That’s the way it is: Cronkite Comes Out Against the Drug War

As most of you are aware, I’m heavily engaged in promoting the medical marijuana bill in Alabama. The Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) has provided us with a great deal of support in this regard. In today’s Huffington Post, Walter Cronkite promoted the DPA and took on the War on Drug Users. From the article:

I covered the Vietnam War. I remember the lies that were told, the lives that were lost – and the shock when, twenty years after the war ended, former Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara admitted he knew it was a mistake all along.

Today, our nation is fighting two wars: one abroad and one at home. While the war in Iraq is in the headlines, the other war is still being fought on our own streets. Its casualties are the wasted lives of our own citizens.

I am speaking of the war on drugs.

And I cannot help but wonder how many more lives, and how much more money, will be wasted before another Robert McNamara admits what is plain for all to see: the war on drugs is a failure.

While the politicians stutter and stall – while they chase their losses by claiming we could win this war if only we committed more resources, jailed more people and knocked down more doors – the Drug Policy Alliance continues to tell the American people the truth – “the way it is.

The world could sure use a few more Walter Cronkites and Harry Brownes.


Former Libertarian Presidential Candidate Passes Away

Harry Browne, who was the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000, is reported by multiple sources to have died yesterday. I just confirmed the general information with Jim Babka of DownSizeDC. DownSizeDC intends to be distributing pertinent information by e-mail and on their website later this evening.

Pending a statement from family or friends, the best (speculative) published source of information about his condition is currently on Wiki:

In June of 2005 an unknown neurological illness confined him to a wheelchair. After spending a considerable amount of time in the hospital, he resumed some of his writing and speaking, though it was uncertain whether he will walk again. He succumbed to illness on 1 March 2006.

Wiki also provides some additional biographical information:

Harry Browne (17 June 1933 – 1 March 2006) was an American free-market Libertarian writer and investment analyst.

He was born in New York City to Bradford and Cecil Margaret Browne and currently resides in Franklin, Tennessee.

Browne was the presidential candidate of the United States Libertarian Party in 1996 and 2000. He was an investment advisor for thirty years and was, immediately prior to his death, Director of Public Policy for the libertarian Downsize DC Foundation.

He came to prominence in 1970 with his first book, How You Can Profit From The Coming Devaluation, which correctly predicted the devaluation of the dollar and subsequent inflation. Browne’s second book was 1973’s How I Found Freedom In An Unfree World, which focused on maximizing personal liberty. This book became an instant classic in libertarian circles. You Can Profit from a Monetary Crisis was Browne’s third book and reached #1 on the New York Times bestseller list. He continued to author books and articles on investing through the late 1990s. […]

More recently, Harry Browne had continued working to increase the popularity of libertarian goals to reduce the size and scope of government. In addition to writing and making appearances on behalf of the Downsize DC Foundation, prior to his death he hosted two weekly network radio shows; one on Saturdays dealing with politics, and the other on Sundays dealing with financial topics. Browne also worked with the Free Market News Network, of which he was the President. Via Free Market News, he had his own internet-based television show called This Week In Liberty. He was also working on a book called The War Racket just prior to his death, but had stated that the book was not near completion, with no definite publishing date.

Members of both the Libertarian Party and entire the libertarian movement have lost a great leader and spokesperson for the cause. Harry, you will be missed. We at HoT would like to offer our condolences to Harry’s family and friends.

I last saw him at the 2004 Libertarian Party convention where my wife and I shared a banquet table with Harry, Pamela and a few other people. While he looked as though he had aged a bit, his wit was sharp and his eyes sparkled with life. In every correspondence we’ve shared since then, that same sparkle was present, motivating me to do more for the cause of liberty.

If Harry Browne was still with us, I think he’d still be trying to motivate each and every one of us to reach our highest potential. I’ll close with one of his quotes which I’ve kept taped to my monitor for years; I think he’d have liked it that way: “The important thing is to concentrate upon what you can do – by yourself, upon your own initiative.”

Additional information is available here.

UPDATE: Lew Rockwell has more here. Reason has more here. Press release here.


Teacher Suspended for Insulting Hitler

BushHitlerAfter Overland High School student Sean Allen conveniently taped teacher Jay Bennish bashing Hitler, he has finally gone public. And rightfully so. The blatant vilification of Hitler came after President Bush’s State of the Union address, where the anti-Nazi teacher had the audacity to compare Hitler to Bush:

“It’s our job to conquer the world and make sure they live just like we want them to,” Bennish can apparently be heard saying on the tape. “Now I’m not saying that Bush and Hitler are exactly the same, obviously they’re not, OK. But (there are) eerie similarities to the tones that they use.”

The nerve! It is obvious that the two are not similar. As the People’s Blog points out:

1. Hitler was elected.

2. Hitler rebuilt the German economy.

3. Hitler was an artist. (Bush doesn’t even write his own bad poems.)

4. Hitler was not an alcoholic.

5. Hitler was a gifted speaker.

Thankfully we have the Patriot Act(s) to ensure our protection against anti-Nazi terrorists like Jay Bennish. He and the rest of the evil politicians, judges and dictators can go straight to hell with their allusions!

Gott Mit Uns

UPDATE: Listen to the audio here.


Potential Good news from SCOTUS

The Supreme Court seems a bit skepitcal about Vermont’s campaign finance law which places $200-$400 individual contribution limits on most races. From MacPaper:

Justice Anthony Kennedy called the regulations “highly restrictive.” Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether the limits could be justified because of fears of possible political corruption in the state.

Roberts asked Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell, defending the campaign finance limits, how many political corruption cases he has prosecuted. Sorrell said none. Roberts then asked whether Sorrell would describe the state as “clean” or “corrupt.”

If SCOTUS decides they way they should in this case, perhaps it may be time for them to revisit the McCain-Feingold Bill.

( -)-(- )1 comment

Joke of the Day

The headline reads “Senate Considers Independent Ethics Office”. From the article:

An independent ethics office is included in a lobbying reform package a Senate committee is taking up, putting on the table the sensitive issue of whether lawmakers are capable of policing themselves.

I’d laugh my ass off if it wasn’t so damned serious.


Senate Shoves Updated Patriot Act Down Our Throats

The Senate passed two key votes yesterday intended to ensure that the Bill of Rights remains as useless as soiled toilet paper. From The Chicago Tribune:

Two overwhelming votes virtually assured that Congress will renew President Bush’s anti-terrorism law before its expiration date, March 10. The Senate is expected to pass the two-bill package, renewing the law with the added protections, on Thursday. The House was expected to pass the legislation next Tuesday.

The law’s opponents, who insisted the new protections were cosmetic, conceded defeat.

“The die has now been cast,” acknowledged the law’s chief opponent, Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), after the Senate voted 84-15 to end his filibuster. “Obviously at this point, final passage of the reauthorization bill is now assured.”


The White House and GOP leaders finally broke the stalemate by crafting a second measure–in effect, an amendment to the first–that would limit somewhat the government’s power to compel information from people targeted in terrorism investigations.

That second measure passed 95-4. Voting “no” with Feingold were Sens. Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.).

Bipartisanship at its best…

( -)-(- )Comments Off on Senate Shoves Updated Patriot Act Down Our Throats

Texas Redistricting May Be a No-Go

The closely watched congressional redistricting plan in front of SCOTUS right now shows potential signs of failure. From Bloomberg:

U.S. Supreme Court justices signaled reluctance to overturn a Texas congressional map engineered by former U.S. House Republican Leader Tom DeLay.

In a two-hour argument session in Washington, the court aimed a barrage of questions at a lawyer arguing that the 2003 redistricting was a partisan bid to break up Democratic strongholds. The map, which helped Republicans pick up five U.S. House seats in Texas in the next year’s election, replaced one that was drawn by a court in 2001 after a legislative deadlock.

The high court’s skepticism crossed ideological lines, with some of the most pointed questions coming from Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter, who both previously voted to allow challenges to partisan redistricting.

I’ll be watching this one closely, as modifying the districts around the Badnarik’s district are key to the Democratic plan.

( -)-(- )Comments Off on Texas Redistricting May Be a No-Go

Military Censorship: Soldiers Now Deemed Unworthy to Read the News

Pardon the profanity, but this veteran is really pissed off right now. Really, really pissed. Really fucking pissed. And according to this report, it may be enough to keep this website blacklisted by the military. From a message received at Wonkette:

Just to let you know, the US Marines have blocked access to “Wonkette” along with numerous other sites such as personal email (i.e. Yahoo, AT&T, Hotmail, etc), blogs that don’t agree with the government point of view, personal websites, and some news organizatons. This has taken effect as of the beginning of February. I have no problem with them blocking porn sites (after all it is a government network), but cutting off access to our email and possibly-not-toeing-the-government-line websites is a bit much.

Initially all web blocking was done locally at the hub sites in Iraq. If you wanted a site “unblocked” you just had to email the local administrator with a reason (like, “I’d like to read my email, please.”), and if it wasn’t porn or offensive, they’d allow it. Now, all blocking is done by desk-weenies at the USMC Network Operations Center in Quantico, VA, who really don’t care if we get our email (or gossip) out here, as they get to go to happy hour after working 9 to 5 and go home to a nice clean, warm home with a real bed!

If we aren’t already cut off for the offensive language, we will certainly be rendered unavailable to those people actually die on a daily basis for our criticism of military higher-ups and US foreign policy.

Despite my opinion of this particular war, anyone who is dodging bullets deserves to know the full reason why they are there. If the story is accurate, the REMFs just shut down the news in the field. I know the language is offensive, but it’s to make a point. Old enough to die, but not to drink or read the news. Just motherfucking swell.

UPDATE: There may be several reach-arounds available for our bullet dodging friends out there. Try Firefox, instead of IE, for starters. Other tips are provided here.

UPDATE 2: Just got back home. Major crisis averted (some details linger for future debate) for now. Details (and check your own website).


Modifying the LP Platform

If you are a member of the Libertarian Party (state or national level), you have your chance for input into the 2006 platform. Simply visit and register. It may take up to a business day or so for your registration to be validated by someone at the national office, but then you can provide your input to any recommended platform changes.

Don’t bitch if you don’t get involved.

( -)-(- )1 comment

Homer for President ’08 Campaign Kicks Off with Good Polling Numbers

Before reading this article, state the following sentence out loud:

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.

Guess what? You are better informed than most Americans, according to this source:

Americans apparently know more about “The Simpsons” than they do about the First Amendment.

Only one in four Americans can name more than one of the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment (freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition for redress of grievances.) But more than half can name at least two members of the cartoon family, according to a survey.

The study by the new McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that 22 percent of Americans could name all five Simpson family members, compared with just one in 1,000 people who could name all five First Amendment freedoms.

Joe Madeira, director of exhibitions at the museum, said he was surprised by the results.

The only confusing portion of the linked article is that Madeira was surprised by the results. There’s a national poll of registered voters every four years which consistently confirms the same general results. D’oh!?!


Hitting the Bull’s Eye: Dealing With Firearms Prohibitionists

My wife is a psychiatrist. Following being raised and attending medical school in Alabama, she completed her psychiatric residency and a child psychiatry fellowship at Georgetown University Hospital. A significant portion of her training was during the Clinton years, where she was constantly under attack for her “radical views” by the Georgetown elite. This was a big cultural shock to her, coming from a home and social order where firearm ownership is the accepted norm. I still remember her frustration one day after her attendings suggested that a teenaged patient was psychologically defective merely because he owned a BB gun.

I found an interesting article written by another female psychiatrist which outlines the psychodynamics of people who favor victim disarmament, and more importantly provides some tactics for successfully engaging such people in debate about Second Amendment issues.

In a nutshell, Dr. Sarah Thompson provides that firearm prohibitionists use common defense mechanisms such as denial, projection and reaction formation in order to deal with their own psychological inadequacies. Here is one example:

Another defense mechanism commonly utilized by supporters of gun control is denial. Denial is simply refusing to accept the reality of a given situation.9 For example, consider a woman whose husband starts coming home late, has strange perfume on his clothes, and starts charging flowers and jewelry on his credit card. She may get extremely angry at a well-meaning friend who suggests that her husband is having an affair. The reality is obvious, but the wronged wife is so threatened by her husband’s infidelity that she is unable to accept it, and so denies its existence.

Anti-gun people do the same thing. It’s obvious that we live in a dangerous society, where criminals attack innocent people. Just about everyone has been, or knows someone who has been, victimized. It’s equally obvious that law enforcement can’t protect everyone everywhere 24 hours a day. Extensive scholarly research demonstrates that the police have no legal duty to protect you10 and that firearm ownership is the most effective way to protect yourself and your family.11 There is irrefutable evidence that victim disarmament nearly always precedes genocide.12 Nonetheless, the anti-gun folks insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that “the police will protect you”, “this is a safe neighborhood” and “it can’t happen here”, where “it” is everything from mugging to mass murder.

Anti-gun people who refuse to accept the reality of the proven and very serious dangers of civilian disarmament are using denial to protect themselves from the anxiety of feeling helpless and vulnerable. Likewise, gun owners who insist that “the government will never confiscate my guns” are also using denial to protect themselves from the anxiety of contemplating being forcibly disarmed and rendered helpless and vulnerable.

In my opinion, she makes many valid points but goes off the deep end while discussing victim identity. While many advocates of victim disarmament may clearly suffer from self-identification as a vicitm, she painted certain stereotypical groups with too broad a brush:

Consider for a moment that the largest and most hysterical anti-gun groups include disproportionately large numbers of women, African-Americans and Jews. And virtually all of the organizations that claim to speak for these “oppressed people” are stridently anti-gun. Not coincidentally, among Jews, Blacks and women there are many “professional victims” who have little sense of identity outside of their victimhood.

At both a local and national level, I know far too many pistol packing mommas, Jews and black people for her statement to hold water. This disagreement does not take away from what I consider the most important aspect of Thompson’s work.

After painting the picture that most people who oppose private ownership of firearms do so because of emotional reasons, she outlines mechanisms we can use to effectively communicate with them and perhaps even persuade some to reverse their illogical thought processes. Again, here’s an example:

Another example might be, “Why do you think that your children’s schoolteachers would shoot them?” You might follow this up with something like, “Why do you entrust your precious children to someone you believe would murder them?” Again, you are merely asking questions, and not directly attacking the person or his defenses.

Of course the anti-gun person might continue to insist that the teachers really would harm children, but prohibiting them from owning guns would prevent it. So you might ask how using a gun to murder innocent children is different from stabbing children with scissors, assaulting them with baseball bats, or poisoning the milk and cookies.

It’s important to ask “open-ended” questions that require a response other than “yes” or “no”. Such questions require the anti-gun person actually to think about what he is saying. This will help him to re-examine his beliefs. It may also encourage him to ask you questions about firearms use and ownership.

As a political consultant, I find the advice of my wife indespensible when dealing with the emotional perceptions of target audiences for which I have no special empathy. Oftentimes, firearms enthusiasts are as emotionally charged as their opponents, and Dr. Thompson provides some great tools for opening the lines of communications in order to protect our Second Amendment rights.


Google, Kiddie Porn and the Bill of Rights

I’ve suggested it before, and I’ll suggest it again today. In January, articles first started to surface that the Department of Justice wants to seize Google records in order to chase kiddie porn perps. We aren’t just talking about specific information being subpoenaed to find evidence about some specific alleged wrongdoer, but major fishing expeditions of millions upon millions of records.

Today’s news indicates that all the DoJ wants is a “sample of URLs and search queries”:

The Department of Justice (DoJ) has rejected Google’s assertion that a government subpoena for search data threatens the privacy of Internet users.

“The government has not asked Google to produce any information that would personally identify its users,” according to the DoJ’s response filed Friday in a San Jose court.

Yeah, right. The DoJ is going to look at search strings which indicate that someone may be looking up questionable porn and then not obtain a search warrant for more complete records — and I’ve got some beachfront property in Kansas for sale. But the issue goes deeper than this. What the feds want 1) costs a lot of money and 2) jeopardizes trade secrets. Both of these issues are covered by the 5th Amendment:

…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It could be fairly easy to establish a reasonable price for the data requested; the Constitution demands it. What would not be so easy is determine the valuation of Google’s trade secrets. This would be a very hefty bill, to be sure.

Instead of trying to find new ways to enforce a law already determined unconstitutional by the courts, perhaps our nannies in DC might just enter a few search strings into Google themselves.


Pro-Liberty Talk Show Makes the “TALKERS 250″!

Talkers 250
The Talkers 250 is a list of the 250 most important talk shows of 2006. This year, the world’s most pro-Liberty show, Free Talk Live, was included!

This is a major honor in the business, and FTL is receiving it after only a year and a half in syndication! This is because of listeners calling their local talk stations and creating a demand for principled, pro-Liberty talk content by asking for Free Talk Live!

Oh, and if you vote for us in March, it helps drive new people to Liberty!



Libertarian Ideology Ruins Horror Genre

horror film gun commercial

This actual pro-gun commercial from Totally Awesome Guns & Range in Utah is sure to be an instant viral classic as it portrays how short a horror film would last if the token ditzy blonde was armed to the teeth in the first scene (via SayUncle).


Zogby: Overwhelming Majority of Troops Favor Withdrawal from Iraq

Kevin Zeese popped me an e-mail this morning with the heads-up about an article he will be publishing later today. It stems from this NYT article by Nicholas Kristoff which indicates that 72% of American troops think they should be withdrawn within a year. For some reason, I can’t access my TimesSelect account at the moment (I’m on the road right now), so I’ll provide the pertinent blockquote from Think Progress:

A new poll to be released today shows that U.S. soldiers overwhelmingly want out of Iraq and soon. The poll is the first of U.S. troops currently serving in Iraq, according to John Zogby, the pollster. Conducted by Zogby International and LeMoyne College, it asked 944 service members, “How long should U.S. troops stay in Iraq?” Only 23 percent backed Mr. Bush’s position that they should stay as long as necessary. In contrast, 72 percent said that U.S. troops should be pulled out within one year. Of those, 29 percent said they should withdraw “immediately.”

According to Zeese, Zogby will be releasing the poll later today. The devil is always in the details, and I don’t yet know the exact wording of the survey questions, how many of the troops polled are reservists or National Guard, how many of them have been deployed to Iraq, etc. These sorts of issues may end up being the spin spouted by the neocons (spoon fed by O’Reilly and Limbaugh, of course). This said, the poll has the potential to become very politically significant over the next few months.

UPDATE: The Zogby results are here. They answer a lot of the questions I asked. Prediction: The hawks will start saying that Marines are “real soldiers” while reservists and National Guard are not.


The Real Reasons to Hate Wal-Mart

A lot of my favorite libertarian writers spend a lot of time defending Wal-Mart, and rightfully so for the grounds they have chosen. Here are a few examples. From Radley Balko:

Yet more states are passing bills aimed specifically at requiring Wal-Mart to pay for its workers’ health care. Unbelievable. I don’t see how such Wal-Mart-specific legislation can pass constitutional muster. But then, I find it appalling that lawmakers in an allegedly quasi-free market society would tell a private company that it is required by law to give its employees free stuff.

Wal-Mart’s losing on another front, too. More states are requiring the store to cary the morning-after pill on its shelves.

Let me repeat.

State governments are requiring a private business to put a certain product on its shelves.

What next? Why not force Wal-Mart to sell certain books? Why not ban it from selling others? In fact, why don’t these states just set up a regulatory agency to take over the day-to-day operations of Wal-Mart stores inside their borders?

Balko is certainly correct in this case, as he is here, too:

It sure is thoughtful of lefty activists to work so hard to keep Wal-Mart out of urban areas. We can’t have this corporate behemoth exploiting low-income folks with jobs that wouldn’t otherwise exist, and by selling them good stuff at low prices.

The horror.

Better people who are well-employed decide for the urban poor that they don’t need those jobs. And that they should be shopping at more tasteful stores, anyway.

I think that maybe — just maybe — anti-Wal Mart sentiment has more to do with an aversion to the white, rural ethnology the store sometimes represents than its labor practices. We can’t have our Ethiopian restuarants and esoteric bookstores blighted by NASCAR culture.

Sabine Barnhart correctly wrote:

The hate campaign against Wal-Mart reflects the late Weimar Republic Nazi oratory when Hitler’s election slogans were directed against free economy in general and certain prosperous businesses — many of them Jewish owned — in particular. They were deemed “Non-German in their zeal for profit.” Never mind that their reason for being profitable was in their success in catering to the German citizens themselves. Hitler’s dubious grasp, his promises of greater Germany despite the NSDAP’s destructive economic planning do seem to resonate once again.

Laurence Vance provided some good arguments to hate Wal-Mart today:

Good reason #1: Crowds

Good reason #2: Parking

Good reason #3: Carts

Good reason #4: Lines

Good reason #5: Cashiers

Good reason #6: Inventory

Good reason #7: Selection

Good reason #8: Self-checkout registers

Good reason #9: Prices

Good reason #10: Getting Help

If you still prefer the “bad” reasons for not shopping at Wal-Mart then by all means don’t shop at Wal-Mart. Just quit citing your bogus reasons as if they were facts.

He’s correct, up to this point. Then he blows it.

Wal-Mart has never caused any firm to go out of business. Wal-Mart can’t close down any store but one of its own. It is the customers who no longer do business with a company or shop at a particular store who put that company out of business or closed that store.

Despite all of these valid arguments in favor of Wal-Mart’s right to compete in a free market system, the arguments provided start to lose their validity when statements like this are made:

Contrary to popular thinking, Wal-Mart does not drive other retailers out of business: customers do by choosing to patronize a store that does a better job of supplying their wants than do their established competitors.

I can’t speak for the entire country (although I hear of similar cases in other states), but in my state of Alabama, Wal-Mart is the beneficiary of eminent domain and political pay-offs — and they use these tools to gain an edge in the marketplace.

I’d like to quickly describe three Wal-Marts in my community. The first one was in Alabaster. They used eminent domain (and the coercive threat thereof) to kick dozens of people from their homes. From Neal Boortz:

Alabaster City Councilman Tommy Ryals thinks that these property owners are just being greedy. “Sometimes,” he says, ” the good of the many has to outweigh the greed of the few.” Indeed, Councilman Ryals, how dare these private-property owners refuse to sell their private property when the new owner could generate so many tax dollars for the good of the many! Don’t these people realize that the rights of one individual to his property are nothing when the need of the collective is considered?

Vance and Shaffer insist that Wal-Mart does not drive other retailers out of business. However, the planned Wal-Mart in Birmingham’s Crestwood area will be sharing parking lot space with the last remaining K-Mart in town. Here is the kicker. The city plans to give Wal-Mart $11 million taxpayer funded cash dollars to compete with the K-Mart. What sort of principled libertarian could support this sort of deal or not see how it may well drive the K-Mart of out business?

If eminent domain and pay-offs aren’t enough, what happens when the two are combined in the same deal? Just ask the 30 or so business owners who were shut down after Wal-Mart set its eyes on a new location in the Roebuck section of Birmingham. Only one of them actually fought the deal, but he had the cajones to explain why the others didn’t:

Chris Curran, owner of Spuds Pub, told the newspaper that the city has put a gun to owners’ heads. “Anybody who has been signing contracts with Wal-Mart is signing under duress,” Curran said. “That means: Here’s our contract, sign it and if you don’t sign it, we’ll take it. … They (city officials) just want a trophy, and they don’t mind pushing us out of the way to have that trophy.”

Additionally, Wal-Mart got a $10 million dollar tax abatement in that deal. I’m all for tax abatements, but only if all businesses get their fair share. In this case, like many others, Wal-Mart was the only beneficiary.

Libertarians are opposed to the abuse of government force and the threat thereof. The consistent misuse of eminent domain and tax dollars to give one business an advantage over others clearly qualifies as such force.

Since the Iraq War started, it is rare that one would find me disagreeing with Radley Balko and writers at the von Mises Institute and while agreeing with Neal Boortz. I’d suggest that libertarian writers check their facts a bit more before making such knee-jerk defenses of Wal-Mart.

UPDATE: The debate is hot and heavy here and here, too.

UPDATE 2: I just spoke with my assistant, and she reports that by a vote of 8-0 (of nine members), the Birmingham City Council just passed the latest $11 million dollar deal for Wal-Mart. The only member who was opposed was sick today. He was given three minutes by speaker phone to address the council, but was not allowed to vote against awarding the contract. This should be a very proud day for all of the Wal-Mart supporting libertarians out there.


Russmo Tackles Socialized Healthcare

Here’s the latest from Russmo:

( -)-(- )1 comment

Grannies, Guns, and Government

Julian VanDyke often gets under my skin. I don’t think I am alone in thinking that his combative attitude makes it tough to have true discussion. That attitude is not reserved only for the discussion posts. Recently, in our inboxes, HoT editors received this challenge:

How about it, Hammer of Truth writers. Write something about this or is the only thing you can do is bash the Iraq war and promote pornography? Let’s see some Second Amendment action. Guys like me are really interested in preserving what little freedom we have to buy, sell and own arms of all kinds and descriptions without interference from big brother. Are you interested in this issue or are you hung up on bashing soldiers and our military?

Naturally, he included a tip. February 15th was reserved for the Oversight Hearing of “The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) Part l: Gun Show Enforcement.” This site provides the testimonies of a gun show manager, a former police officer turned gunsmith and an enthusiast. The testimonies, if true, demonstrate that the BATF has completely failed- either by ignorance or irreverence- to uphold its duty as servant of the American people and the constitution we hold dear. That failure reaches past the Second Amendment and actually brings in the First and Fourth as well. see more…


FDA in violation of Nuremberg Code?

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

by Jon Airheart

It was reported on the front page of Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal that despite doctor pleas and 2 fatalities, Northfield Laboratories Inc. has been given the okay by the FDA to continue clinical trials of a blood substitute called PolyHeme. What’s worse is the manner in which the FDA is allowing it.

“The FDA is allowing Northfield to test its blood substitute without the consent of the trauma patients, who often are unconscious.”

With this appalling fact, it would appear that the FDA is in blatant violation of 3 out of the 10 principles of The Nuremberg Code’s Permissible Medical Experiments (

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.

5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.

9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.

The number 1 principle is self-explanatory and is the basis for which the studies are not in compliance with number 9. How can someone be at liberty to end an experiment if he/she is not made aware of said experiment?

In addition to 2 fatalities several years ago, 8 of 81 patients who received the fake blood suffered a heart attack within 7 days.
Northfield to this day has never publicly disclosed these results and fails to mention them in newly printed materials. This raises serious questions as to compliance with the number 5 principle.

The FDA has lost all credibility with this recent incident. Are they a part of our servant government or not? Are they accountable to us or not? You can give them a piece of your mind at 1-888-INFO-FDA. Lester Crawford has been the acting commissioner of the FDA since March 2004 and was confirmed the permanent head of the organization on July 17, 2005.

Jon Airheart asked me to publish this guest article for him. The photo (most embarrassing one I could find of him) is of Jon, Jessica Caplan and me and was taken in NYC in 2004.


Wisconsin: Smoking Bans, Judges Breaking the Law and Ed Thompson Follow-up

It started with this from Homeland Insecurity:

It started with a posting to a conservative Wisconsin political web site in August. And Wednesday the effort to recall Madison, Wis., mayor Dave Cieslewicz, officially began, with volunteers attempting to gather 35,000 signatures over the next 30 days. And the effort is being organized by non-smokers upset over the smoking ban.

While some of Madison’s citizens are fuming over the issue, the fumes got hotter in a Madison courthouse. While the reason for the trial is indeed interesting, the bottom sentence of the following paragraph shows how hit some of the fumes got on the smoking issue:

Today’s testimony followed a hectic Tuesday for jurors. First they went through a four-hour process to select who would serve in the expected three-week trial Then they were forced to evacuate the courtroom of presiding Judge Steven Ebert when fire alarms went off in the new $44 million courthouse. The alarm turned out to be caused by some overheated popcorn in a microwave, the second such popcorn incident and the third fire alarm since the building opened in January. The first time the sensitive alarm system went off came when Judge Michael Nowakowski was sneaking a cigarette in his bathroom in the new building.

As one would expect, there are two standards of justice in America. Most normal citizens would have probably been spanked pretty hard for smoking in a courthouse in America, but the judge didn’t even get his knuckles rapped:

Calls and letters came in to the Madison Police Department asking if Judge Michael Nowakowski got a ticket for smoking in his bathroom at the new Dane County Courthouse, thus setting off a smoke alarm that emptied the building and called in the fire department on Feb. 13.

But it’s the Sheriff’s Office that is in charge of discipline in this situation and spokesperson Elise Schaffer says Capt. Ron Boylan decided not to issue Nowakowski a ticket.

“He did have verbal contact with him and Judge Nowakowski recognized that he made a mistake and mentioned that it won’t happen again,” says Schaffer. “Capt. Boylan stated that’s probably how he’d handle it in any situation.”

It’s a shame the Capital Times didn’t write a full article (that I could find) about the judge getting caught smoking, but at least Rolf pieced it together for me.

Speaking of the Capital Times, it seems they do read HoT from time to time. When asked if he was interested in running, Thompson provided a good quote in their article:

“It’s not true. As of right now, I’m not going to,” Thompson said.

“I am meeting with some people who are trying to convince me it would be a good idea. It would take a lot of convincing. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t, but the best way to bet would be no.”

Thompson said he is immersed in running — and expanding — his business.

“That’s taking a lot of time,” he said.

Thompson also is serving in an elected office at present — the Tomah City Council. He was elected by a write-in vote without even running for the office.

“But Tomah is a lot different from the 3rd District,” he said.

Nevertheless, if he were to seek office again, Congress would be the goal, Thompson said.

“That is the one spot that does interest me, the House. I think there is so much corruption, and I am so sick of the federal government taking our money and going to war. I don’t think we’re getting good representation from either party. We’re so entrenched in the two-party system that we need another voice. I am truly disillusioned with government — period.”

Spoken like a true politician. Actually, that was a better non-answer than most politicians provide.

Not only do they ask the same question we did (will Ed Thompson run for Congress?), they titled their article with Chris Bennett’s comment: “Run, Ed, Run.” I’ll have to read Anita Weier’s articles more often, now that I know she has a reputable source of information :)


New Mexico County Commissioner Swaps to Libertarian Party

From Austin, Tim and Richard:

On February 24, Paul Edward Trujillo, chair of New Mexico’s Valencia County Commission, changed his registration from “Democrat” to “Libertarian”. He is running for re-election this year and will run as a Libertarian. Question: Is Trujillo the highest level Libertarian currently in elected office?

Congratulations are due to Mr. Trujillo and the New Mexico Libertarians.


Statewide Smoking Suppression Stopped

According to the Washington Post, Virginia and Maryland have rejected statewide smoking bans. It’s a good sign for liberty when such obvious nanny-statism gets rejected. Delegate David Albo (R-Fairfax) deserves kudos for this comment:

“The problem is, I want to have smoke-free restaurants and businesses. But in America, you don’t pass a law to tell a private business owner who is paying rent or mortgage payments what he can and can’t do in his own place.”

It’s good to see that Virginia and Maryland have refused to become like New Jersey. Of course DC’s ban still lingers as a pool of fascism between the two states mentioned, despite the best efforts of groups like Ban the Ban.

UPDATE: In response to Ian’s request, Delegate David Albo’s website.


Response to Response to Response to BS

I wrote a while ago about my view (from a female vantage point) of the libertarian movement and I answered Mr. Bice’s concerns from my perspective. He, predictably, ridiculed my position on (nearly) everything. His statements start with:

The Libertarian Party’s disagreement with anti-discrimination laws is probably pretty darn popular in some areas down south. Many areas of the country probably offer niche markets for various types of whites-only establishments, where the “white race” doesn’t have to be bothered with homosexuals, blacks, Asians, Hispanics, etc. Such establishments would feed on existing racism, amplify the tendency and help foster this bigotry.

My whole point was that a person with a true mind for business success would never be a bigot. This idea works with gay/straight, smoking/anti, or even male/female. The idea is that a free open market will not tolerate what is reprehensible, and those of us finding a political home in the Libertarian Party are generally not a tribal sort of group. By nature, we are outside the comfort zone. Which brings me, quite naturally, to the Harry Brown reference

“Harry Browne, Libertarian Party candidate for president in 1996 and 2000, put it this way, ‘freedom from government – on all issues at all times.'” Why would a libertarian believe it was fine for government to restrict businesses from selling drugs. That’s so parental, and libertarians hate parental government actions. If drugs aren’t illegal, why should government have any role whatsoever? I thought the marketplace was were decisions like this were made. I’ve even heard some libertarians argue that Doctors should require licenses to practice, and that everyone should have the power to write prescriptions.

Newsflash!!!!!!(Again) Libertarians do not toe a party line. We have differences of opinion on some things. Harry Browne, who was before my L-time, does not speak for me on every issue. (And truly, I felt that this was not an issue to look up. Lazy night, but I am responding to a lazy argument.) It may seem strange to someone in the habit of regurgitating the party line word for word, but we love that we are different. And, FTR, my husband is a doc. I support standards in that field-but profession regulated standards. Truthfully, I would like to sue him for malpractice because he told me to suck up a hurt foot on a run. Turned out that I had a fracture, but I am not the normal patient- he doesn’t have to order a ton of x-rays to cover his ass with me. That is gov-reg baby. Get them doing unnecessary tests to avoid liability. CYA in today’s climate can be costly.

Katrina- the bitch that slapped the country. Hmmm. Yes, Bice. It was regulation misappropriation of designated cash that drowned NOLA. While the local gov was spending money on fountains and parties, the threat was high. I lived in NOLA from 1973 to 1995. All I ever knew was to get the hell out of town for a cat 4 or better. Go to Phuket and see how they are rebuilding the area. (Dude, I was there in November and I witnessed the (unsafe by US standard) scaffolds and 12 year olds on mopeds weighed down with lumber.) There is something to be said for personal responsibility.

Education choice is not a choice. That Bice pretends that it is- is frankly- silly. The only choice today is to pay for a sub par product- and then pay again.

Perhaps Mr. Bice should leave the party of his parents and step-maybe for the first time- into his own. The LP is not perfect, but we never did pretend to be the only deal out there. We, unlike the others, offer a choice.