Arrested For Public Intoxication – Inside a Bar?

Irving, TX police partnered recently with the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) in an attempt to reduce drunken driving. Did they pull people over leaving the bar? No. They partied with them in clubs and after doling out field sobriety tests (in the club); they made arrests (in the club). NBC5I.com reports:

The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission has taken its fight against drunken driving to a new level. TABC agents, along with Irving police, targeted 36 bars and clubs Friday, arresting some allegedly intoxicated patrons before they departed the businesses.

Has something changed recently that made a private business public domain? I looked up the penal code for public intoxication and found that public is defined as:

(40) “Public place” means any place to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access and includes, but is not limited to, streets, highways, and the common areas of schools, hospitals, apartment houses, office buildings, transport facilities, and shops.

One definition of public intoxication is: A person commits the crime of public intoxication if he appears in a public place under the influence of alcohol, narcotics or other drug to the degree that he endangers himself or another person or property, or by boisterous and offensive conduct annoys another person in his vicinity.

The details of the arrests are not public at this moment, but experience tells me that clubs have bouncers to handle bad drunks. Experience tells me that some people drink a little more because they have a friend driving. The legal intoxication limit in the state of Texas is .08. That is slightly more than one drink an hour for my body type. Makes you wonder if they are trying to bring back alcohol prohibition.

I am late for a dinner reservation and I do not think that I will be drinking soda with my steak. If you guys don’t hear from me, call the Dallas area jails. I may have been arrested for PI in a private business.

( -)-(- )25 comments

Defending Badnarik/Hacker and Cassidy/Richards at the same time

Third Party Watch’s Austin Cassidy and HoT’s Stuart Richards have taken the Badnarik for Congress campaign to task for their campaign spending practices. The key complaints seem to revolve around office and staff expenditures.

To begin, Cassidy and Richards have been criticized for broaching the topic or covering it without enough investigation. The issue is clearly a fair one, as inappropriate campaign spending has been a key issue of several high profile Libertarian campaigns in the past. The two Harry Browne campaigns certainly serve as examples. Other related issues include the ongoing debate over decentralization of the Libertarian Party in D.C. and the cost of rent for their offices at the Watergate. Two of the four candidates for LP national chair have spoken strongly in favor of moving LP headquarters from the Watergate. This is a fair and reasonable issue for debate among libertarians.

If there is controversy within the LP or the libertarian movement, I’m in favor of opening the debate and the lines of communication between the various parties involved. Cassidy and Richards had some reason for concern, and Stephen VanDyke handled it appropriately with his open letter to Allen Hacker.

This said, now I’ll render my opinion on the general topic at hand. see more…

( -)-(- )13 comments

NY Times Blows It Again

From their editorial page:

For all the avowals to put the brakes on ethical lapses, the House is showing its true colors with an attempt to turn the Internet into a free-flowing big-money trough for uncontrolled political spending. The measure would exempt political ads on the Internet from a reform law barring corporate and union donors from buying up grateful candidates with six- and seven-figure contributions.

Politicians who chafe under the law’s “soft money” ban would be free to run unlimited ads online, empowered by private donors who would not even be required to file campaign records.

From the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Here’s an act of civil disobedience all of us can practice next election cycle: Let’s exercise our free speech rights by “petitioning the the government for a redress of grievances” by purchasing as many blogads as we can in support of our favorite Libertarian candidates.

( -)-(- )10 comments

New National Polling Data on Marijuana

The good news is that almost half of America now supports the Tenth Amendment with respect to federal decriminalization of marijuana combined with letting states regulate and tax the controversial herb. NORML reports:

Nearly one out of two Americans support amending federal law “to let states legally regulate and tax marijuana the way they do liquor and gambling,” according to a national poll of 1,004 likely voters by Zogby International and commissioned by the NORML Foundation.

Forty-six percent of respondents — including a majority of those polled on the east (53 percent) and west (55 percent) coasts — say they support allowing states to regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol.

As a pollster who follows marijuana reform issues, I find the demographics interesting:

Respondents’ support for marijuana law reform was strongly influenced by age and political affiliation. Nearly two-thirds of 18-29 year-olds (65 percent) and half of 50-64 year-olds think federal law should be amended to allow states the option to regulate marijuana, while majorities of 30-49 year-olds (58 percent) and seniors 65 and older (52 percent) oppose such a change.

Among those respondents who identified themselves as Democrats, 59 percent back taxing and regulating marijuana compared to only 33 percent of Republicans.

I understand the positive responses from the 18-29 year-olds, but was pleasantly surprised by the 50-64 year-old respondents. Anecdotally, it’s members of this latter group that have most often been the opposition on marijuana-related initiatives and legislation I’ve worked. I was also a bit surprised that a majority of people in my age group (30-49) were in opposition. As many in this class are parents, it’s a bit understandable, though. It’s just a shame they don’t realize that their children are the ones being hurt the most by our current radical and extreme drug policy.

Other data provide (emphasis added):

Forty-four percent of Independents and 85 percent of Libertarians say they supported the law change.

I’m concerned about the 15% of libertarians who didn’t support it. These are likely to be the types who won’t support incremental change of any sort. A related example of libertarian all-or-nothingism exists on a medical marijuana online poll I ran in Alabama. At present, 38% oppose a state medical marijuana bill when I include this option:

No, the government should have no control over what substance someone takes

I’m pretty embarrassed about the 15%/38% of sampled libertarians who refuse to accept incremental reform measures.

( -)-(- )23 comments

Bush: We Don’t Need No Libertarians ‘Round Here

The other day, I noted that Patricia “Lynn” Scarlett, the interim head of the Department of the Interior, was not only in favor of ending the war on drugs, but probably very libertarian — as evidenced by her stint as president of the Reason Foundation. My prediction that Bush would not keep her on came true (and pretty quickly, too). From M&C:

President George W. Bush named Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne to succeed Gale Norton as secretary of the interior Thursday.

In a brief White House appearance with the nominee, the president said Kempthorne would build on environmental progress made by Norton.

Somehow, this came as no big surprise to me.

( -)-(- )10 comments

Fed Raises Debt Ceiling to $9 Trillion

Bennett cartoonA mere month and a half after realizing that the federal bank account was going to start sending out rubber checks, the Senate has stepped in and narrowly (52-48) passed a bill raising the borrowing limit (every man, woman and child alive now owes a mere $30,000 apiece). From the Associated Press:

The Senate voted Thursday to allow the national debt to swell to nearly $9 trillion, preventing a first-ever default on U.S. Treasury notes.

The vote came a day after Treasury Secretary John Snow warned lawmakers that action was “critical to provide certainty to financial markets that the integrity of the obligations of the United States will not be compromised.”

The debt limit increase is an unhappy necessity _ the alternative would be a disastrous first-ever default on U.S. obligations _ that greatly overshadowed a mostly symbolic, weeklong debate on the GOP’s budget resolution.

Not surprisingly, the Senate was mostly empty during debate, as Democrats were only interested in gleefully bashing the fiscal irresponsibility (“When it comes to deficits, this president owns all the records,” Harry Reid) without offering a fiscally conservative alternative of their own making. And Republicans simply just don’t give a crap.

But anyways, $30,000… better take out a loan.

( -)-(- )15 comments

Badnarik Wasting Libertarian Money?

Note: this article contains dead links, the url is still in the hover/alt text. Keep the web working, curate content well!

Austin Cassidy over at Third Party Watch did a little investigative reporting on the Badnarik campaign. First, he took notice of something rather encouraging for a libertarian campaign: he raised buckets of money. $125,000. Going on that alone, there is absolutely no reason that Badnarik’s campaign isn’t a winnable one.

However, it looks like the majority of that has been spent on dinners out, cruise tickets, and other crap. Almost none of it’s going towards actual advertising or outreach. I’ll just blockquote Cassidy here:

The campaign spends about $2,400 a month on renting an office and quite a bit on consulting and staff. Those seem to be the main expenses; lots and lots of consulting.

There were several hundred dollars worth of car rental charges, several hundred dollars worth of meals at local restaurants, and some other office-related expenses like phone phone and internet access.

They also appear to have ordered 100 T-shirts and purchased an ad in at least one local newspaper. Also an ad in LP News.

Quite a bit of travel for Badnarik and his staff, most of it to and from locations outside his district: Las Vegas, Phoenix, and California. About $1,100 or so went to Royal Caribbean International, presumably for Badnarik to attend the California State LP Convention which was held on a cruise ship.

Amusingly, the candidate himself seems to have paid $4.95 on February 25th for the cost of 2 ginger ales from Royal Caribbean. The item is recorded as “Campaign Event: 2 Ginger Ale: “Michael”.

The folks working on this campaign seem to be expensing quite a few meals out at restaurants. Outback Steakhouse, Luby’s, Marie Callendar’s, and on and on. There must be a couple dozen meals on here. Since last July they’ve spent more eating out at restaurants than most any other Libertarian Congressional campaign will raise or spend at all this year.

Other items include a little less than $1,000 for an Acer notebook computer and $415 for a fridge for the office.

All in all, it looks like pretty normal spending for a major party candidate in a race he’s expected to win. However, I’m not really sure if this campaign qualifies as being in that situation.

Our Presidential candidate is a celebrity of sorts in Libertarian circles, and if there’s ever a real reason to run a candidate for that, this seems to be that reason: we have a good shot at plunking him in the Senate or the House afterwards, since his fundraising capabilities are on par with the majors. But we need people that will use our money responsibly, not squander it.

Update by Stephen VanDyke: Ok everyone, take a deep breath and lay off the hyperbole for a minute lest we end up with petty name-calling and shooting Badnarik’s campaign down in a hail of friendly fire. I know our mantra here at Hammer of Truth is to take our own party to task from time to time so I’ve followed up via an open letter to campaign manager Allen Hacker to get his side of the story on why $130K+ has been spent so quickly. I know some of you might have a personal axe to grind here but it’s only fair that we hear Hacker out.

( -)-(- )69 comments

Hot Commenter Trashed in the Dallas Morning News

Frequent HoT commenter (and high school student) Nigel Watt recently had an LTE published (registration required) in the Dallas Morning News about the drug war:

If drugs were just legal

There’s an easy solution to the violence on both sides of the river caused by the Zetas and other drug cartels, a solution that would also save hundreds of millions, if not billions, of taxpayer dollars: legalize drugs.

A little thought and common sense is all it takes to realize that drugs only lead to violence because of their illegality: There are no Colombian coffee cartels or Chilean copper cartels, because cartels are not a viable business model for trading a legal product.

Nigel Watt, president, Highland Park High School Libertarians, Dallas

The response:

Legal drugs? Nonsense

Re: “If drugs were just legal,” by Nigel Watt, Saturday Letters.

This laughable letter makes the simplistic argument that since drug violence is caused by drugs’ illegality, if we would use a little thought and common sense, we would legalize all of them and therefore rid ourselves of the violence and millions of tax dollars spent curtailing drug-related crime and its related issues.

What about the health care burdens of rampant drug use? What about the effects on families and teens who are already more susceptible to trying new things? Overdoses? Car wrecks, shootings and assaults caused by people who were high?

It’s not too difficult to foresee the potentially disastrous effects of legalizing drugs. It just takes a little thought and common sense.

Jared Ambra, Cedar Hill

Mr. Ambra, I’ve got a few questions for you. Why not outlaw alcohol, as the healthcare costs associated with that substance are considerably higher than that of other controlled substances? While we’re at it, we should outlaw prescription pain medications, as they “cause” the same problems. Let’s see, overuse of antibiotics leads to new strains of micro-organisms with resistance to the medications — let’s outlaw antibiotics, too. Perhaps we should also look at Big Macs and pizza, as America’s eating habits certainly contribute to our overall healthcare costs.

If you are concerned about the susceptibility to “trying new things”, we should clearly outlaw teen-aged drivers. We should also outlaw dating, by your standards. Better outlaw all sex, if this line of reasoning is to be applied. This would have to include a complete masturbation prohibition, as it is the obvious “gateway drug” to more dangerous sexual relationships.

Wanna stop car wrecks? Outlaw cars. People will still break legs falling off horses, so we better outlaw them, too. Let’s outlaw guns — that will stop the shootings. Just look at the crime rate in DC for evidence. Let’s outlaw assaults, too. I forgot, with the exception of certain police departments, assault is already illegal.

Bad things happen, no matter how the law reads. There have always been, and always will be, addicts. The same applies to those who commit assault and murder. The solution is obvious: End the prohibition and re-establish a society where people are responsible for their own actions.

Alternately, we could return to the relative safety of the dark ages, where life was hard and cruel and the average life span was in the low 30s. The ultimate irony is if we lived as they did during the dark ages, there’d likely be no prohibition of drugs.

( -)-(- )20 comments

Non-Partisan Anti-War Voting Group to Form

A new non-partisan group of voters who are opposed to the war in Iraq is scheduled to form tomorrow in DC. From their press release:

— Anti-War Movement to Offer Voters a Pledge

— New group to launch Friday for 3rd anniversary of Iraq War, seeking five million voters to sign pledge not to support pro-war candidates

— Well-funded effort aims to make Iraq War “an issue candidates can’t ignore”

WHAT: Voters for Peace, a new non-partisan group, will be launched this Friday, March 17 — the eve of the third anniversary of the start of the Iraq War — to highlight growing public opposition to the war in Iraq and other wars of aggression among disaffected Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike.

Speakers representing the ideological spectrum will appear at the National Press Club at 10 a.m. this Friday, March 17, to formally launch the new organization. They will unveil results of a new public opinion poll showing large numbers of voters would sign a pledge not to vote for any candidate who does not make a “speedy end” to the war in Iraq, and opposition to future wars of aggression, a campaign position.

Voters for Peace will unveil such a voter pledge on Friday, and announce it aims to gather two million signatures on it this year, and five million by the 2008 presidential election.

If someone from the DC area attends the event, please let us know if it is (yet another) lefty group espousing liberal/progressive sentimentalities or if there is a real opportunity for libertarian participation.

( -)-(- )16 comments

President Bush: Iraq Mess Doesn’t Make Preemptive War a Bad Idea

The Washington Post is reporting that the President has restated the “Bush Doctrine” in a new national security strategy document.

“If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self defense, we do not rule out use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack,” the document continues. “When the consequences of an attack with WMD are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize.”

Last I check, long-standing principles of self-defense required that you be defending against an attack or credible threat, not shooting first and looking for evidence to justify it later.

The document also lays out our new and improved foreign policy, based on spreading democracy worldwide, at the barrel of a gun. Except when the democracy that we spread doesn’t elect people we like; then democracy is bad.

At the same time, it acknowledges that “elections alone are not enough” and sometimes lead to undesirable results. “These principles are tested by the victory of Hamas candidates in the recent elections in the Palestinian territories,” the strategy says, referring to the radical group designated as a terrorist organization by the United States.

Without saying what action would be taken against them, the strategy singles out seven nations as prime examples of “despotic systems” — North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Belarus, Burma and Zimbabwe. Iran and North Korea receive particular attention because of their nuclear programs, and the strategy vows in both cases “to take all necessary measures” to protect the United States against them.

Goodbye “Axis of Evil,” hello “Seven Bad Dwarves.” Well, at least Cuba’s close by, but I don’t think they’re first on the list. I predict that we’ll bring military action against Iran within the year. Anyone want to bet against it?

( -)-(- )26 comments

Woefully mediocre for all

We’ve been saying for some time that one of the costs of the socialization (I’ll argue the same for the fascist components of our current system) of medicine will be a decreased level of services. There has been a lot of debate in the U.S. about the results of Canada’s single payer system. Now, there’s a study in the U.S. which indicates that we are only getting mediocre healthcare services.

Startling research from the biggest study ever of U.S. health care quality suggests that Americans – rich, poor, black, white – get roughly equal treatment, but it’s woefully mediocre for all.

“This study shows that health care has equal-opportunity defects,” said Dr. Donald Berwick, who runs the nonprofit Institute for Healthcare Improvement in Cambridge, Mass.

The article was written to suggest there is no economic or racial disparity with respect to the level of healthcare provided in the United States. They also mentioned another significant point — that the level of care is now “woefully mediocre” for all.

( -)-(- )13 comments

Cell Phone Jammers at the Theater?

Here’s a new example of how we lose our freedom at the hands government by the demands of corporate America. Like always, the reason sounds nice on the surface. In this case, movie theater owners are trying to silence cell phones in their seats.

Many hospitals have signs informing people to turn their phones off. Some strip clubs inspect phones to ensure they don’t have cameras on them. Airlines make reminder announcements to turn phones off. This isn’t good enough for theaters, who want federal authority to jam cellular frequencies:

Fithian said owners were considering other steps if that does not work.

“We will actually petition the Federal Communications (Commission) to remove the block” on jamming cell phones, he said.

That may be difficult, since federal law and FCC rules prohibit the use of cell phone jammers.

The industry is broadly trying to increase interest in the movies.

I guess they’re not too interested in doctors (or others constantly on call) being in their audiences.

UPDATE: OK, OK. Poor posting. I was trying to make two points. One is that it appears they will try to use corporate influence to obtain special licensing others aren’t afforded (I can’t legally run a cell phone jammer at my business). The other had nothing to do with libertarianism, just stupidity. What they propose will eliminate their best repeat customers (doctors, military and emergency personnel and others who are frequently on call). With rules like that, neither my wife nor me (nor my stock broker friend, military nephew, etc.) could go to the movies any more. All they have to do is request that people turn their ringers off. Vibrate works just fine in situations like this.

( -)-(- )23 comments

GOP Suddenly Concerned about Ethics (LOL)

The headline reads “House Leaders Propose New Ethics Rules”. It might as well read “Foxes to Guard Hen House”. From ABC News:

Stung by scandal, House Republican leaders announced plans Wednesday to impose at least a temporary ban on privately funded travel by lawmakers, along with a requirement for lobbyists to disclose the gifts they bestow on House members.

The recommendations will “sustain the integrity of the Congress as we move forward,” House Speaker Dennis Hastert said at a news [conference].

“We need to bring about bold, strong reform,” added Rep. David Dreier, the California Republican involved in assembling a set of proposals generally designed to limit the influence of lobbyists.

Not that the Democrats do any better when they’re in charge. This one’s so oxymoronic I’m at a loss for words.

( -)-(- )1 comment

First Russo Movie Reviews

The first reviews of Aaron Russo’s new documentary, America: From Freedom to Fascism, are in. With two good ones, and one bad one, I think I’ll create a review sandwich with a sampling from each of them.

Michael C. Ruppert:

A Jewish guy from Brooklyn who made good in the movie business winds up at the end of this movie getting told by another Jewish guy who used to head the Internal Revenue Service, “Gornished von hellfin.” Translated, the Yiddish expression means, “Nothing can help you.” As former IRS Commissioner Sheldon Cohen says it to Russo at the end of America: From Freedom to Fascism, one thing is crystal clear, Cohen is speaking to everybody. Every American of every religion, gender, color, stripe and cholesterol count is directly, personally, and tangibly affected by the things that Russo so compellingly shows us in this movie. What happens in between the beginning and the end has nailed sneak-preview audiences in more than a dozen cities to their seats in (according to Russo and others) larger numbers than those for (gag) Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 911. […]

In the end Aaron Russo does fall short because, not surprisingly, he fails to come up with a quick, easy, silver-bullet solution that Americans have been trained to expect. Is that his fault or ours? Filmmakers like Aaron Russo have been wrongly perceived by many Americans as silver bullets in their own right. Perhaps unintentionally, the film documents Russo’s (continuing) discovery that the appearance of American democracy and economic liberty is a cynical façade.

Scott Moore:

Look out, Michael Moore: the libertarians are straight-up jacking your style. In his former life, Aaron Russo produced Hollywood films that entertained, like Trading Places. Now, he’s set his sights on pimping the idea that the American government has become a fascist state. How? Through taxes and spy chips, of course! This film wasn’t screened for critics, but if the trailer is any indication, the movie largely consists of anti-tax activists demanding to know what the constitutional basis is for income taxes. Not surprisingly, that isn’t followed by questions of how we’d fund healthcare for the poor and elderly, or keep people from starving to death, without taxes. Then again, topics like “compassion” and “other people” have never overly concerned libertarians.

Lindsay A. Gerken:

Throughout the documentary, the Ashland crowd laughed and whistled at the points Russo made, while swimming through a range of emotions brought on by Russo’s logically sequenced argument. The music accompanying the film was accurately in step with the topic, including songs like The Buffalo Springfield’s “For What it’s Worth (Stop, hey what’s that sound),” the Beatles’ “Taxman,” and Pink Floyd’s “Money.” In addition to Russo’s mosaic of interviews with experts, interspersed intelligently between film clips were significant quotes made by famous people about the state of a government run by its people. […]

A flurry of networking occurred after the film ended, bringing numerous representatives of ecologically-aware groups and tax-reform advocates together to chat and exchange names and ideas.

The film makes several powerful suggestions for action that Ashland viewers cheered for, including not to accept a national ID chip or card, and to vote for representatives that will sign an affidavit to question and possibly extinguish the Federal Reserve System. The film leaves our bi-partisan viewers with the suggestion to stop being good democrats and good republicans, and join together.

As Aaron Russo’s documentary, America: From Freedom to Fascism, circulates throughout the country, overflowing auditoriums and receiving standing ovations, our fingers and many others’ are crossed in the hope that Russo’s film will actually screen in a theatre near you.

There’s more at the IMDB (registration required).

UPDATE: Russo’s been on the phone today. Apparently he called Michael Ruppert, who made this correction to his review. He wanted me to insure that everyone knows that the middle review (the socialist one) was of the trailer, and not the complete documentary. I think y’all already figgered that out.

( -)-(- )20 comments

Kubby Going Back to Jail

It’s starting to get confusing, now. Out of jail, in jail, released from jail, going directly to jail. Steve Kubby was just sentenced back to prison. This time it’s not directly for drug charges, but for moving to Canada in order to stay alive. From ABC News 10:

Medical marijuana activist Steven Wynn Kubby is heading back to jail after a Placer County judge sentenced the former gubernatorial candidate to 60 days behind bars Tuesday.

Kubby, 59, received the 60-day sentence for violating his probation by moving to Canada in 2001 rather than serve a 120-day term following a conviction for possession of psilocyn and mescaline in Placer County. Kubby said he went to Canada because he would have died in jail without marijuana to treat adrenal cancer.

The picture’s becoming clear on this one: Law enforcement officials involved are considerably more compassionate than those sitting on the bench.

( -)-(- )18 comments

Act of Fingering Goes to Court

The old axiom (one often used by libertarians) is that your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. Apparently, one fifth of this axiom will be tested in federal court. From the AP:

A motorist believes the constitutional right to free speech includes obscene hand gestures.

Thomas Burns, of New Castle, contends he was denied his First Amendment free speech rights when he was cited for giving an obscene hand gesture to a construction worker in April, according to a federal lawsuit filed Monday in Pittsburgh.

Burns had become frustrated with a traffic delay and showed the gesture at a construction worker. The worker reported it to a police officer, who cited Burns for disorderly conduct, according to the lawsuit.

The citation was dropped, but Burns filed a lawsuit because he believes he was maliciously prosecuted.

The obvious question is what sort of construction worker tattle tales to the police for getting flipped off? Where I live, at least, contruction workers are more manly than in Pennsylvania — including most of the females.

According to the article, there were no other potential crimes associated with this case:

The “finger gesture was not accompanied by any verbal threats, taunting or communication and was never visible to anyone other than the workers,” the lawsuit states. “The gesture, albeit insulting, had no sexual meaning, did not appeal to anyone’s prurient interest, and did not create a public disturbance or breach of peace.”

While the Pennsylvania Constitution doesn’t mention fingers, the intent is made very clear:

The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.

I’m not sure why this is going to federal court, but the First Amendment is equally clear. Perhaps the axiom needs to be rewritten: So long as your finger doesn’t end up inside of my nose, your right to flip the bird must be protected.

Thanks to Mike G. for the tip.

( -)-(- )6 comments

Funny Video of the Day

Co-blogger Michelle knows I’m trying to kick the cigarette habit, which must be what prompted her to send this hilarious video my way. Apparently Dave Chapelle is significantly brighter than the DEA with it’s $2.1 billion annual budget. Just think what would happen if the DEA spent half their budget marketing O’Dweeds and used the other half for deficit reduction.

( -)-(- )4 comments

News briefs for 3/13

Robert Murphy of Hillsdale College just posted a fantastic piece about free trade on Mises.org. He basically kills, skins, boils and devours any possible case to be made against globalization. It’s glorious-but then, what else could you expect from a professor at a college that accepts no federal funding whatsoever?

Meanwhile, it appears that the Libertarians in Greene County, Missouri had to deal with a white supremacist trying to run for US Congress under their label. Army veteran, truck driver and racist asshole Glenn Miller first tried to get on the ballot as a Democrat, but they rejected him. So did the Republicans. The Libertarians took their cue from the majors and did the same. Kevin Craig, the LP’s erstwhile candidate for the 7th Congressional District, seems to be a better, non-embarrassing candidate for the region.

Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Russ Feingold stands alone again. This time he’s trying to censure Bush, an action Congress hasn’t taken since the days of Andrew Johnson Jackson. Predictably, he got little support for the move from the Congressional Invertebrate Sheeple Caucus… but you can’t blame the man for trying. Hell… other than his staunch support for Soviet healthcare, the dude could probably be considered libertarian.

( -)-(- )19 comments

The State writ small

“…the State is nothing more nor less than a bandit gang writ large” -Murray Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty

If Murray was right, then the reverse would also be true-namely, the mafia is merely the State writ small. Certainly, they both do watch out for each other.

Take a look at the latest mafia news. Apparently, John Gotti just got a mistrial. Fancy that! And, as always, it was on a technicality-namely, that his last act of racketeering was more than five years before the trial date. A jury was hung on the question-undoubtedly because some of them had either been bought or threatened. You would think that the government’s prosecutor would have more jurisprudential savvy than to bring a case to trial in such a manner that would give the mafia plenty of room to maneuver… but then again, let’s not forget that the government has a lot of money to be made by working with organized crime. In fact, two cops in New York seem to have done just that, by moonlighting as hitmen and providing tips to the Luchese crime family.

The two institutions are really one and the same. They both demand “protection money” if you live on their turf. They both will ruin countless lives with their “turf wars” and quietly demand monopolies on drugs and prostitution in their “turf.” Hell, for that matter they’re both into providing welfare-yes, even the likes of Al Capone were bleeding heart New Dealers. And now, by the looks of it, these two crime syndicates are allies in the War on People.

( -)-(- )10 comments

Drug War Funnies

Joseph Frederick, an Alaska high school student, was suspended for unfurling a banner which read “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” across the street from his school. According to Reuters, the principal took Frederick’s banner and suspended him for 10 days for opposing the school’s position on the drug war. Fortunately, the judge remembered the First Amendment:

The appeals court said the banner was protected speech because it did not disrupt school activity and was displayed off school grounds during a non-curricular activity.

“Public schools are instrumentalities of government, and government is not entitled to suppress speech that undermines whatever missions it defines for itself,” Judge Andrew Kleinfeld wrote in the court’s opinion.

The court also cleared the way for Frederick to seek damages, saying Morse was aware of relevant case law and should have known her actions violated his rights.

Hopefully Frederick will sue Morse’s ass off — which might send a chill down the backs of principals across the country who likewise disregard the First Amendment.

Perhaps politicans are lightening up on the drug war, too. Muckraked reports the following:

The interim head of the Department of the Interior, Patricia “Lynn” Scarlett, once endorsed the legalization of drugs. Back in 1989, she wrote an op-ed column for USA Today titled “Give Up the Drug War: Legalize Drugs Instead.” It’s not known if Scarlett still believes in legalization.

According the the article, Scarlett once served as the president of the Reason Foundation. It might seem doubtful that Bush would keep her on in her interim position, except for the fact that Condi is now in possession of cocaine — at least according to this source:

Condoleezza Rice knew coca would top the agenda in her meeting with Bolivia’s new president, but she likely wasn’t expecting to get the real thing.

At the end of their 25-minute meeting, President Evo Morales presented the U.S. secretary of state with an Andean guitar that bore a coca-leaf inlay.

“The gift was well received. We will just have to check with our customs to see what rules apply. We certainly hope we can bring it back (to Washington),” said a senior State Department official who attended the meeting.

The way I see it, Rice is currently in possession of something outlawed in the United States. The US no longer recognizes international borders with respect to its War on Drug Users. Whether she takes the guitar into the U.S. or not, I’d like to see her treated the same way people like Marc Emery or Cory Maye have been.

( -)-(- )12 comments

Yankee go home!

The people gathered one day, made their voices heard and in an 8-to-1 ratio they expressed their political will: Get the Americans out of here!

I’m not talking about Iraq-rather, about Japan. 61 years after American forces landed on the Japanese home islands, we’re still there. 50,000 of us-about 2/5ths the size of our force currently in Iraq. Unlike Iraq, we actually gave liberty, democracy and stability to Japan-but even so, nobody outside of their top government and what’s left of the Japanese hawk movement wants us there.

In fact, the town of Iwakuni, 600 miles west of Tokyo,voted against a plan to expand the U.S. Marine base there by an 8-to-1 margin. The town referendum is non-binding, but it shows well what the average Japanese subject is thinking. In fact, Japan’s main proponent of the deal, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, conceded that it was highly unpopular.

Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said Tokyo would aim to meet the end-March deadline, but acknowledged the plan faces stiff opposition from local communities.

“If a referendum were held, the result would be a ‘No’ vote anywhere. That is the difficulty with issues related to national security,” he told reporters.

If, 61 years after we occupied Japan, we’re still providing defense for a successfully democratized, liberalized nation… then what hope do we have for getting out of Iraq safely? We’ve only been in Iraq for 4 years, and the nation is hardly liberal and its democracy is infantile. It’s already becoming more and more obvious that the American legacy to Iraq is civil war, not liberty and stability. Maybe this is why even conservatives are vocally itching to get out of Iraq these days.

I highly doubt anyone’s expecting Iraq to become the next Japan, after all-but regardless of a nation’s status, this just goes to show that every nation likes sovereignty and that America does its best bringing its troops home from abroad.

( -)-(- )13 comments

Hope Remains for Bush?

Time to break out all of those old jokes about bush in the White House, except this one is shaven (according to the pics I found at Google images). From MonstersAndCritics:

PRWire, a very reliable source of mainstream and sometimes alternative news is reporting that adult starlet Mary Carey is scheduled to attend the United to Victory dinner with President George W. Bush in Washington D.C on March 15th – 16th.

Carey, who was also a Republican candidate for governor of California, is going to Washington at the invitation of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC). She will meet and interact with key Congressional leaders and Administration officials to discuss advancing powerful pro-business, pro-family agendas and meeting positive legislative goals.

She will join Karl Rove, senior advisor to the President, for lunch on Wednesday the 15th, and President Bush for dinner on Thursday the 16th.

Maybe this visit will lighten the tyrant up a bit and he’ll quit taking out his aggression on America and the world.

( -)-(- )3 comments

Republicans Plan to Resurrect Reagan for 2008 Presidential Race

Ronald Reagan certainly had his flaws — but he was certainly classier, a better speaker, more libertarian and even more economically conservative than the current occupant of the White House. When asked, almost half of Georgia Republicans find Dubya the spitting image of the the Gipper:

Do you view President Bush as a conservative in the mode of Ronald Reagan? (Republicans only)
Yes 43%
No 38%
Undecided 19%

This isn’t just isolated to Georgians. Let’s head north, to Wisconsin:

Do you consider President Bush to be a conservative in the mode of Ronald Reagan? (Republicans only)
Yes 40%
No 44%
Undecided 16%

From MacPaper:

The Republican conference that ended here Sunday featured three 2008 White House contenders trying to capture Ronald Reagan’s sunny optimism, despite the travails that could pose a problem in November. […]

Huckabee said Reagan became president because his “Morning in America” theme resonated with Americans. Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas introduced himself as “a Reagan Republican” and spent several minutes praising the late president as bold, optimistic, inspiring and courageous.

Sen. George Allen of Virginia was first to mention Reagan’s vision of America as “a shining city on a hill” (Brownback was second). Allen also said he has on his desk a plaque that Reagan once gave to his father, the former Washington Redskins coach. On it is written Reagan’s famous exhortation, “If not us, who? If not now, when?”

Asked later why Reagan was getting so much attention, Allen said Reagan cut taxes and changed the dynamics of the Cold War. Delegates sensed a yearning to recapture a golden age that historians have already judged a success.

“Now that he’s gone, he’s become a symbolic figure,” said Phil Zimmerly, 23, a law student from Tuscaloosa, Ala., adding that might happen to President Bush in 20 or 30 years.

Are these guys delusional or has some form of mass psychosis infected the GOP?

( -)-(- )2 comments