Combs Spouts Off

Firefly, season 2: are you interested?

Posted by Richard on February 1, 2006

Are you a fan of Joss Whedon’s TV series, Firefly? Did you go see the film Serenity when I raved about it and then raved some more? Does the term "Browncoat" ring a bell?

If you answered "yes" to any of those questions, go right now to the Firefly Season 2 Project website and fill out the survey to indicate your interest in seeing new episodes of Firefly.

This isn’t a petition. They’ve got an independent production company that wants to buy the rights from Fox and continue the series, either on another network or selling it on a pay-per-view, download, and/or DVD basis. The survey is to gauge depth and breadth of interest, plus stuff like how many people would want it in HD (me! me!). So if you’re at all interested, go take the survey — it’s short and painless, and all personal info is optional.

Subscribe To Site:

Bush, Beamer, and being serious

Posted by Richard on February 1, 2006

I watched the State of the Union address, although I was tempted to skip it. The State of the Union speech is always a bit of a drag, since it inevitably includes a laundry list of new initiatives and spending proposals. This time, at least those were fairly modest as such things go.

National security and international relations were still center stage, and as usual, I found Bush’s vision and commitment compelling and admirable. I believe if someone undertook a count, they’d find that G.W. Bush has uttered the words liberty and freedom far more often than any other president. In the context of foreign policy, overwhelmingly more. Once again, Bush articulated the message of R.J. Rummel that democracies don’t start wars or threaten their neighbors, and that advancing liberty is in our best interests (from White House transcript):

Abroad, our nation is committed to an historic, long-term goal — we seek the end of tyranny in our world. Some dismiss that goal as misguided idealism. In reality, the future security of America depends on it. On September the 11th, 2001, we found that problems originating in a failed and oppressive state 7,000 miles away could bring murder and destruction to our country. Dictatorships shelter terrorists, and feed resentment and radicalism, and seek weapons of mass destruction. Democracies replace resentment with hope, respect the rights of their citizens and their neighbors, and join the fight against terror. Every step toward freedom in the world makes our country safer — so we will act boldly in freedom’s cause.

But for me, the defining moment of the speech — the episode that shone a clear light on the President and his opponents — came much later, when he addressed entitlement spending:

This year, the first of about 78 million baby boomers turn 60, including two of my Dad’s favorite people — me and President Clinton. (Laughter.) This milestone is more than a personal crisis — (laughter) — it is a national challenge. The retirement of the baby boom generation will put unprecedented strains on the federal government. By 2030, spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid alone will be almost 60 percent of the entire federal budget. And that will present future Congresses with impossible choices — staggering tax increases, immense deficits, or deep cuts in every category of spending.

Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security — (applause)

The transcript notes applause — it was both more and less than that. Only the Democrats reacted, and they leapt to their feet, applauding and cheering. NBC showed Sen. Clinton reacting with joy and laughter. The entire Democratic congressional delegation and all their staff and friends celebrated their inaction on the Social Security problem.

Bush waited for them to quiet down and be seated, and then continued:

Yet the rising cost of entitlements is a problem that is not going away. And every year we fail to act, the situation gets worse.

Do the Democrats really believe that contrasts such as that one benefit them? Over and over again, whether it’s national security or the entitlement crisis or what have you, they demonstrate that they’re not serious. Bush shows that he is.

Speaking of being serious: after the speech, I switched to A&E and watched Flight 93. It’s a story we’re all familiar with, and we all know how it ended. But I found it compelling and moving and riveting. This is no hagiography to larger-than-life heroes — it’s presentation of the events is straightforward and relatively low-key — and it’s all the more powerful for it. I’m an atheist, but when Todd Beamer and Verizon call center supervisor Lisa Jefferson spoke the Lord’s Prayer together just before Todd and the others attacked the cockpit, I wept.

"Let’s roll" was spoken firmly, but without bravado, and I didn’t cheer — but I set my jaw and unconsciously tensed in anticipation, as if hoping and wishing for success. I suppose, in a sense, success is what we got.

At the end, I was completely emotionally drained, but I’m very glad I watched. I only wish there had been fewer commercial breaks — on the other hand, as draining as it was, I can only imagine what watching it non-stop would be like.

A&E is airing Flight 93 several more times this week. I strongly recommend it. I wish every American would see it. You can sign up to get an email alert when it becomes available on DVD.

A&E encourages you to visit www.honorflight93.org, which actually takes you to a National Park Foundation donation page for the Flight 93 memorial. But before contributing, you may want to see what you think of the memorial design, which may or may not yet be finalized.

The original design (by anti-war architect Paul Murdoch) drew a firestorm of protest when people noticed a close resemblance between its "Crescent of Embrace" and another well-known crescent symbol. Michelle Malkin has lots of info and links — start here for recent news about the removal of the crescent. Or check out this NPS newsletter (PDF) for the current crescent-less "just a hole in the ground" design.

Subscribe To Site:

Of carnivals and councils

Posted by Richard on January 31, 2006

Mover Mike has posted Carnival of Liberty #30, so head on over there and start clicking links! Judging from the descriptions, there’s a bunch of good reading there.

And speaking of good reading, I’ve been remiss in not pointing to some other great reads. First, there’s Gullyborg’s most recent Carnival of Cordite. Since it was the 45th, he included only posts related to .45s. If you like big bore guns, head on over there right now — I just hope you’ve got a broadband connection! 🙂

Also, check out the most recent top vote-getters from the Watcher’s Council (the list of all nominees is here). New council member Done With Mirrors took the top council spot with Chaos or Community, a longish essay that I most strongly recommend. It’s a marvelous piece of work, thought-provoking and moving. You’ll enjoy learning about civil rights worker Frances Freeborn Pauley, "Everybody’s Grandmother & Nobody’s Fool."

The Winds of Change entry that’s the top non-council vote-getter is also well worth reading: Just A Second – It’s Not That Dark Yet (And We Have A Really Big Flashlight) by Armed Liberal looks at the Iran problem. Although counseling patience and calm, he concedes that we have to take the situation very seriously, and he does so with marvelous succinctness:

One key difference between 9/10/01 and 9/12/01 is that on the 12th, we came to realize that people who made insane threats and had some history of acting on them could no longer be ignored as colorful.

Another great turn of phrase sums up his advice:

Let’s remember that Iran is 30 minutes away from becoming a sheet of glass at our command. That power is real, and gives us both the space to maneuver and the responsibility to use it wisely.

As they say, read the whole thing.

Subscribe To Site:

Inadequate armor?

Posted by Richard on January 31, 2006

It looks like ABC’s Bob Woodruff and Doug Vogt will survive their injuries. The men were hurt by a roadside bomb as they were taping a "standup" in the open hatch of an Iraqi light armored vehicle near Baghdad. They’re on their way home to the United States after being treated at the US Army’s Landstuhl medical center in Germany:

Woodruff’s brother said the "World News Tonight" co-anchor’s condition "improved markedly" overnight, and a doctor said the prognosis for both injured men was "excellent."

A C-17 medical evacuation plane took off from the U.S. base at Ramstein on Tuesday afternoon carrying the two journalists and 28 U.S. service personnel, including several others hurt in Iraq.

When I first heard about their wounding on Sunday, a thought occurred to me, but I set it aside as too callous and snarky to voice while they were near death. Will anyone in the media ask why ABC News provided Woodruff and Vogt with clearly inadequate body armor?

Yes, I’m aware that one doctor credited their body armor with saving their lives. But both men suffered significant shrapnel injuries despite their armor. So, applying the same standard that was applied to the U.S. government by critics of vehicle and body armor, the fact that their armor didn’t prevent all injuries proves that it wasn’t adequate. If even the possibility of stronger armor exists, then ABC News is culpable for not providing it.

Subscribe To Site:

Coretta Scott King

Posted by Richard on January 31, 2006

Coretta Scott King, the widow of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., died last night, apparently in her sleep:

Former Mayor Andrew Young said on The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Web site that Bernice King found her mother at about 1 a.m.

Young, who was a former civil rights activist and was close to the King family, told NBC’s "Today" show: "I understand that she was asleep last night and her daughter went in to wake her up and she was not able to and so she quietly slipped away. Her spirit will remain with us just as her husband’s has."

To continue Dr. King’s work, Mrs. King founded the King Center for Nonviolent Social Change, and she campaigned successfully to have his birthday declared a national holiday in 1983.

Mrs. King, who was 78, suffered both a stroke and a heart attack last year and has been in poor health. May she rest in peace.

UPDATE: Regarding what happened at Mrs. King’s funeral, see Utterly classless and One more King funeral quote.

Subscribe To Site:

Who do they work for?

Posted by Richard on January 30, 2006

Some of the Democratic newsmaking from the past few days got me wondering about something.

First, there was Al Gore at the Sundance Film Festival, promoting the documentary about his traveling slide show on global warming. Gore warned that we have only ten years left before we all die in some Day After Tomorrow apocalypse. Gore thus joins an unbroken line of eco-nuts, stretching back to Paul Erlich in the late ’60s and ’70s, whose predictions of impending doom have been laughably off-base. Take a look at some of the failed prognostications catalogued here, or here, or here, for example.

Next, there was John Kerry leaving behind his fellow rich leftist elitists at the posh Swiss ski resort, Davos, in order to lead the charge for a Democratic filibuster of Sam Alito (which failed this afternoon on a 72-25 cloture vote). This thrilled the barking moonbat wing (i.e., the current mainstream) of the Democratic Party, bolstering Kerry’s chances for the 2008 nomination and forcing Hillary to temporarily abandon her effort to position herself as moderately sane.

And let’s not forget Howard Dean, who first reminded the Today Show audience that Democrats stand for the right to hold secret conversations with al Qaeda leaders and then threw the Senate minority leader (and other Democrats) to the Abramoff wolves.

So these events got me wondering: How much more will it take before someone in the Democratic Party begins investigating whether Gore, Kerry, and Dean are really on the payroll of Karl Rove?

Subscribe To Site:

Why are wine drinkers healthier?

Posted by Richard on January 29, 2006

If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a thousand times: correlation doesn’t imply causation. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy. You ought to take epidemiological studies with a grain of salt (but not too much, it may raise your blood pressure; or maybe not).

For years, studies have shown health benefits associated with wine consumption — in particular, lower rates of heart disease. Scientists have studied what in wine confers these benefits, have identified potent anti-oxidants and polyphenols, and have researched the metabolic mechanisms by which these substances conferred their benefits.

There may be some truth in what they found. But then again, maybe not so much. At least in Denmark, there may be a simpler explanation:

COPENHAGEN, Jan. 20 – The lower death rate among wine drinkers compared with those who quaff beer may be due in part to healthier diets among the devotees of the grape.

That’s the opinion of researchers here, who surveyed the checkout items of Danish shoppers and found that people who bought wine as their only form of alcohol also tended to buy fruits, vegetables, and low-fat meats and cheeses.

In contrast, beer drinkers tended to go for prepared dishes, sugar, cold cuts, chips, pork, butter or margarine, sausages, lamb, and soft drinks, reported Morten Grønbæk, M.D., Ph.D. and colleagues of the Danish National Institute of Public Health, in a study published online by BMJ, formerly the British Medical Journal.

The results suggest that lifestyle choices and other factors may be more important than alcohol type in determining mortality risk, the authors wrote.

Correlation does not imply causation. Wine may not make you healthier, it may just be associated with things that do.

On the other hand, maybe drinking wine causes you to prefer fruits, vegetables, and low-fat meats and cheeses. Or maybe eating cold cuts, chips, pork, butter, etc., causes you to crave beer.

These health issues are never simple. Worrying about them is driving me to drink.

Subscribe To Site:

Hamas and the Palestinians

Posted by Richard on January 28, 2006

Many Western commentators have expressed shock and disappointment at the huge Hamas victory in the Palestinian Authority elections. "This may mean the end of the peace process," they cry. To which I reply, "What peace process, you fool?"

The Palestinian electorate didn’t choose Hamas over Fatah because the former wants to kill all the Jews and the latter wants a peaceful settlement. The peaceful settlement part is nonsense — Western wishful thinking. They both want to kill all the Jews. The difference between them is more a matter of presentation and posturing (and corruption) than anything else.

Fatah, the child of the murderous thug Arafat, wants to continue doing what Arafat did successfully for years: con the Europeans and Americans into providing billions of dollars in the vain hope that it will lead to a "peaceful settlement," enabling the PA leadership to continue their corrupt and decadent lifestyle while their people live in poverty, squalor, and hopelessness.

Arafat, Abbas, and the PA leadership routinely spoke of peace and accommodation to the West, while assuring their own people that the ultimate goal will always be "Palestine from the river to the sea," the total destruction of Israel, and the death of all Jews. They talked to Westerners about the "occupied territories" as if they meant Gaza and the West Bank, occupied by Israel after the 1967 war. But the very name "Fatah" comes from the Fatah Revolution of 1965, when Arafat founded the PLO in order to destroy Israel and end the "Zionist occupation" as it then existed.

Hamas, the child of Saudi Wahhabism, is less corrupt and duplicitous, and makes (so far) little or no attempt to soften its message for Western ears: the goal is to destroy Israel, kill all the Jews, and reclaim all of Palestine, and the means to that goal are terrorism and martyrdom. In fact, it sometimes seems that to the Wahhabis of Hamas, martyrdom is an end in itself. A Hamas election video bragged (emphasis added):

We succeeded, with Allah’s grace, to raise an ideological generation that loves death like our enemies love life. We will not abandon the way of Jihad and Shahada [Martyrdom] as long as one inch of our holy land is in the hands of the Jews.

The Jerusalem Post reprinted the martyr’s oath from the Hamas charter. Here’s a sample:

The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: ‘The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him…’
Resisting and quelling the enemy become the individual duty of every Muslim, male or female. A woman can go out to fight the enemy without her husband’s permission, and so does the slave: without his master’s permission…

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. ...

Palestinian Media Watch has a wealth of documentation on what Hamas, Fatah, and the PA leadership have been saying for years, and it’s all of the same cloth. See, for instance:

PA Promotion of Racism and Anti-Semitism

Denying Israel’s Right to Exist and Anticipating its Destruction

Is the Palestinian Goal A Peace Agreement or “Hudna” [cease fire]?

Or go to their Latest Bulletins page and just keep scrolling for as long as your stomach can take it.

There is one possible benefit to the Hamas landslide. Their Wahhabi roots, their unabashed advocacy of jihad, their open bragging that they won’t rest until all Jews are dead and all Christians are subjugated — these things may cause the Bush administration to finally stop giving $400 million a year to this tribe of uncivilized murderous savages. Then, perhaps, we’ll no longer have American tax dollars directly and indirectly funding and supporting terrorism.

Subscribe To Site:

Miners are as safe as CEOs

Posted by Richard on January 26, 2006

I guess I’m at the age where I’ll start saying more and more often, "You young kids don’t know how good you’ve got it. Why, when I was your age…" When I first heard the news about the 12 deaths in a coal mining accident, it occurred to me that that was the first big coal mining accident I’d heard about in years. I recalled that when I was young, such accidents seemed to occur every few months.

According to Iain Murray at TCS Daily, my recollection is correct. The fatality rate for miners in the U.S. is about one-sixth what it was forty years ago, and the occupation has become remarkably safe when compared with others that would seem to be far less risky (link is to PDF):

To hear Senators Byrd and Rockefeller speak, one would think that the coal mining industry in this country is one of the major sources of death in the US. They might be surprised to hear that, while 28 miners died in accidents on the job in 2004, so did 27 top executives. The recent small cluster of mining deaths in two incidents has led to a legislative reaction out of all proportion to the scale of the problem. Mining is already about as safe as such an inherently dangerous activity can be.

According to the 2004 BLS data (PDF linked above), occupations with a similar number of fatal occupational injuries included fire fighters (29), food and beverage serving workers (27), automotive service technicians and mechanics (38), retail salespersons (41), and cashiers (54). Most construction work, agricultural labor, and many manufacturing and repair jobs had far more fatalities. Of course, these are raw number comparisons, not fatality rates, and there are far more cashiers in the U.S. than miners. Still, the numbers are pretty amazing — mining has become remarkably safe.

Murray also pointed out a wonderful post at BizzyBlog that discredited the efforts by the shameless partisans at the New York Times to bash Bush. BizzyBlog quoted a NY Times editorial (emphasis added by BizzyBlog):

Political figures from both parties have long defended and profited from ties to the coal industry. Whether or not that was a factor in the Sago mine’s history, the Bush administration’s cramming of important posts in the Department of the Interior with biased operatives from the coal, oil and gas industry is not reassuring about general safety in the mines. Steven Griles, a mining lobbyist before being appointed deputy secretary of the interior, devoted four years to rolling back mine regulations and then went back to lobbying for the industry.

BizzyBlog did the fact-checking that the Times’ editorial writers couldn’t be bothered with, actually looking up fatality rates in this and the previous administration (emphasis in original):

Contrary to what The Times would have you believe, the trend has been favorable (”reassuring,” if you will) for many years, especially the past four, where there has been a near-50% drop in fatalities. In fact, these results support the contention that staffing Interior with people who actually know their industry has led to greater safety. And where was The Times when coal mine fatalities increased over 40% during the last three years of the previous administration’s arguable responsiblity (1999, 2000, and 2001, given that a new administration’s first budget and full implementation of its priorities typically does not occur until October of its first year in office)?

Read the whole post, including the astonishing information about Chinese coal mining and the multiple updates. Lots of good info and links.

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Google, Big Brother, and paranoia

Posted by Richard on January 25, 2006

Last week, the Justice Department tried to subpoena search query data from Google, which resisted the request. What the feds want isn’t information about who searched for what, but just aggregated data on all the search strings used at Google. They’re doing research into how people search as part of their study of how to protect minors from smut or something. Stupid stuff that the feds have no business doing, but not exactly ominous portents of fascist repression.

Nevertheless, according to the New York Times’ Katie Hafner, some people are trembling with fear (emphasis added):

Kathryn Hanson, a former telecommunications engineer who lives in Oakland, Calif., was looking at BBC News online last week when she came across an item about a British politician who had resigned over a reported affair with a "rent boy."

It was the first time Ms. Hanson had seen the term, so, in search of a definition, she typed it into Google. As Ms. Hanson scrolled through the results, she saw that several of the sites were available only to people over 18. She suddenly had a frightening thought. Would Google have to inform the government that she was looking for a rent boy – a young male prostitute?

Ms. Hanson, 45, immediately told her boyfriend what she had done. "I told him I’d Googled ‘rent boy,’ just in case I got whisked off to some Navy prison in the dead of night," she said.

Although Ms. Hafner quoted a couple of people who dismissed such concerns, her article suggested that they’re far outnumbered by people who range from troubled to extremely paranoid. For instance:

"It’s scary to think that it may just be a matter of time before Googling will invite an F.B.I. agent to tap your phone or interrogate you," Ms. Farrell said.
…
Sheryl Decker, 47, an information technology manager in Seattle, said she was now thinking twice about what she said in her personal e-mail correspondence. "I have been known to send very unflattering things about our government and our president," Ms. Decker said. "I still do, but I am careful about using certain phrases that I once wouldn’t have given a second thought."

Ms. Decker’s caution is being echoed by others. Genny Ballard, 36, a professor of Spanish at Centre College in Danville, Ky., said she had grown more conscious about what she typed into the Google search box. "Each time I put something in, I think about how it could be reconstructed to mean that I have more than an academic curiosity," Ms. Ballard said.

My take? I deplore the Justice Department’s new zeal, under Gonzales, for fighting pornography. Even child pornography, where actual crimes with victims exist, shouldn’t be a federal matter. But worrying about your Google searches is just silly. It’s not like you’re in China.

Ironically, of course, the fine liberals who run Google — and whose motto is "don’t do evil" — just announced that they’re willing to cooperate with the Chinese government’s censorship, repression, and monitoring of its citizens in order to do business there:

Jan. 24, 2006 (KRT News delivered by Newstex) — SAN JOSE, Calif. — Google announced that it is officially launching its services in China, a move that will require the Internet firm to subject itself to self-censorship.
Google is one of the last large U.S. Internet companies to officially set up shop inside China. The delay reflects months of internal wrangling over how to balance business interests against its distaste at having to comply with China’s restrictive speech policies.

So, Google executives Larry Page and Sergey Brin found it distasteful to cooperate with the Chicoms, but not as distasteful as cooperating with the Bush administration’s Justice Department. "Don’t do evil," indeed.

Subscribe To Site:

Carnival of Liberty #29

Posted by Richard on January 24, 2006

Welcome to the 29th Carnival of Liberty, a showcase of postings on the broad topic of individual liberty brought to you by the Life, Liberty, Property community of bloggers. I’m pleased to be hosting this week’s carnival, and I believe we have some fine reading for your edification and enjoyment.

We begin this week at Classical Liberalism, where Kenneth Gregg paid tribute to Lysander Spooner on the occasion of Spooner’s birthday (January 19, 1808). Kenneth described the impact on libertarian circles when Spooner’s No Treason was republished in 1966:

No one interested in the fundamendal connection (if any) between liberty and constitution (or meta-contract) and the process of legitimization could ignore Spooner. Indeed, now, nearly fifty years after publication, the debate continues.

Over at Fearless Philosophy for Free Minds, Stephen Littau does a fine job of Fisking Fitch’s “Just Say No” Post — and a well-deserved fisking it is!

Rebecca McCormick ("Wayne’s Mom") at Wayne’s World shared a letter they found in their mailbox thanking Sgt. Wayne West for his service: Cindy Smith Thanks Sgt. West. Thanks from me, too, Wayne — and thank you, Cindy Smith, for putting it so well.

Eric at Eric’s Grumbles Before The Grave read Crichton’s State of Fear and was inspired to write Elitists and a Society of Fear, in which he takes the fearmongers to task:

This is yet another case of elites who believe they know what is best for you and I. These folks are no different from the men who ran the Soviet Union. They have, in fact, through their arrogance and elitism, condemned hundreds of thousands, even millions, to death, starvation and privation. And they will keep on doing so until you and I wake up and demand some accountability.

On a lighter note — much lighter — Mark Rayner at The Skwib offered Dr. Tundra forsakes the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a fantasy about theocracy, creationism, and brainwashing.

Back to more serious thoughts. T. F. Stern at T. F. Stern’s Rantings is a retired police officer. Recent media coverage of a police chase led him to write Hot Pursuit, which examines the issue of how and when police should chase fleeing suspects. Stern draws on personal experience to concretize an abstract argument.

Let’s segue from a retired law enforcement officer’s thoughts to the anarchist philosophy beat. Francois Tremblay at The Radical Libertarian offers The Moral Razor, wherein he suggests an Occam-like principle for quickly dispatching "large swaths of moral systems." You be the judge — but don’t let him hear you say, "It depends."

Kelo and property rights are still on a lot of minds. Boringmadedull at The Boring Made Dull noticed that the folks trying to seize David Souter’s home haven’t quit. See Back to Kelo, II (or is it III? IV? V? VI? VII?) for the latest developments, along with Boring’s take on their effort:

… Of course it’s an act of revenge, silly. But an improper attack on the judicial system? Why shouldn’t we make judges live under the law? He voted for it, why shouldn’t he be subject to it? Why should Justice Souter have more privileges and be more secure in his property than Susette Kelo? …

Doug Mataconis at Below the Beltway noticed a report in the NY Times about eminent domain and real estate developers, and he didn’t like what he read. In Hooked on Takings, he concludes sadly:

If one thing is clear from this article it is that these commercial developers have become dependent upon the government to get them the land they need to build their projects, and politicans have become dependent on campaign contributions from the developers. The end result is a world where your property isn’t really yours anymore.

Dan Melson at Searchlight Crusade is also focused on eminent domain abuse. In More Eminent Domain Thievery, he tells the outrageous story of the Houston man who was given $1 for 105 acres of prime commercial real estate worth millions. Read it and get angry.

DL at TMH’s Bacon Bits rants about the Kelo decision in Time to Kelo the Judges.

And in Israel, there are other property rights issues, and the consequences may involve more than the loss of land or money. Muse at Blog Free! worries in Loyal Citizens in Danger that the Israeli public is being prepared for bloodshed in the eviction of "lawbreaking settlers."

On a happier note, mensa barbie at Mensa Barbie Welcomes You noticed that 25 years have passed since the happy day that Jimmuh Cahter (in my opinion, one of our worst presidents ever) was replaced by a far better man: National Renewal; 1981

Speaking of presidents, Jack Cluth at The People’s Republic of Seabrook noted the passing of Kosovo’s President Ibrahim Rugova in Another freedom fighter passes from the scene:

Though I have written extensively about my time in Kosovo, I can’t begin to do justice to what Ibrahim Rugova did to achieve the dream of peace and independence for Kosovo’s Albanians. Perhaps someday, when Kosovo is an independent democracy, people there will look back and recognize the debt of gratitude they owe Rugova for his years of hard work on their behalf. It would be a fitting tribute to a man who dedicated his life to his people.

Switching from death to taxes, Quincy at News, the Universe, and Everything knows what he thinks should be Step One for Tax Reform:

Taxes should be a bill, just like every other bill. Tax payers should have to sit down every month or every quarter and write a check to the government. They should have to make sure they keep enough in the bank to make sure that check clears. This would make Americans aware of how much they are actually paying to keep the government going and doling out pork to everyone from scientists studying homosexual Native Americans to the Coca-Cola Corporation.

More economics: Min-Duc at State of Flux argues in 1974: The History of Freedom that Hayek receiving the Nobel Prize was "the most important positive event that affects our world today." I don’t know if I’m convinced, but it was certainly earth-shaking. I’m old enough to remember it, and I was astonished and very, very pleased when it was announced.

From econ to politics: Obi-Wan at Forward Biased, in the aptly titled Things you don’t see every day, actually agrees with Sen. Joe Biden. Now that’s pretty scary, but I do believe he’s right! Who’d have thought Biden would actually suggest something that might move us closer to following the Constitution? Well, it’s a small thing, really, but who’d have thought…

Perry Eidelbus at Eidelblog combines econ and politics to discuss pandering politicians and protectionist demagogues in The finest government other people’s money will buy, part II.

And I’ll wrap things up with my own post, Too many laws, in which I lament the fact that legislators do so much legislating.

That’s all for this edition of Carnival of Liberty. Hope you enjoyed it. Next week, Mover Mike will be hosting Carnival of Liberty #30. And don’t forget, you can always find the Carnival of Liberty, along with all the other great carnivals, by visiting N.Z. Bear’s TTLB ÜberCarnival page.

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments »

Hillary: Bush not cowboy enough on Iran

Posted by Richard on January 20, 2006

In the foreign policy arena, the Democrats have now surpassed silly and moved right on to pathetic. Remember how unhappy the Dems were in the run-up to the Iraq invasion because the U.S. took a go-it-alone, cowboy approach and ignored the efforts of Germany and France to stay our hand?

Sen. Hillary Clinton has now criticized U.S. policy on Iran for failing to take a go-it-alone, cowboy approach and allowing Germany and France to stay our hand (emphasis added):

"I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations," Ms. Clinton said, according to a transcript of the speech published by The Daily Princetonian. "I don’t believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines."
…

The Bush administration has long favored sanctions, but had deferred action at the request of the European nations, who convinced Iran in 2003 to suspend its nuclear program. Mr. Bush last week said that he would pursue a vigorous diplomatic push to get as many countries as possible on board for possible United Nations action.

Confronted with the danger of an Iraq with WMDs, the U.S. acted too unilaterally (despite — what was it? — 35 or 40 allies) because we didn’t defer to Germany and France. Confronted with the danger of an Iran with WMDs, we didn’t act unilaterally enough — because we deferred to that same Germany and France.

At this point, I really don’t think it matters a whit what the Bush administration does or says. This is opposition for opposition’s sake. Rumsfeld could announce tomorrow that he’s endorsing and implementing the Murtha plan, and Democrats would line up to denounce it.

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Too many laws

Posted by Richard on January 19, 2006

Last week, I noted in passing that the Colorado legislature is back in session. This is the time of year when most state legislatures reconvene, which makes it a sad and dangerous time for lovers of liberty. In some places it’s far worse — some state legislatures meet throughout the year. The evil consequences of that much legislating are obvious from the names of those states: Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York… need I go on?

The trouble with legislators — even the decent, well-intentioned ones — is that they feel compelled to legislate. They believe that they must pass new laws in order to earn their keep, to be able to go back to their constituents and say, "Look what I’ve accomplished." On the first day of Colorado’s legislative session, over 100 bills were introduced. Do we really have such a shortage of laws? Are there that many things we still need to forbid, compel, or constrain?

In an article a few years ago, libertarian Charles Murray argued that the laws and regulations that govern us are now so numerous, complex, and impossible to understand that the average American cannot avoid being a lawbreaker. He cited this endless proliferation of laws as one of the reasons for the current public cynicism and distrust of government.

Ayn Rand predicted such a state of affairs in her 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged, and suggested dark motives for it:

There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

Almost all of us can agree on our basic goals regarding crime: we want our families, persons, and property to be safer; we want the police and courts to prevent or punish those who try to harm us or take what doesn’t belong to them.

To the extent that governments divert their limited resources to other matters, such as controlling personal, private behavior and enforcing arcane regulatory and licensing requirements, they’re less able to fulfill their primary obligation to us, which is to stop and punish the predators among us. And they diminish our liberty, our respect for the law, and our sense of personal responsibility.

We have far too many laws and regulations in Colorado. The average person can’t begin to comprehend them (which is why we also have too many lawyers). I’d like to put a measure on the ballot to require that, for every word added to the Colorado Revised Statutes or to an agency’s regulations, three existing words have to be removed.

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

A new Carnival of Liberty

Posted by Richard on January 18, 2006

Doug Mataconis at Below the Beltway is hosting Carnival of Liberty #28, and it looks like he did a great job and got some really interesting submissions. So go check it out.

I’ll be hosting next week’s Carnival of Liberty, so don’t forget to come back here on the 24th for that.

UPDATE: Submit your post promoting or discussing liberty to next week’s carnival by 5 PM Monday. The best way to do so is by using the Conservative Cat’s Carnival Submission Form. For more information about the Carnival of Liberty and guidelines for submissions, see this post. If you have a question, send it to carnivalofliberty at gmail dot com.

Subscribe To Site: