Doctors in the Senate = Better Soundbites

After last night's election, I am adding a shiny new quote to the "Freedom Quotes" section (right sidebar) of this blog:

America is exceptional, but it is not inherently so.

That subtle, insightful, and powerfully-true observation comes courtesy of Senator-elect Rand Paul (R-Ky).

No mountains, no plains, no hymn, no eagle, no star-spangled banner makes us great.  Only the carefully-crafted protections of the Constitution and the perpetual fight to maintain freedom as our highest ideal keeps us the most prosperous nation in history.  Here's hoping Paul & Co. have the necessary verve to escalate that fight in Congress.

Cleaning House... Or at Least Cleaning a Spot On One Rug Near the Guest Bedroom

The angry electorate has roared! The nation is gripped by an anti-incumbent furor! It's open-season on the bums!

So whaddaya think - will 40% of incumbents go down in November? 50%? 75%? Hold onto your hats, folks - 2010 will be the biggest shakeup in Washington since the Reagan Revolution of 1980 if we replace... 26% of Senators and 13% of House members seeking reelection. And don't forget that only about a third of the Senate is up for reelection in any election year; we're really getting revolutionary if we toss 9 whole Senators this year (for hardcore math types, that's 100 Senators / 3 * 26%, rounded up to the next whole powerhungry slug).

Count me among libertarians strongly in favor of a Constitutional amendment implementing term limits on Congresscritters.* Because we collectively make terrible exterminators.


*For those interested, yes, this statement is consistent with libertarian views. Libertarian != anarchist. I believe there is a short list of proper functions of a government, most of which can be summed up by its role as enforcer of nonagression. If it must exist, it must have structure (to bind it); term limits give structure just like the seperation of powers and the bicameral Congress.

Battlefield: Grover's Corners

Thanks, Scotticus, for making a little room for the O.G. freedom fighter. (Okay, okay, freedom grouser.) Let's just say I was grousing the good grouse back when Scotticus still thought GM and Goldman Sachs were run by Hank Reardon and not James Taggart. But enough with the intro and on with the show. I'll try to post something less painful in the near future to make up for this sucker punch.

First off, I strongly support the legalization of most, if not all, drugs that are currently illegal in the U.S. My fundamental reason for that position is that I believe we are not free while living under an authority that has control over our use of our own bodies in ways that do not violate the rights of others. To paraphrase Bosephus, if you get stoned and sing all night long, ain't none of my business. (Aside to make it painfully clear: I favor strict prosecution of any true crimes - those involving the violation of nonconsenting persons' rights - a person commits, regardless of their state of intoxication; that is, intoxication by any substance is no defense.) I also understand that reasonable people can disagree about drug legalization (though of course I'm right :-)

What I think is indefensible, and a point on which I do not believe reasonable people can disagree, are the tactics increasingly used in the prosecution of this "War on (Some) Drugs". Through the explosive use of SWAT teams over the past 30 years our police have become militarized and are being deployed in ways fit for a battlefield in Afghanistan, not against nonviolent citizens of Grover's Corners, USA (nor South-Central LA) who may posses intoxicating substances not granted the Big Brother Seal of Approval. Tactics include: predawn raids on family homes (yes, with small children present); teams of SWAT police armed with fully automatic rifles, tear gas, and flash-bang grenades (these ain't firecrackers - they are so bright they blind you for 5 seconds and explode with a blast louder than a 747 on takeoff, but in your living room); no-knock entry; and basing raids on the testimony of known liars who receive reduced sentences for providing information - true or not. These raids were conducted over 100 times a day as of 2006 and based on SWAT team funding have likely increased in frequency since then. They have resulted in the violent deaths of "criminals" guilty of nothing but possessing an intoxicant unapproved by our overlords, as well as people innocent of even that "crime" who were unlucky enough to live at an address raided incorrectly. Don't forget the many family pets killed, and even some of the raiding police officers. And it is entirely because the police themselves are taking a nonviolent situation and making it intensely violent.

Unfortunately, most of these incidents go unreported by the majority of our state-tonguebathing media. When they do make news, reporters almost never question the accounts provided by the police involved, regardless of those accounts' preposterousness. There are some true reporters who dig deeper (as Scotticus has mentioned, Radley Balko is exhibit A: www.theagitator.com; he also writes for Reason and for the Cato Institute), so thankfully there is some information available. But as much as all those stories can boil the blood, a video brings it home like nothing else. Presented now for your edification is a 5 minute video of a nighttime SWAT raid of a family home in Columbia, MO with the suspect - a nonviolent man suspected of possession of marijuana - and his wife and 7-year-old child at home. Please watch the video and ask yourself what crime would justify these police actions. I am going to assume possession of a small amount of an intoxicating substance far less dangerous than alcohol makes the list.

Here's the newspaper account.

Bottom line: Police are not soldiers, drug users are not an opposition force, U.S. neighborhoods are not battlegrounds. There is no war and dead citizens are not collateral damage.

Jonathan Swift - Sarcasm = California

Ask any Tea Partier; there is plenty to dislike in the details of health care reform.

But we of the tinfoil hat brigade have long insisted that the principal problem with government-subsidized health insurance is broad: When government pays for health care, government will inevitably regulate anything and everything that can be even tenuously linked to health.

By ceding the responsibility for the cost of health care, we have sacrificed the freedom to make our own decisions about our health. A nauseating argument to be sure, but that doesn't make it any less true. We saw it happen with seat belts; we saw it happen with motorcycle helmets; we saw it happen with cigarettes. Now, just to prove that no caricature or paranoia could ever be as asinine as reality, we will witness within our lifetimes the end of Happy Meal toys.

...[C]ounty officials in Silicon Valley [Calif.] are poised to outlaw the little toys that often come with high-calorie offerings.
...
Believed to be the first of its kind in the nation, the proposal would forbid the inclusion of a toy in any restaurant meal that has more than 485 calories, more than 600 mg of salt or high amounts of sugar or fat. In the case of McDonald's, the limits would include all of the chain's Happy Meals — even those that include apple sticks instead of French fries.

Ken Yeager, president of the authoritarian nitwits Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, knows unequivocally that you are too stupid and/or incompetent -- all of you -- to spurn the siren song of a Shrek IV wind-up toy, so he is stepping in.

"People ask why I want to take toys out of the hands of children," said Yeager.... "But we now know that 70% of the kids that are overweight or obese will be overweight or obese as adults. Why would we want to burden anybody with a lifetime of chronic illness?"

Did you see that leap? Fast-food toys are responsible for a lifetime of chronic illness. Unless the McDonald's in Yeager's neighborhood has been offering polio pops or asbestos action figures, then he can take his hyperbole and insert it posteriorly.

Even then, whence does Yeager draw his justification for the crackdown? You guessed it:

"We're responsible for paying for healthcare in the whole county," Yeager said. "We pay close to $2 billion annually on healthcare, and the costs have done nothing but rise." A big part of the increase, he said, is costs related to obesity.

The slippery slope is not a logical fallacy; it is the undeniable nature of government power.

Obama's War on Terrycloth

Want to see what truly chickenshit trade policy looks like? Then hop on board this crazy train.

The US pays out an estimated $3 billion annually in subsidies to improve American cotton growers' ability to under-price foreign cotton producers, including Brazil. The World Trade Organization determined Brazil had a legitimate beef with this practice, and authorized sanctions against the US. So the US, rather than considering suspending or eliminating the subsidies, instead plans to pay out an additional $150 million annually, directly to Brazil, to help offset the unfair trade policy.

Not angry yet? Follow that money train again: US farmers can't compete with Brazilian farmers, so we give them tax money. This puts Brazilian farmers at a disadvantage, so we give them tax money, theoretically to get us back to where we were before we spent 3.15 billion dollars.

If you believe in protectionism, great; be a protectionist. If you believe in globalism, great; be a globalist. And if you're one of those wacky free-marketeers like me, double-great; we'll hang out, eat some foie gras, and shoot the poor with bullets made of compressed money. But throwing away billions of dollars pretending to be all three and achieving the goals of none is politics at its worst, and it is exceptionally cowardly.

Hat tip to "Ryan", who really should be working.

A is A

Dear Radley Balko,

First off: huge fan. In a world of stenographers, you remain a journalist; and without journalists, the Republic falls.

Having said that, I take issue with the issue you've taken over the use of the word "looting" in the aftermath of Chile's massive earthquake Saturday. You say, instead, these people are simply "surviving", as long as what they purloin consists of food, water, and clothing. Lifting iPods would be another story, you concede.

Two points of contention, one semantic and one ethical: First, whether the storefront is open, vacant, abandoned, or not, that storefront and the goods within -- Evian and iPods alike -- have a rightful owner. I would hope that the owner gives his absentee blessing to those who steal his property as an alternative to dying -- and shame on him if he does not -- but that decision is his. If he were standing there, present and defiant, as people disregarded his rights and confiscated his goods, what else would be dismissed as "survival"? Trespassing? Assault? Murder? And if he were to defend himself with lethal force, which one then is the "survivor"?

Which brings me to the semantics. A lie is a lie, even if it eases someone's pain. Speeding, in a legal sense, is still speeding even if you're trying to escape a pursuing Decepticon. How individuals (and the state) choose to react to others' actions can -- and should -- vary based on circumstances, but to redefine those actions as not only moral, but also beyond reproach is a step too far, especially in such a broad sense where individual motives are indiscernible.

I would steal to keep from starving. It doesn't make me less of a thief.

(Image via NY Daily News.)

His Out-of-Frame Hand is Choking a Puppy

1000 Guardian Force Superbucks to the first person who puts this on a T-shirt and sends me a picture.



(Incalculable thanks to the Internet's most disturbed librarian: SugarFree.)

Political Porcine Protagonist Pursued by Perturbed Police

In Aaron Sorkin’s political wet dream The American President, plucky presidential advisor Lewis (played pluckily by the plucky Michael J Fox), describes the American hero-need thusly:

People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand.

Or, evidently, root for a feral pig. Following Ron Paul’s failure to place in a single presidential primary, Bob Barr’s failure to be more man than moustache, and Barack Obama’s failure to keep any of his campaign promises that would have reduced the power of the federal government, libertarians have pinned their inspiration to a pig.

My favorite part:

”It’s not easy [to catch]. You have a 150-pound pig with an attitude,” said Jim Crosby, director of Bay County Animal Control.

For the record, 150 pounds is 15 pounds less than Justin Timberlake weighs. The Guardian Force's bid to catch the pig was rejected by County authorities as "prohibitively expensive".

Liberty's Gunslinger

Radley Balko may just be the Roland Deschain of investigative journalism.

Check out his latest piece on "law enforcement carelessness and callousness" here. Or, make an afternoon of it on his homepage here. You'll not regret it.

Resolved: California still Slightly Freer than Equatorial Guinea

The folks at Foreign Policy and Freedom House have once again done the Guardian Force’s light work, compiling a list of The Least Free Places on Earth.

Most frustrating (in an admittedly ethnocentric kind of way) is probably Turkmenistan, whose people shook the swaddled oppression of the Soviet Union only to enjoy a more local form of totalitarianism:

President Saparmurat Niyazov, the former head of the Turkmen Communist Party, took power in 1991, isolating the country, gutting formal institutions, muzzling the media, and creating an elaborate personality cult around himself, complete with a gold-plated statue in his image that revolved to always face the sun.

Still, as much as these sad, extreme examples may give Americans some perspective-based comfort, it is imperative that freedom not be appreciated by degree. A man trapped nearest the water’s surface is still drowning, no matter how many are trapped deeper. And, unfortunately, the water is rising.

Methodology and data from the report here.