Benjamin Tucker, the first American anarchist.

    A much larger block of space was spent on Josiah Warren, now known as the father of American Anarchism. With his systemic approach, influenced by Robert Owen, he created a solid anarchist bedrock for others to follow. His successful Cincinnati Time Store (the medium of exchange was the labor-hour), his anarchist paper The Peaceful Revolutionist (apparently the first Individualist Anarchist publication of it's kind) and his experimental anarchist communities all drove the understanding and practical aspects of an authority-less society. Warren spoke of "enlightened self-interest" and his Equitable Commerce book was underpinned by the principle of individualism. Later on in his life, he did come to some acceptance of the state for "intervention for the sake of non-intervention" in self-defensive measures only. Warren opposed communism for it's attempts at forceful combination and collectivism and the book brought to my attention that his ideals were rejected by mainstream society even though at the time many agreed with what he thought should be done. Warren even had an impact on John Stuart Mill's conception of liberty and individualism.

    The book goes on to talk about Stephen Pearl Andrews and the vibrant life he lived and his strong Charles Fourier philosophical roots. He was an early American discoverer and first publisher of Marx, which lead to his odd quasi-Marxist view of massive state control eventually fading away to complete individual freedom. One of his insights, taken for granted and hotly debated these days, was the increasing interconnectedness of the world.

    Kline then moves on and devotes many pages to Lysander Spooner and his relative isolationism, his American Letter Mail Company and how it competed successfully against the US Postal Service until the feds imposed a fine on alternative mail carriers and left him broke during the legal battle, and his forays against slavery. Spooner advocated justice through individual reason and abandoned the Constitution on grounds that only those who consented to it had to follow it's commands. Kline quoted several excerpts from Spooner's No Treason essays and mentioned Spooner's radicalism extended to the advocacy of the Irish to violently resist British occupation. Kline emphasized his strong legalistic reasoning and natural law grounding.

    The book moves on to mention William B. Greene and his status as the founder of American Mutualism, his emphasis on free banking and his famous book Mutual Banking, and his break with other Individualist Anarchists on private property. Ezra Heywood and his pacifism get a mention as well as his widely read monthly The Word, his arrest by Anthony Comstock under the same-named law and his multiple arrests for obscenity and his advocacy of free love.

    A quick mention of Joshua King Ingalls and his "medieval" beliefs on landed property, his "occupancy and use" principle of property ownership, and his emphasis on the break up of the land monopoly gives way to the central character of the book's subject: Benjamin Tucker.

    Benjamin Tucker and his Liberty periodical get substantial mention in this book. It discusses how his exchanges and interactions with Warren, Greene, Heywood, Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Spooner, Mikhail Bakunin, and so many others created within him a deeply-held conviction and understanding of anarchism as well as his firm belief in the Individualist perspective. He translation of Proudhon's What is Property? and the respect it earned him was only increased with his fiery defense of the publishment of Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass against the suppression under the Comstock Laws; Tucker even went so far as to defiantly publishLeaves in Liberty and he wasn't charged or arrested for this, encouraging others to the same act of civil disobedience.

    The book discusses the almost formal and permanent break between Individualist Anarchists and Communist Anarchists over property theory and Tucker's rejection of labor-led "direct action" even though he supported the Haymarket indictees against the government. He rejected the idea of "community" on individualistic grounds and pushed Liberty to be a centralized market for all kinds of anarchist thought. However, Tucker favored a "plumb-line" adherence to Individualist Anarchist orthodoxy. Kline overviews Tucker's denouncement of religion on the basis of it's assumed earthly authority and his desire to avoid small anarchistic communities in favor of larger-scale reform.

    In the same chapters, Kline discusses the other anarchists Tucker came into contact with, such as Victor Yarros, Joseph A. Labadie, the Alan Kelly, John Kelly, and Gertrude Kelly brothers, J.H. Swain, Henry Appleton, John William Lloyd, M. E. Lazarus, Edwin C. Walker, George Schumm, James L. Walker, John Beverly Robinson, Alfred B. Westrup, Hugo Bilgram, Sidney H. Morse, Charles T. Fowler, Edward H. Fulton, Dyer D. Lum, Steven T. Byington, William Bailie and the broad array of writers in Liberty and the large variety of causes they fought for and defended on the consistent application of their beliefs.

    Kline moves to the general uniformity of Individualist Anarchists in their conception of the state and the tendency to denounce the state as an institution rather than specific instances of it. He devotes the remainder of the book on anarchist economics, some anarchists' beliefs on social Darwinism and egoism. He spends some time documenting and tracing the demise of the Individual Anarchist movement through internal disputes, the lack of positive plan of action against the state, and the burning of the Liberty print shop. Kline gives the example of Voltairine de Cleyre's transformation from Individualist Anarchist to Communist Anarchist to illustrate the almost "evaporative" end to the Individualist Anarchist movement.

    Kline ends with a retrospective that attempts to reject the implication that anarchism fundamentally breaks with liberalism. I didn't find his argument to be too persuasive and it's obvious that he has a few consequentialist quibbles with a completely anarchist society, be it communistic or individualistic. His editorial opinion doesn't get in the way of the book as far as I can tell.

    The book is written in a very easygoing style and simple typeset using endnotes to document the extensive research he underwent. I highly recommend it to anyone who wants to learn about the earliest roots of the American anarchist, libertarian, and individualist movement.

    Glenn Reynolds isn't Very Libertarian

    [Updates below.]

    Not that he goes around trumpeting whatever political affiliation he holds. But he has made it clear in the past that he considers the label worthy of his political beliefs. Then he supported taxpayer-financed education and road work. Then he feared media concentration, though not quite coming out in favor of stricter controls.

    Now, we've got something else and it's again on media centralization:

    It seems to me that this proposal would answer any complaints (except with regard to labelling, I guess) that any parent could have about indecent programming on cable -- you don't want the channel, don't buy it. The cable industry naturally opposes this -- bundling the Celebrity Underwater Kite-Flying Channel with HBO is how they fleece consumers make a lot of their money -- but I hope that it's an idea that will come back. (And I can only attribute Hollings' failure to get enough votes to undue influence on the part of the cable industry, as I can't imagine any Senator's constituents opposing this idea.)

    Yes, it's rare for me to praise Fritz, but this looks like a good idea to me.


    Instapundit is referring to this article, which mentions:
    At today's vote, Sen. Hollings also introduced an amendment that would have required cable operators to offer their programming a la carte, allowing consumers to buy and pay for only the programming they want. But he withdrew the measure after it became clear that he didn't have the votes to support it.

    Praise for more broadcast regulation. And Mr. Reynolds didn't mention the item directly above this:
    The prohibition on violent TV programming was added in an amendment by Sen. Ernest Hollings, D-S.C. It would essentially bar "excessive or gratuitous violence" from broadcast, basic cable and satellite TV channels between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. in the interests of protecting children.

    Assuming the legislation is ultimately enacted, the violence provisions will not automatically go into effect. They're supposed to be adopted only if an FCC study first confirms that V-chip technology and voluntary industry programming ratings that allow parents to block objectionable programming on TV are not effectively protecting children-a case that Sen. Hollings maintains has already been clearly and repeatedly made. "Monkey see, monkey do. Children will mimic what they see on TV," said Sen. Hollings. "I just couldn't stand by and do nothing."

    If enacted, the measure would for the first time subject basic cable and satellite TV programming-currently exempt from indecency oversight-to direct content regulation.


    Senator Hollings is a fucking menace to liberty; this is clear from the above. Yet nothing from Mr. Reynolds other than to single out the "a la carte" amendment for praise.

    Hey, I'd love to have real a la carte TV programming. Even considering the free extended cable I get from my apartment complex, I'd be very interested in paying for the 5-10 channels I actually watch and leave it at that. Even cooler would be a way to pay for just specific programs as I want to watch them...in essence taking the premium pay-on-demand movie system that's been in place for so long to the broadcast cable networks. Subscriptions to single shows for the duration of their run. Innovative things like that.

    But don't force the companies to provide them. That is none of the business of the US Congress or Glenn Reynolds.

    UPDATE(7/23/2004 4:34pm)
    First it was Hillary Clinton. Now it's private space tourism.

    UPDATE 1/20/2005 12:25pm
    Glenn Reynolds is NOT a Libertarian

    UPDATED 9/26/2005 2:44pm
    He hasn't been paying attention to An Intellectually and Morally Serious Antiwar Movement.

    March 09, 2004

    Oldie, but Goodie

    Sometimes, I hate buying DVD videos.

    Movies are best viewed as a unique experience, in my opinion. Part of the enjoyment is the spectacle and the anticipation of seeing something new in a setting that is specifically designed to elevate the viewer's enjoyment. Monster screens. Tons of sound gear. A front-and-center place to sit. All the things theaters have that draw crowds.

    Well, besides the prices of food and drinks, and the semi-literate crowds, and the iffy bathroom quality, and the commercials before the flick, and the restrictions on your behavior inside the theater. And missing parts of the film when rushing to the toilet. I hate that.

    Hm.

    There are good reasons to buy movies for home viewing. More things are under your control. Even better, they pay for themselves after a few viewings. But that's another problem.

    I rarely want to watch the movies I've bought more than a few times. Perhaps I just need to buy more and broaden my selection, but I only buy movies I really like and I don't get out much to see what's out there. Some haven't suffered as badly as others; Memento, Dark City, Fight Club, and Heat have all worn well. But the majority I just don't feel as excited about. It's not just that I'm aware how things end...you get past that point pretty quickly when you catch yourself looking for contradictions, anachronisms, and production screw-ups. Sometimes the extras are nifty, but even when they are good they can't capture the same feeling as a great movie. They prolong the inevitable: boredom with the film itself. An additional problem is the time investment involved. The movies I own range from just over an hour to well over two and once I get done with all the typical after-work chores and have no friends to visit, I often feel like plopping down on the futon for more than 60 minutes would be time better spent elsewhere. Most of the movies I have gotten no action in over a year. Annoying to spend that money and then not feel like you're getting much worth out of it.

    I don't own a TV series on DVD. Actually, that isn't accurate. I don't own any American TV series on DVD, though there are several on my short list. The bulk of my DVDs are anime series from Japan. With at least 26 episodes per series on average, they keep my interest longer because the conflicts build with more integrity and care. Even better, they are digestible in 25 minute chunks.

    I was sitting at home Monday night, wondering what I wanted to do. I still don't have Net access at the apartment so blogging was out of the question; I had no interest in exercising though I knew I should, I was tired of reading libertarian/liberal/anarchist theory, and I just couldn't take the cable news any longer. I dismissed any thoughts about a movie, but my eyes passed over my anime collection and I felt an emotional tug as I saw the Neon Genesis Evangelion boxset. It was the anime that pulled me out of the Saturday morning cartoon kiddie fare anime mentality. I probably hadn't watched an episode in over two years. I sprung up and played volume one.


    Ahhh.


    Tonight: Volume 2!

    March 08, 2004

    This is What Limited Government Means!

    [Updates below.]

    All you fakes in the GOP and moderate liars in the Democratic Party better sit up and carefully read this gigantic broadside against the way government is done in Washington, D.C. and understand that only steps as drastic, as far-reaching, and as impactful as these are the only ways to return the federal government to some reasonable form.

    The list of items is just too big to quote, but a few I can't pass up:

    1. Stop digging. Federal spending is growing at its fastest rate since the 1960s, but many of the same lawmakers calling for spending restraint also support legislation to expand highway spending by 72 percent, increase special education spending by 151 percent, and once again extend unemployment benefits. Each of these spending increases will dig the United States deeper into its financial hole and necessitate even more difficult choices later. Lawmakers should cut spending now.
    2. Balance the budget by 2014 without raising taxes. Budget deficits are merely a symptom of two larger problems: a sluggish economy and runaway spending. Restoring economic growth requires low tax rates, and runaway spending is the most dangerous threat to pro-growth tax relief. Balancing the budget with spending cuts will improve the country's ability to deal with the massive Social Security and Medicare liabilities that will come due when the baby boomers retire.
    3. Freeze discretionary spending in 2005. Discretionary spending leaped 39 percent between 2001 and 2004. Even after excluding defense and costs related to September 11, discretionary spending is rising percent 7 percent annually. Do these agencies need yet another spending increase this year' Congress and the President should do what millions of families do: set priorities, and balance each high-priority spending increase with a low-priority spending cut.
    4. Reform entitlements. Spending cannot be restrained without reforming entitlements, which comprise two-thirds of all federal spending and threaten the country's long-term finances (see Chart 2). These programs are projected to grow 6 percent annually for the next decade. Table 1, which displays the spending restraint needed to balance the budget by 2014, shows no scenario to balance the budget by 2014 without reducing that 6 percent mandatory spending annual growth rate. Lawmakers seeking to rein in spending should put all entitlement spending on the table, including the 2003 Medicare drug bill and the 2002 farm bill.
    5. Fix the budget process. Lawmakers still cling to the budget process created back in 1974. Over the past 30 years, successive Congresses have punched this process full of holes, and federal spending has correspondingly tripled. The current budget process provides no workable tools to limit spending, no restrictions on passing massive costs onto future generations, and no incentive to bring all parties to the table early in the budget process to set a framework. The Family Budget Protection Act, authored by Representatives Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), Paul Ryan (R-WI), Chris Chocola (R-IN), and Christopher Cox (R-CA), provides a comprehensive proposal for creating a budget process that reflects America's budget priorities and should be closely examined by anyone interested in budget reform.

    How to Get Federal Spending Under Control by Brian M. Riedl also includes these points:
    Following several "expansion budgets," President Bush has moved the debate in a more responsible direction by proposing a "belt-tightening budget" that asks most agencies to accept a near-freeze in discretionary spending. But would most families trying to cut costs simply freeze each expenditure equally? Or would they fully fund priorities like food, the mortgage payment, and insurance, while completely eliminating unaffordable luxuries such as vacations and entertainment?

    [...]

    President Bush proposes terminating 65 programs at a savings of $4.9 billion (see appendix). Although a step in the right direction, these low-priority terminations represent only 0.2 percent of all federal spending. By contrast, a priority budget would:

    • Fully fund a limited number of high-priority spending categories, such as defense and homeland security;
    • Terminate entire categories of lower-priority programs, such as corporate welfare;
    • Institute a moratorium on pork projects;
    • Limit non-security spending increases to programs that pass their audits; and
    • Substantially reform programs growing at unsustainable rates, such as Social Security and Medicare.

    And then comes a outrageously long litany of outdated, useless, expensive, duplicative, pork-barrel, and inefficient federal programs, services, and agencies that either need to be axed wholesale or drastically scaled back.

    The Heritage Foundation did an excellent job with this report. The only thing left out of the discussion is what must happen next. I have no optimism for the taste it'll leave in any politician's mouth save for the more honest.

    Link via Andrew Sullivan.

    UPDATE(6/3/2004 1:11pm)
    Can't Cut the Budget; Politicians Will Eat Me!

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

    Economics Monday & Libertarian Theory

    Catallarchy hosts the Carnival of the Capitalists this week.

    Meanwhile, Radley Balko finds the Libertarian Purity Test. I scored a 160, but with a few caveats. Quoting myself from the Agitator thread:

    ...it might have been lower if one really argued some of the premises of the questions. For example, you could view school vouchers as an improvement over the system we have today because it injects some consumer choice into the equation. But the money being spent is still taxpayer money and the operating principle is still collectivist, so the "improvement" is marginal to others.

    Thus making me the extremist so far in the thread. :)

    UPDATE(3/11/2004 3:14pm)
    You can view a whole bunch of bloggers' results here.

    March 05, 2004

    Governor Perry Speaks Out

    [Updates below.]

    News8Austin is also reporting this, but it's just repeating what is said below. It does confirm that the organization has been looking into the rumors and found no evidence, just like the other news outlets.

    Governor speaks out on marital rumors

    Gov. Rick Perry, speaking out for the first time about a widely circulated rumor about his personal life and professional future, said Thursday that he has been targeted by "an obvious, orchestrated effort" launched by political foes.

    For almost two months, variations of the rumors have swirled around the Capitol, been repeated among friends across the state, been investigated by reporters from around the nation, been gossiped about in Washington and been posted on Web sites that harbor political ill will toward Republicans in general and Perry in particular.

    In almost all versions, the main theme has been the same: Perry, caught in an act of infidelity, is headed for divorce from wife Anita, who has moved out of the Governor's Mansion. The rumors also say Perry will resign.

    Perry said it's all false.


    I made a note of some of those anti-Republican websites here and here when I posted on this initially. I harbor ill will towards Republicans (any politicians, actually) when they diminish personal freedom through increasing state involvement in our lives. But I didn't post on these rumors in order to give them credibility. I posted them because I wanted to know what the truth was.
    "This thing got up to a critical mass," he said, acknowledging that the rumors have spread far wider than he has ever seen political gossip travel.

    "I don't think a rumor can just get to critical mass by itself," he said. "I think you have to have a well-thought-out, organized effort to disseminate that kind of information and keep it going day after day after day after day."

    After weeks of declining to have Perry personally address the rumors, the governor's staff approached the American-Statesman this week and said Perry wanted to respond. In mid-February, Perry referred questions about an interview on the topic to press secretary Kathy Walt. At the time, she said Perry would not respond to unsubstantiated rumor.

    Throughout, the governor's staff has branded the rumors as false. Perry himself denied them on camera when asked about them Feb. 17 by a San Antonio television station, which didn't air the question or Perry's response.


    That last bit is interesting because it represents at least two direct choices on the part of the news media to not report something going on with the Governor's marital life. Actually, this makes three because this Austin-American Statesman story doesn't mention the homosexual aspect of the rumors and what was, in my opinion, the greatest driver of the rumors: that Perry was gay or had a homosexual relationship with another man after making multiple statements to the effect of repudiating gay marriage.
    Perry declined to point fingers at a particular political foe - and he has some in both parties - but had harsh criticism for Texas Democratic Party Chairman Charles Soechting, who referred to the rumors at a recent political rally.

    On Feb. 24 in Houston, at an event featuring then-presidential candidate John Edwards, Soechting was one of several speakers called on to kill time as Edwards ran late.

    Several hundred people were in the cafeteria at Houston's Stephen F. Austin High School as Soechting, after making generic political rally comments, referred to an event earlier that day in which a dozen people, carrying signs such as "It's OK to be gay, guv," stood outside the Governor's Mansion and encouraged Perry to address rumors about his sexuality.

    "Ladies and gentlemen," Soechting told the Democratic audience in Houston, "I ask you to stay tuned. There's a lot of things happening in Texas. For those of you that know, there's a lot of stuff happening at the state Capitol. And you're going to be excited when you learn more and more about it. So I wish I could tell you more, but I think if you've got someone sitting next to you (who) knows what's going on, just get them to whisper it to you.

    "How many of you all know? Raise your hands up. That's right. They had a rally up there in support of the governor today. Some of his friends said, 'Come out, Rick, and we'll support you.' Anyway, it's a good time for us," Soechting said.

    Perry said he expects political debate from Soechting. But he excoriated the Democratic chairman for talking publicly about "uncorroborated filth."


    Well, that explains the huge burst of traffic I had on that day. That is pretty shameful the Texas Democratic Party Chairman said those things, outright saying the ruining of a marriage is something to be excited about.
    Told of Perry's comments, Soechting said: "What crosses the line of everything decent is the utter hypocrisy of Rick Perry injecting his mean-spirited politics into everyone else's personal life while insisting his own personal life is off-limits.

    "What is truly indecent is the state of children's health care, public schools and insurance rates under Perry's regime," Soechting said in a statement issued by the Texas Democratic Party.


    I don't know much about Mr. Soechting and any specific elements of Perry's social plans, but his response is fucking garbage; political side-stepping of the most typical and cynical kind. What an asshole.

    The article goes on to mention what I posted about previously: the Austin Chronicle and the Quorum Report both found no substance to the rumors. It also mentions Burnt Orange Report (possibly the main driver of the story, and who has responded to the article here), Buzzflash, a man named Jackson Thoreau, MadLife, and Atrios.

    Perry had no sympathy for anyone using a we-said-it-was-just-a-rumor defense.

    "What's wrong is they have been a Web site that has denigrated the political process, in my opinion, to a great degree," he said. "If the future of politics is this, the future is dismal and dim for Texas, for America, for the political process."

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


    Well, that isn't a very convincing arguement at all. I am at liberty to write about anything I wish to, including rumors that may or may not be true. I don't give a damn about the "political process" at all since I consider it to be the central problem in America anyway.

    In the end, I don't regret posting on this one bit. If we are to have people with the power to alter our lives by governmental dictate, then those people had better be ready for scrutiny, malicious or not.

    UPDATE(8/12/2004 5:00pm)
    Turns out the New Jersey Governor, James E. McGreevey, has declared his homosexuality and has resigned.

    Getting a spike in search hits for Rick Perry. I wonder if that story will hit the national news?

    March 04, 2004

    The Texas School Finance Project Findings

    [Updates below.]

    Speaking of Texas educational financing...the reports are out. The following links lead to PDF files:


    From the Key Findings report:
    1. There appears to be a fundamental economic relationship among input prices, educational outcomes, and cost in Texas public schools. Other things being equal, the analyses suggest that it costs more to produce higher levels of educational outcomes. Nevertheless, the average minimum funding level per pupil of meeting state performance standards is estimated to be between $6,172 and $6,271 (in 2004 dollars), which is slightly lower than the current average budgeted expenditure level of $6,503. Depending on assumptions concerning natural improvements as students and teachers adjust to new tests, changes in required passing scores on state tests, expectations with regard to the efficiency of school district operations, and inflation, however, the analyses suggest that some Texas school districts will require additional annual funding of between $226M and $408M (in 2004 dollars). These estimates are based on analyses that consider all federal, state, and local dollars for district operations-excepting revenue for debt service, transportation, and food-and are based on the best available data regarding requirements for compliance with No Child Left Behind and the state accountability system. They also assume that school districts receiving additional funding would operate with at least average levels of efficiency.
    2. As in other studies of the effects of scale on educational costs, the analyses indicate that the cost of educational services in Texas is strongly influenced by school district size and geographic isolation. In particular, costs increase substantially for districts serving less than 500 students. The relative effects of scale on district costs is illustrated in Figure 1.

      As Figure 1 illustrates, on a per student basis the estimated cost of operating a district with 75 students is nearly twice the cost of operating a district with 7,500 students. Most economies of scale are realized at approximately 25,000 students. The analyses did not find evidence of diseconomies of scale for large urban districts, however.
    3. Just as other industries experience variations in the costs of hiring comparable employees in different labor markets across Texas, there are substantial regional variations in the costs of public education, particularly with regard to the costs of hiring "highly qualified" teachers. According to the most conservative estimate, a Texas school district in the highest-cost urban area would be expected to have to pay approximately 29 percent more than school districts in the lowest cost rural area to hire a classroom teacher with comparable qualifications. This estimate is derived from analyses of a three-year average of data on school districts, communities, and teachers, including data on teacher salary and benefits, certification status, and time spent teaching in-field.
    4. There are significant cost differentials associated with student need. Relatively high concentrations of students who are economically disadvantaged, have limited proficiency in English, are in special education programs, or are enrolled in high school can substantially increase school district costs. For example, a district that educates more students who are eligible for free lunch than the state average of 39.5 percent would be projected to need to spend more to achieve comparable outcomes, other things being equal. Conversely, a district that educates fewer students eligible for free lunch than the average would be projected to require less funding.
    5. On average, unexplained variations in school district expenditures due to the production of unmeasured outcomes or inefficiency are moderate. The average level of inefficiency in school districts is estimated to be 7 percent. There is a substantial range among estimates of district inefficiency, however, from less than 2 percent in some districts to as much as 28 percent. This finding suggests that some Texas school districts are remarkably efficient in transforming resources into measured educational outcomes that reflect the core educational goals of the state; other districts appear to be substantially less efficient. It is important to note, however, that this type of analysis cannot distinguish between school districts that appear inefficient simply because of poor management and districts that appear relatively inefficient because they are focused on producing different kinds of outcomes. For example, the analysis cannot distinguish between excessive spending on administration and relatively high spending on music, athletics, or mathematics programs. This issue suggests that Texas policymakers should take up the question of how much local school districts should be allowed to choose the outcomes they aspire to produce, along with issues concerning state sanctions or incentives to promote cost-effective operation.
    The other reports are considerably longer. Might make good weekend reading! :)

    In any case, my core principles wouldn't be swayed if the report said we could spend $5,000 less or $5,000 more per student. I want the education systems in this state and in this country privatized and removed from the state's power.

    UPDATE(4/9/2004 12:48pm)
    Oppose all state income tax plans!

    UPDATE(5/4/2004 9:09am)
    I did some quick 'n dirty educational cost calculations of my own.

    History of the American Income Tax

    [Updates below.]

    News8Austin has the report. They've been doing several reports on the IRS and income taxes over the last week or so. Some noteworthy quotes:

    Oct. 3, 1913, is another day that will live in infamy.

    The Underwood Simmons Tariff Act created the income tax as we know it today, enabled by the earlier ratification of the 16th Amendment.

    And the Form 1040 that first year was four pages, taxing one percent of income between $20,000 and $50,000, graduated up to six percent for those making $500,000 or more in those days.

    Deductions were simpler 90 years ago for such things as interest paid, state and local taxes, losses in business, or arising from fires, storms or shipwreck.

    The personal exemption back then was set at $3,000, meaning most Americans didn't have to pay anything.

    According to the Tax History Project, only two percent of American households had to pay income tax in its early years.

    [...]

    President Abraham Lincoln, one of our most beloved Americans, signed into law a measure aimed at raising revenues to help pay for the union's expenses in the Civil War.

    That same measure in 1862 created a Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the nation's first income tax.

    The Internal Revenue Service came to be in 1894, as the income tax was revived after a 22-year absence.

    The Supreme Court would intervene ruling the tax unconstitutional just one year later.

    The modern income tax has its roots in the administration of Democrat Woodrow Wilson. In October 1913, he signed into law the Underwood Tariff Act. Since then, the growing complexity of law tax has financed more than just a few legal and accounting careers, as well as the government workers required to administer and enforce it.

    It wasn't until 1943 that the Congress passed the Current Tax Payment Act that required employers to withhold taxes from their workers' wages and forward the payments on to the government once a quarter.

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


    Meanwhile, Austin-American Statesman's Lasso has a report on the forces behind Texas tax changes:
    HOW ARE TAXES RAISED IN TEXAS?: If history is a guide, the state raises more money for public goods (roads, schools, cops) when the business establishment says it's time. The last major change in Texas taxes came in 1961, when the Legislature passed the first state sales tax. The sales tax had the backing, first, of the business interests in Dallas.

    So, when Lasso reads today [beware of link rot] that two major Dallas business groups favor increasing funds for public schools, it means something might, just might, happen.

    The Greater Dallas Chamber of Commerce said Wednesday it would support both a decrease in the property tax collected for schools and an increase in spending on students. The Chamber said property taxes should drop by 50 percent to 75 percent. Another business group, the Dallas Citizens Council, supports the Chamber's proposal.

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


    Taxes should drop and schools should be adequately funded. But that funding shouldn't be done through the state.

    UPDATE(4/15/2004 2:55pm)
    It's Income Tax Day. Read it and weep.

    March 03, 2004

    A Pro-Quality Austin Skatepark!

    [Updates below.]

    Skateboarders will eventually have a place to grind

    Skateboarding has come a long way since the 1970s, but skateboarders say Austin hasn't come far enough.

    The city doesn't have a professional-style public skatepark. Now, skaters go to House Park on Shoal Creek in Central Austin, which they basically built themselves over the years.

    "This is really a toy. This facility here is like golfers demanding a golf course and you giving them a Putt-Putt," skater Seth Johnson said.


    Sweet.
    Skateboarders would like to see Austin build a park similar to San Antonio's new LBJ Skatepark, which cost $613,500.

    Johnson created the Austin Public Skatepark Action Committee, a nonprofit partnered with the Austin Parks Foundation.

    "Our plans are to make a formal skateboard park in Austin. It's going to take a couple of years," Stuart Strong of the Austin Parks and Recreation Department said.

    House Park is about 6,000 square feet, but the new one is proposed to be three to four times larger and will be professionally contracted.

    "It will have big concrete bowls, pyramids, rails, ledges and that sort of thing," Johnson said.

    The park isn't designed yet, but the city of Austin set aside $150,000 in Janurary. The project should at least $300,000, and so far, skaters have raised about $10,000.

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


    Not so sweet.

    For those Austin readers who want this project to go through, you can donate a tax-refundable amount to:

    Austin Public Skatepark Action Committee
    c/o Austin Parks Foundation
    701 Brazos Street, Suite 170
    Austin, TX 78701
    (512) 458-6676.

    Please ask to get it completed without taxpayer money and with your own and anyone who wishes to invest.

    I support recreational activities and I support skaters. But damn it, don't pay for it using tax money. Go the purer route and truely own the park.

    UPDATED 12/5/2005 10:26am
    The skatepark is part of the recently reopened Mabel Davis Park. Both have been made available to the public.

    The Travis County Hospital District

    [Updates below.]

    Hospital district issue on May ballot

    Whether or not Austin will have a hospital district is now up to Travis County voters. On Tuesday, the county commissioners voted unanimously to put the controversial issue on the May 15 ballot.

    Austin is the largest city in Texas that doesn't have a hospital district. Close to 25 percent of Central Texans are uninsured.

    So, who foots the majority of the bill when an indigent patient from outside the city of Austin is transported to Brackenridge? Austin taxpayers.


    Yuck! Well, that's not cool at all. My instant reaction? Decouple the taxpayer from the Austin hospital system. Let everyone pay for their own health problems! Instant utopia!

    Perhaps not, but it would be a better idea than taxing an even greater portion of Central Texas to cover the healthcare costs of others.

    "We have a city asset, that being Brackenridge Hospital, that is a regional asset. So, it's disproportionately being paid for by city of Austin residents. One of the intentions of a health district would cure that," Travis County Commissioner Karen Sonleitner said.

    Brackenridge Hospital is part of the SETON Healthcare Network non-for-profit healthcare service provider and is the fourth-largest private employer in the region. It, in turn, is part of Ascension Health, the largest not-for-profit healthcare system in the US.

    The terminology Ms. Sonleitner uses here is enlightening. It shows at least some respect for the idea of fiscal responsibility: those who use services should be the ones paying for it. Of course, the blanket effect of taxation doesn't quite match the principle.

    Last spring, Texas legislators passed a bill enabling the creation of a hospital district. No district tax rate has been approved yet.

    City of Austin taxpayers currently pay more than seven cents per $100 valuation for health care. While Travis County residents outside of the city limits pay just more than one cent.

    Travis County is already the highest-taxed county in the state and opponents said a district will not save taxpayers money.


    Those opponents, if they were truely concerned about saving taxpayer money, wouldn't limit their criticism to the hospital district. They'd attack the fundamental nature of the system already in place.

    I wasn't aware Travis County took honors in high taxation, but it doesn't surprise me that much.

    "It doesn't guarantee that our health insurance rates are going to go down, it doesn't guarantee that we're going to get better care and it does nothing about the surrounding counties sending in patients who get medical care on the Travis taxpayer's ticket," Don Zimmerman, with Save Our Taxpayers, said.

    He is, of course, correct. However, all the things he mentions are acheivable under a freer system of healthcare markets.
    Supporters of a hospital district said the need is overwhelming.

    "We have overcrowded emergency rooms that threaten our ability to deliver good, quality, trauma and emergency care to people who need it and we have problems with access as a result of the high, uninsured rate that we have in Central Texas," Clarke Heidrick said.


    That's primarily because emergency care is open to all, regardless of the ability to pay. It's an open-ended invitation that can only be handled justly in one way: increase the costs of using the medical facilities. For example, my insurance carrier has increased the fees associated with emergency room visits to try to remind people the emergency room is for true emergencies. To those who believe doing so is unjust, then they have to look at the alternative: taking from others to provide for others.
    The creation of a hospital district will not change the way indigent patients are treated, but it will change the way health care is funded.

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


    And that is the real problem, not the inevitable economic downfalls of a system where it is considered anathema to turn away a customer because that customer cannot pay for his service.

    UPDATE(3/12/2004 4:25pm)
    From the, "No Shit!" Department:

    Hospital district would increase property taxes

    If approved, Travis County residents will pay more in property taxes, matching the level of funding that Austin residents pay.

    "If you live in the city of Austin, you are paying far more for the infrastructure that we need in terms of health care than if you live outside the city of Austin," County Commissioner Karen Sonleitner said.

    Sonleitner said it's only fair that county residents pay their share. The average county resident property tax bill would increase by $92.

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


    UPDATE(3/15/2004 9:25am)
    Added the copyright attributions to News8Austin.

    UPDATE(4/12/2004 4:45pm)
    Save Our Taxpayers has a one-page PDF available summarizing its opposition to the plan.

    Here is a list of upcoming events relating to this issue the SOT will be participating in:

    • April 13th, 12:00 PM - Green Pastures Rest. (on Live Oak), Tax Debate
    • April 13th, 11:45 PM - 708 San Antonio, Austin Association of Health Underwriters, Tax Debate
    • April 14th - Radio Ads begin, 590 AM KLBJ, 1370 AM, 970 AM KIXL
    • April 20th, 6:30 PM - 5315 Ed Bluestein, Men With a Purpose, Tax Debate
    • April 21st, 12:00 PM - Green Pastures Rest. (on Live Oak), South Austin Rotary, Tax Debate
    • April 22nd, 6:30 PM - Lakeway Activity Center, Townhall Meeting, Tax Debate
    • April 28th, 7:00 AM - 590 AM KLBJ, Morning Show with Mark, Ed, Sam --- EARLY VOTING STARTS
    • May 15th - ELECTION

    UPDATE(5/17/2004 1:04pm)
    The measure passed and I'm not happy. I may write more later.

    March 02, 2004

    Austin's Smoking Ban, Revisited

    [Updates below.]

    It's been a while since I posted on the Austin smoking ban, so this caught my eye immediately.

    Smokeless First Monday not hot for club owners

    Under an experimental smoking ban, the first Monday of every month is designated smoke-free in bars that offer live music.

    The First Monday ban is only in its second month, but bar owners say it hasn't proved to be a big draw.

    "I haven't heard people coming in, going, 'Ah, thank goodness you've got this non-smoking show.' And in fact, when we first opened the club -- I'm a non-smoker -- and I thought, 'Hey, it might be a good idea to have some non-smoking shows,' but no one came to them. We had to stop doing them because no one would come," Beerland owner Randall Stockton said.

    Bar owners also say many customers don't know the ban is only in effect one Monday a month and as a result, business is dropping off on other Mondays, too.


    No shit. The percentage of people who smoke and go to bars and live music venues is enormous. Sometimes it seems like half the crowd is smoking. But even if a majority of drinkers and musicgoers smoked and wanted to ban whiny non-smokers from all bars and music venues in the city, I wouldn't support it.
    A full smoking ban in Austin was set for June, but was postponed by the Austin City Council.

    Under the revised ordinance, bar owners must buy a $300 permit each year to allow their customers to smoke.

    The First Monday ban could help City Council decide whether to pass stronger smoking bans in the future.

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


    A smoking permit? For what purpose?
    • To add yet another financial burden on the backs of the live music industry!
    • To remind those damn capitalists who's in charge here!
    • To utilize an as-yet-untested revenue stream to feed underfunded city government!
    • To get these unruly individuals to engage in healthier activities!

    You know where that $300 could have gone? It might have been spent on paying for bathroom renovations, a better fire suppression system, a bonus for a deserving employee, extra advertising, the icing on the cake for attracting a really great band, experimenting with a new microbrew, fixing or upgrading the HVAC systems, replacing crappy soundsystem components, commissioning a local artist to do a painting for a dull wall, non-slip entrance mats, enhancing or creating a web presence, and on and on. All so much more legitimate uses of someone's money than paying for permission to allow smokers to use the bar only part of the week.

    UPDATE(4/6/2004 12:55pm)
    Now that a few weeks have passed for the bar owners to suffer through the aftermath of this experiment, let's hear what they have to say:

    When the city announced it's First Monday program more than three months ago, bar owner Angela Gillen decided to give it a try.

    The owner of Flamingo Cantina wanted to reach the smoking and non-smoking audiences.

    "They were not really supported by the folks who say they would come out and hear live music, so we were pretty disappointed in that aspect,? Gillen said. "It's more difficult to get some of the bands to agree to perform because they realize it's going to affect their audience.?

    Thirteen bars and music venues participated in the experiment. Most are seeing the same results. First Monday gives customers a feel for bars without the smoke. Business owners just hope it's not a preview of bars without customers when the city's smoking ban takes effect this summer. The city plans to make a final decision on First Monday's future after the trial period ends in July.

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


    The City says not enough people are aware of the plan to take advantage of it. There's more, but it involves typical business-bureaucrat compromising.

    UPDATE(4/21/2004 4:27pm)
    The ban, initially scheduled to take affect on May 1st, has been posponed:

    The city of Austin's new smoking ordinance will likely be postponed a month until June 1. The main reason is to give restaurants more time to show they've improved their air quality.

    Dan McClusky's owner Steve Batlin lucked out. His restaurant has always had a separate room for non-smokers and smokers.

    "I really don't think it's necessary. I'm a non-smoker myself. I think it's coming," Batlin said.

    The new smoking ordinance is coming, but now it may be one month later. Before they get a smoking permit, restaurants must show they have dual ventilation systems. Lots of business owners installed them to meet the previous ordinance, but the city didn't keep a list.

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


    Pfft.

    UPDATE(6/1/2004 11:06am)
    Austin Smoking Ban in Effect Today

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

    UPDATED 8/30/2005 1:51pm
    Deadline for the Austin Smoking Ordinance

    March 01, 2004

    The Catholic Charities of Sacraficial

    The absurdity of the current system of property rights in our country is being highlighted once again.

    Catholic Group Must Offer Birth Control in Calif.

    The California Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a Catholic charity must offer prescription contraceptives in its employee health insurance plan even if church teaching opposes birth control measures.

    The state's highest court upheld a lower court decision rejecting Catholic Charities of Sacramento's claims it did not have to offer prescription contraceptives because it considered itself obliged to follow the Roman Catholic Church's religious teachings, which hold that the use of artificial birth control is a sin.


    I hold no water for religious opinions or belief. I am an atheist and I haven't attended any church in any spiritual capacity in almost a decade. But this is bullshit of the most foul order.
    The state supreme court said the charity, incorporated separately from the church, was not a "religious employer" exempt from legislation mandating such coverage.

    While affiliated with the Catholic Church, the charity's purpose is not to inculcate religious values, a majority of court justices noted.

    The charity could avoid any conflict with religious values by not offering its employees prescription drug coverage, the justices held. Employers in California are not required to offer such coverage.


    And that's the problem. It's not that some segments of business aren't required to provide coverage, it's that any are required at all. This is properly a business decision; it's properly the OWNER of the business in question. Under any other regime, the businessman is acting on the permission of the government to operate. And as the years have gone by, permission is being required for more and more things. The reach has grown to the point where we have these completely unnecessary problems that are wholly government-created that force people to do things they not only consider wrong, but SINFUL.

    Be it a bicycle helmet law, smoking or noise ordinances, or demands that employers provide certain benefits to their employees, they all operate under the same guiding ideas:

    • You as an individual don't actually own your property. The state does and it will step in at will, whether a majority of voters want it to or not, to determine what you can and cannot do with it, crime committed or no crime.
    • You really don't know what's in your interest, because if the state didn't have some plausible "problem" to fix that isn't in someone's interest, it wouldn't do it. Unfortunately, the interests being served are collective ones and as such are illegitimate when the proposed solutions infringe upon personal freedom.

    They know not in what they meddle. Only those who make it their business know.
    Only Associate Justice Janice Brown dissented.

    "Here we are dealing with an intentional, purposeful intrusion into a religious organization's expression of its religious tenets and sense of mission," Brown wrote. "The government is not accidentally or incidentally interfering with religious practice; it is doing so willfully by making a judgment about what is or is not religious."

    Timothy Muscat, the California deputy attorney general who argued the state's case before the state high court, said the justices drew a line between purely religious employers and affiliated groups with broader purposes.

    Purely religious employers would remain exempt from the law requiring prescription contraceptives coverage, Muscat added.

    "The religious employer exemption stays," Muscat said. "A church, synagogue or mosque qualifies for an exemption."

    Copyright 2004 Reuters News Service. All rights reserved.


    But that isn't the real point. It is indeed important to separate the church and the state, but this is important not because religion is somehow more important to protect, but because the feelings behind it are so personal that any attempt to force behavioral changes strikes a deeper chord than hearing about some new (de)regulation of coal-fired electricity plants in Ohio. It matters because religion is personal and individual. Matters of the mind and thought are treated with more respect than matters of physical objects and property. That gap hasn't yet been bridged in the minds of enough people.

    This shouldn't be fought on the basis of a separation of church and state. This should be fought on the basis of private property rights and the freedom of individuals to peacefully use that property. This is a fucking CHARITY, man; by nature it doesn't have the resources to be thrown about however the politicians demand it.

    Do fight this in any way other than on the bedrock of property would keep the system in place as it is and guarantee the future development of these kinds of disagreements. Don't sacrifice anything for this.

    UPDATE(3/2/2004 9:02am)
    Catholic Group Must Provide Birth Control

    The American Civil Liberties Union applauded the ruling and called it "a great victory for California women and reproductive freedom."

    The ACLU has it's good moments and it's bad moments. This is one of it's bad moments. You don't have a right to force someone to provide something or some service for you. Now, they've helped persuade the government to stamp down on private choice, i.e. liberty. Which is annoying since the ACLU stumps for the pro-choice side of the abortion debate on generally the same grounds I use to support abortion:
    Our mission is to ensure that every person can make informed, meaningful decisions about reproduction free from intrusion by the government.

    If the "liberties" in it's name meant anything, they would have opposed this tooth and nail. What they got was MORE intrusion by the government that FORCES individuals (the business and charity owners) to provide certain employee benefits; they have removed the right to decide from the people who have the most right to make it.