Local fire

A few weeks a go the local lumber yard caught fire and turned into 5 alarm blaze. We didn't get to see it because we were sleeping I think, but there are pictures available on the web if you click here, as well as a press release for download here.

Declare

Some time ago I wrote a post that quoted from Lysander Spooner’s “No Treason”. The post was centered on the obvious notion that tax is theft. I concluded the post with a disclaimer stating that while Spooner was an anarchist, I was not. There have, in fact, been many occasions in the past where I have found myself trying to distance myself from the anarchist label and all that it is perceived to mean.

Well people change, their worldviews evolve, their philosophies become more defined, and I am writing this to declare myself an anarchist. I know it’s a label that evokes a pretty strong, and often negative reaction from so many people. I also know it’s a movement that has been largely dominated by Luddites and those who use violence to get what they want. I fall under neither of these categories. If an adjective needs to be added to it, I’d call myself a Private Property Anarchist; one who sees natural law and private property rights as sufficient for society to run itself, without the presence of an organization that is nothing more than a parasite known as the State.

Comment and criticize as you see fit, but at the same time I’m curious how and why your political views have changed over the past year or so, if at all. Declare for yourself what you are, politically. I’m not talking about how you vote every 2-4 years, but rather what political philosophy you hold as truth more than any other.

Happy National Legalized Extortion Day everyone!

Politics without rhetoric

Ron Paul is running for President in '08, but will not make much a splash in the scheme of things due to lack of funds. Welcome to democrazy in America. His name doesn't show up much next to the likes of Giuliani or McCain, let alone the elites like Obama or Clinton II.

I wouldn't necessarily endorse Paul, but he certainly is better than any GOP candidate that's going to run in the next 5 elections. He is, in fact, not a Republican at all, but a Democrat. A Democrat in the line of Grover Cleveland or many of our political leaders prior to the Civil War. Part of a political party that exists only in name in America, as the principles that once loosely held it together have long since dissolved. Much in the same way the name Liberal is bestowed upon those who are anything but liberal.

This is how our political system has evolved. It matters little what a politician says, save the occasional "clean and articulate" slip of the tongue, and much more what they are called. Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, liberals, Greens, Libertarians, independents, and the worst of all, the cursed Neo-Cons! Now I'm not writing this to defend or persecute any of these groups, but does anyone really know what defines them? Neo-Con has become the most tossed around pejorative lately, slapped on anyone who dares to oppose the goals of the mainstream left.

Modern politics have become nothing more than a rhetoric filled sound bite with the left blaming "corporate fat cats" for all the ills of society and the right blaming crazy Muslims. Neither has a plan for change, and admittedly that is because the Federal Government can't fix many of the problems that we wish it could. But the sad thing to me is that so many have given up learning what is the cause of this out of control government. They're fixed on Government as the solution, not the problem. What's the solution to Neo-Conservatives? Vote Democrat.

But how did we come upon this Neo-Conservative movement? Where did this idea of preemptive war come from? How about the expansion of the welfare state during a Republican administration, is that something we could have foreseen?

Ron Paul laid out and assessment of the Neo-Conservative movement a few years ago and it has been preserved on Google Video (God bless the Internet). Sure it's a long lecture and starts out a little slow, but simply put some things take more than a 30 second sound bite to say. Maybe if we sat down and actually listened to what the Neo-conservatives believed BEFORE the past elections things could have been different today. Then again the only other option was Democrats so it's hard to believe it could have been all that much better.

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul

"Authoritarian rule is authoritarian rule, regardless of humanitarian undertones." -Ron Paul

Follow-up reading:

A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (1996)
The End of History? by Francis Fukuyama (1989)

A dangerous ruling in Britain

Britain bans paid military interviews

LONDON - Britain on Monday banned all military service members from talking to the media in return for payment, reversing its decision to allow the 15 marines and sailors held captive in Iran to sell their stories.

Defense Secretary Des Browne issued a statement saying the navy faced a "very tough call" over its initial decision to allow the payments, which came under sharp criticism. The new ban will not affect those who already gave accounts, a Defense Ministry spokesman said.

On Monday, in one of the first accounts, Faye Turney, the sole woman in the detained crew, said that she "felt like a traitor" for agreeing to her captors' demands to appear on Iranian TV and that she believed they had measured her for a coffin.

The Sun newspaper also reported that Turney, 25, was told by her captors that her 14 male colleagues had been released while she alone was being held.

Another sailor, Arthur Batchelor, 20, said he was singled out by his captors because he was the youngest of the crew.

The financial arrangements for Turney and Batchelor were not disclosed, but Turney said the offer she accepted was not the largest she had been offered.

Browne said lessons must be learned from a review the Ministry of Defense is now conducting regarding the regulations that affect service members talking with media.

"I want to be sure those charged with these difficult decisions have clear guidance for the future," Browne said. "Until that time, no further service personnel will be allowed to talk to the media about their experiences in return for payment."

The British sailors and marines were searching a merchant ship on March 23 when they and their two inflatable boats were intercepted by Iranian vessels near the disputed Shatt al-Arab waterway, U.S. and British officials said. Iran claimed the British had strayed into its territorial waters, a charge that Britain denied.

During the crew's captivity, Britain accused Iran of using the group for propaganda for putting them on Iranian television in appearances in which they "admitted" trespassing in Tehran's waters. They were freed last week by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who called their release a gift to Britain.

Turney, who also sold her story to British broadcaster ITV1, told The Sun that she feared at one point that she would be killed.

"One morning, I heard the noise of wood sawing and nails being hammered near my cell. I couldn't work out what it was. Then a woman came into my cell to measure me up from head to toe with a tape," The Sun quoted Turney as saying.

"She shouted the measurements to a man outside. I was convinced they were making my coffin."

Turney said she asked one Iranian official where her male colleagues were.

"He rubbed the top of my head and said with a smile, 'Oh no, they've gone home. Just you now,'" she said.

At another time, Turney said the same official asked her how she felt about dying for country.

By her fifth day in detention, she said she was told that she could be free within two weeks if she confessed that the crew had intruded into Iranian waters.

"If I didn't, they'd put me on trial for espionage and I'd go to prison for several years. I had just an hour to think about it," The Sun quoted her as saying.

"If I did it, I feared everyone in Britain would hate me. But I knew it was my one chance of fulfilling a promise to Molly (her daughter) that I'd be home for her birthday on May 8.

"I decided to take that chance, and write in such a way that my unit and my family would know it wasn't the real me."

Turney told ITV1 that she "felt like a traitor" when she was forced to write letters of confession that were shown on Iranian television.

Batchelor said in an interview with the Daily Mirror that he found his capture "beyond terrifying."

"They seemed to take particular pleasure in mocking me for being young," he said. "A guard kept flicking my neck with his index finger and thumb. I thought the worst."

Retired Maj. Gen. Patrick Cordingly said Monday he believes the sailors and marines were being used "almost as a propaganda tool" by the British government.

"I was depressed because I thought the team were so good on the press conference — they didn't overplay their unpleasant experience and we could all imagine what they had gone through," Cordingly said in a British Broadcasting Corp. radio interview.

Turney said she was offered "a hell of a lot of money" for her story and said she was not "taking the biggest offer."

"I want everyone to know my story from my side, what I went through," she told ITV1. She added part of the money she was paid would go toward helping personnel on her ship, the frigate HMS Cornwall.

After their release last week, the crew members told reporters in Britain they were subjected to constant psychological pressure in detention.

In an attempt to dispute that claim, Iran broadcast new video Sunday showing some of the crew playing chess and watching television during their captivity.

Some of the footage, briefly aired on Iran's state-run Arabic satellite TV channel Al-Alam, also showed crew members watching soccer on TV and eating at a long table decorated with flowers. The crew members could be heard laughing and chatting.

A newscaster said the video proved "the sailors had complete liberty during their detention, which contradicts what the sailors declared after they arrived in Britain."

At a news conference Friday, Lt. Felix Carman, who was in charge of the crew, said the sailors and marines were only allowed to socialize for the benefit of the Iranian media.

Apparently this isn't a permanent solution, but it sets a dangerous precedent. Governments should not be the only witness to the events of their own wars. Taking the incentive away from veterans to tell their story of what happened limits the amount of people who can afford to take time off of their normal lives to give an account.

This story calls to light the never ending need for historical revisionism.

What's there to say?

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/Oddities/070403/K040323AU.html

Swedish couple fights for right to name their baby girl Metallica

Metallica may work as a name for a heavy metal band, but a Swedish couple is struggling to convince authorities it's also suitable for a baby girl.

Sweden's tax agency rejected Michael and Karolina Tomaro's application to name their six-month-old daughter after the legendary rock band. "It suits her," Karolina Tomaro, 27, said Tuesday of the name. "She's decisive and she knows what she wants."

Although little Metallica has already been baptized, the Swedish National Tax Board refused to register the name, saying it was associated with both the rock group and the word "metal."

In Sweden, parents must get the names of their children approved by the tax authority, which is in charge of the population registry and issues personal identification numbers.

Tomaro, who has appealed the decision, said the official handling the case also called the name "ugly."

The couple was backed by the County Administrative Court in Goteborg, which ruled on March 13 that there was no reason to block the name. It also noted that there already is a woman in Sweden with Metallica as a middle name.

The tax agency appealed to a higher court, frustrating the family's foreign travel plans.

"We've had to cancel trips and can't get anywhere because we can't get her a passport without an approved name," Tomaro said.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Worth it just to hear from Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace who left the organization after seeing it for what it really is. Not a environmentalist group, but a anti-industrial political organization. If you're looking for an environmentalist view that's a little more sensible than sociopathic Luddites like the Unabomber Al Gore, than give Moore a listen. (Not Michael of course)

I lol'd

Democrats with guns?!? What's next? Republicans increasing the size of the Federal Government?

Oh wait...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/03/28/MNG8LOT1K31.DTL&type=politics

Webb Aide Pleads Not Guilty to Charges

Washington -- Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., one day after his aide's arrest for carrying a loaded pistol into a Senate office building, called the incident "unfortunate" Tuesday and offered a ringing endorsement of the right to bear arms.

Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Webb said, it has been "a more dangerous time" for people in government.

"I believe that it's important for me, personally, and for a lot of people in the situation that I am in, to be able to defend myself and my family," Webb told reporters in the Capitol. "I believe that wherever you see laws that allow people to carry (weapons), generally the violence goes down."

Webb's aide Phillip Thompson was arrested Monday when, according to Capitol police, he tried to enter a Senate office building with a loaded handgun and two magazines of ammunition.
Police said the weapon was inside a briefcase Thompson placed on an X-ray belt. Thompson said the gun and magazines belonged to Webb, although Webb said he had not given them to Thompson.

"The defendant further stated that he inadvertently left the gun" in the briefcase, the police report on the incident said.

Webb told reporters that he was in New Orleans at the time of the arrest. He described Thompson as "a longtime friend."

"He has worked for me since the beginning of the campaign last year," Webb said. "I have a tremendous amount of respect for him. I think this is one of those very unfortunate situations where, completely inadvertently, he took the weapon into the Senate."

Webb, Navy secretary under President Ronald Reagan before switching parties and running as a Democrat for the Senate last year, said he had long held a permit in Virginia to carry a weapon.
Webb pointed out that police are assigned to protect the president and other high-ranking executive-branch officials but not members of Congress.

"We are required to defend ourselves, and I chose to do so," he said.

Thompson, whose 45th birthday was Monday, spent the night in a District of Columbia lockup and was freed without bond after appearing at a Superior Court hearing, where he was charged with one felony count of carrying a pistol without a license. Another court hearing was scheduled for May 1.

Thompson is a former writer and Marine who fought in the Gulf War, said Robert Hodierne, senior managing editor for Army Times Publishing Co., where Thompson used to work as an editor.

"He's a fine fellow," Hodierne said. "He's married with kids, a family man, a solid citizen."
Army Times, a Gannett Co. subsidiary, publishes four weekly newspapers covering the military: Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Corps Times. Most recently, Thompson worked as an editor in the features and lifestyle section that appeared in the papers, Hodierne said.

He left last March to work for the Webb campaign, Hodierne said. According to an online biography, Thompson is from Mississippi and is the author of two books: "Into the Storm," a memoir of his time in the Gulf War, and "The Enemy Within," a novel.

So now police officers, secret service agents, and politicians have the right to defend themselves. No word yet on how long until the rest of us get the right. I think it's a good thing that we don't though, after all regular citizens are just plain crazy. They do insane dangerous things that enlightened people like government police officers and soldiers would. Just. Never. Do.

Главное Управление Исправительно—Трудовых Лагерей и колоний

I started a new book called Gulag: A History which, as the title suggests, is a chronicle of the Soviet Union concentration camps from 1917 to the 1980's. The introduction of the book brought up a point that I had been pondering lately. Luckily the author, Anne Applebaum, included the full text of the introduction on her website so I can cut and paste it here for discussion. Speaking here about the tendency by Westerners to downplay Soviet crimes as opposed to the atrocities that Hitler committed:

I first became aware of this problem several years ago, when walking across the Charles Bridge, a major tourist attraction in what was then newly democratic Prague. There were buskers and hustlers along the bridge, and, every fifteen feet or so someone was selling precisely what one would expect to find for sale in such a postcard-perfect spot. Paintings of appropriately pretty streets were on display, along with bargain jewelry and "Prague" key chains. Among the bric-a-brac, one could buy Soviet military paraphernalia: caps, badges, belt buckles, and little pins, the tin Lenin and Brezhnev images that Soviet schoolchildren once pinned to their uniforms.

The sight struck me as odd. Most of the people buying the Soviet paraphernalia were Americans and West Europeans. All would be sickened by the thought of wearing a swastika. None objected, however, to wearing the hammer and sickle on a T-shirt or a hat. It was a minor observation, but sometimes, it is through just such minor observations that a cultural mood is best observed. For here, the lesson could not have been clearer: while the symbol of one mass murder fills us with horror, the symbol of another mass murder makes us laugh.

If there is a dearth of feeling about Stalinism among Prague tourists, it is partly explained by the dearth of images in Western popular culture. The Cold War produced James Bond and thrillers, and cartoon Russians of the sort who appear in Rambo films, but nothing as ambitious as Schindler's List or Sophie's Choice. Steven Spielberg, probably Hollywood's leading director (like it or not) has chosen to make films about Japanese concentration camps (Empire of the Sun) and Nazi concentration camps, but not about Stalinist concentration camps. The latter haven't caught Hollywood's imagination in the same way.

Highbrow culture hasn't been much more open to the subject. The reputation of the German philosopher Martin Heidegger has been deeply damaged by his brief, overt support of Nazism, an enthusiasm which developed before Hitler had committed his major atrocities. On the other hand, the reputation of the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre has not suffered in the least from his aggressive support of Stalinism throughout the postwar years, when plentiful evidence of Stalin's atrocities was available to anyone interested. "As we were not members of the Party," he once wrote, "it was not our duty to write about Soviet labor camps; we were free to remain aloof from the quarrels over the nature of the system, provided no events of sociological significance occurred." On another occasion, he told Albert Camus that "Like you, I find these camps intolerable, but I find equally intolerable the use made of them every day in the bourgeois press."

Some things have changed since the Soviet collapse. In 2002, for example, the British novelist Martin Amis felt moved enough by the subject of Stalin and Stalinism to dedicate an entire book to the subject. His efforts prompted other writers to wonder why so few members of the political and literary Left had broached the subject. On the other hand, some things have not changed. It is possible--still--for an American academic to publish a book suggesting that the purges of the 1930s were useful because they promoted upward mobility and therefore laid the groundwork for perestroika. It is possible--still--for a British literary editor to reject an article because it is "too anti-Soviet." Far more common, however, is a reaction of boredom or indifference to Stalinist terror. An otherwise straightforward review of a book I wrote about the western republics of the former Soviet Union in the 1990s contained the following line:_"Here occurred the terror famine of the 1930s, in which Stalin killed more Ukrainians than Hitler murdered Jews. Yet how many in the West remember it? After all, the killing was so--so boring, and ostensibly undramatic."

These are all small things: the purchase of a trinket, a philosopher's reputation, the presence or absence of Hollywood films. But put them all together and they make a story. Intellectually, Americans and West Europeans know what happened in the Soviet Union. Alexander Solzhenitsyn's acclaimed novel about life in the camps, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, was published in the West in several languages in 1962– . His oral history of the camps, The Gulag Archipelago, caused much comment when it appeared, again in several languages, in 1973. Indeed, The Gulag Archipelago led to a minor intellectual revolution in some countries, most notably France, converting whole swathes of the French Left to an anti-Soviet position. Many more revelations about the Gulag were made during the 1980s, the glasnost years, and they too received due publicity abroad.

Nevertheless, to many people, the crimes of Stalin do not inspire the same visceral reaction as do the crimes of Hitler. Ken Livingstone, a former British Member of Parliament, now Mayor of London, once struggled to explain the difference to me. Yes, the Nazis were "evil," he said. But the Soviet Union was "deformed." That view echoes the feeling that many people have, even those who are not old-fashioned left-wingers: the Soviet Union simply went wrong somehow, but it was not fundamentally wrong in the way that Hitler's Germany was wrong.

Applebaum provides a few theory's as to why this clear and present bias exists. One is that information about the crimes of the soviets was simply not available. This, to me, is far too kind. Clearly information was available from the word go for anyone who wanted to know what was happening. Not only that, but there were outright lies from Western reporters about what was happening. For instance the case of Walter Duranty who lied his way to a Pulitzer Prize false reporting about how the Ukrainian terror famine never happened.

A second theory is that we like our World War II history to be cut and dry; Allies good, Axis bad. Seeing as Uncle Joey was a member of the Allies reminding people that he killed 20 million before Hitler touched his first Jew might make things uncomfortable for the masses. It might especially question the demigod status of everyone's favorite president, Mr. Franklin Roosevelt. After all, why would such a champion of the common man stoop so low as to shake hands with the man who slaughtered millions of proletarians? This is a theory I like for explaining why the general population might ignore the facts of Soviet rule, but it in no way forgives the intelligentsia.

So what do you think?

Shake Hands with the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda

I suppose talking about a book is as good a place as any to restart with the blog. Soon I'll update the buttons and all since I canceled the web host I was using and all my images got deleted. For now I'll say I read this book:

Shake Hands with the Devil by Roméo Dallaire is the story of the Rwanda genocide in 1994 from the perspective of the Dallaire who was the head of military operations for the U.N. peacekeeping force of the time. The book is horrifyingly detailed and the last few pages when Roméo describes his own mental breakdown are quite moving, but I can't fully agree with conclusions that he makes.

He claims he would have been able to stop the genocide if given the proper amount of troops and money from developed nations and there's no doubt that's true, but one wonders to what end? The hate the Hutu's possessed for the Tutsis may have been contained for a time but would it ever have fully died? Are we to set up police states in every third world nation to prevent tribal warfare?

Another issue the book made me think of is the Wilsonian doctrine that Neo-Conservatives hold that spreading democracy will help sustain peace. Much was made in the time before the genocide began on the failures of the former warring sides to form a democratic government to stabilize the region. I fail to see how achieving this goal would have done any good as the monsters who were responsible for the genocide were some of the elected officials who were going to be installed. I guess I just don't see how, practically speaking, having government officials in place would have prevented the violence.

One final note, the current president of Rwanda, Paul Kagame, was the leader of the rebels fighting against the incumbent and extremist Rwanda government before and during the genocide. One would think the man would be a man of the people, a revolutionary, but instead Rwanda is still listed as "not free" by the human rights organization Freedom House. So in the end the people of Rwanda are still pretty much screwed.

Fantastic book, but I was left with more questions than others who seem to be convinced by Dallaire's call for a new Age of Humanity.

Does anyone really read this thing anymore?

I mean really.

Immigration

(I’m going to do a few posts on illegal immigration because it’s been bothering me lately. I’ll be doing them in parts though because lazy. So with out further comment I give you part one)

What’s with Lou Dobbs?

Is this man the most blatant racist in American media? I mean sure guys like Spike Lee and Kanye West work hard to spread their racist messages, but this guy is out of control. I don’t even have a TV, but everywhere I look I see this guy’s mug telling me how evil illegal immigrants are. He’s given us a detailed report on the conspiracy by the evil Mexican government to ship evil Mexicans over the border so evil companies can hire them and evil landlords can house them, only to have all the evil Mexicans evilly send all their evil money back to the evil Mexican lands so we can’t have any of it.

Dbackdad made a nice post about some of his experiences with some xenophobes a while back here. His post focused on the racial fears of the immigration issue. In these posts I’d like to focus on the financial issues with immigration, the tremendous “cost of illegal immigration” that Mr. Dobbs insists our own Government and big businesses are covering up.

The most popular claim by the anti-immigrant crowd seems to be that illegal immigrants are stealing our jobs. This fear is based on the incorrect notion that there are a fixed number of jobs available. That if we increase the number of employees in a marketplace, the number of jobs available to other people will go down. This is completely untrue. In fact the opposite is true. All of the immigrants come here and instantly become consumers. They eat, they drive cars, they buy entertainment, and they live in houses and apartments. Each need they bring requires a workforce to satisfy it. In fact it is estimated that one job is created for every consumer in America. So the supposed jobs that are being stolen are being offset by the jobs they create at a rate of 1:1. And that’s assuming that every immigrant that crosses the border is working, which in the case of families with small children is obviously not true. So it’s easy to assume that immigrants actually produce more jobs than they “steal.”

Another popular claim is that illegals flood the market with cheap labor. To this I say, “Good!” Cheap labor means cheaper products and services for the end consumer. Cheaper labor also offsets the negative effects that our stupid minimum wage laws on our poor. The fact of the matter is there is not such thing as “cheap” labor. Labor is worth what employees and employers agree on.

Well that’s about it for now. Comment as needed. Rinse. Repeat.

lol blog

So it's been a while.

Just to recap a few things that happened while I was away for those who don't wander over the Crystals' blog all that much, my 60GB iPod was stolen and the transmission on my Elantra went out yesterday. Sooo, bad (read: expensive) week or so.

Caught up? Good.

Um, in other news I watched an episode of South Park for the first time recently. I watched it because it dealt with 9/11 conspiracy theories and there's nothing I like more than people making fun of idiots. Well that's not true, there are other things I like more such as Twizzlers, music, and people NOT STEALING MY IPOD, ACTUALLY, BTW!!!!!!!!!!!oneoneone

At any rate, it's a notoriously crude show and it certainly lived up to it's reputation, but at the same time I found some of the humor to be pretty intelligent and the moral of the story was spot on. It's basically very similar to how I felt about Team America.

The elections are coming up soon and Illinois finally has a Libertarian candidate for Governor. He's a write in, since the Libertarian party in Illinois is not very organized, but it's good enough for me. I was afraid I was going to have to vote for the Green party candidate, but that wasn't something I really wanted to do. Still, it would have been better than wasting my vote on a Republican or a Democrat. Anyway, his name is Mark McCoy and if you live in Illinois please consider writing his name on your ballot. He's even got a sweet MySpace page. Whatever you do, please don't waste your vote by voting for one of these goofs.

I suppose that's enough for now. Hopefully this will get me back in the rhythm of updating this thing a bit more consistently.

BOOYAKASHA!! Hijacked again bro!

YO YO YO!!!!! You bes' start respekkin' your 2 reader peeps and get to steppin' on writIN a new post yo!

The reason I haven't been blogging lately

In other news it was raining in my dinning room last nite, which I think is probably a bad thing.

More insightful commentary later. Maybe after this one last turn...

HA HA! I'm blog hijacking YOU!!! =D

k, luv, bie,
your gal pal

lol packers

The theft of your private property

From Lysander Spooner's No Treason in 1870:

It is true that the theory of our Constitution is, that all taxes are paid voluntarily; that our government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily entered into by the people with each other; that each man makes a free and purely voluntary contract with all others who are parties to the Constitution, to pay so much money for so much protection, the same as he does with any other insurance company; and that he is just as free not to be protected, and not to pay tax, as he is to pay a tax, and be protected.

But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: "Your money, or your life." And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.

The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.

The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a "protector," and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to "protect" those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful "sovereign," on account of the "protection" he affords you. He does not keep "protecting" you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands.

He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.

It should be noted that Spooner was an anarchist. I am not, but find his assemsment of taxation spot on.

LEAP

LEAP is a coalition of judges, district attorneys, law enforcement officers and other government officials who support ending prohibition of illegal narcotics for principled and intelligent reasons. Watch the video with an open mind. Remember, there are very few people in the anti-prohibition camp that think drugs are a great thing. Personally, not only have I never done drugs, I don't drink or smoke. I think they are all pretty lame habits. However, the way we choose some drugs to be legal and some to be illegal is extremely illogical.



Again, let's make this clear. NO ONE IS SAYING DRUGS ARE GOOD. We're talking about prohibition here, not the benefits of a chemically induced temporary high.

So what are the reasons for making them illegal?

1. Drugs are unhealthy!

Indeed they are. So is alcohol and so are cigarettes. So it might be said, "Ban them too!" But then where are we drawing our lines? Do we ban all unhealthy food as well? Heart disease is the leading cause of death in America, isn't it? We need to protect people from themselves! Okay, what else? Driving? After all, accidents are the leading cause of death in persons between the ages of 15 and 24. How many lives can we save each year by eliminating cars? Come on, we've got a moral obligation to protect our citizens!

I think the logical flaw in banning things for being unhealthy is obvious. We, as informed Americans, ought to have the right to put in our bodies whatever we see fit. We all know the risks of alcohol and cigarettes and make our choices accordingly. Personally, I think doing drugs would be a bad choice, but would admit to doing other unhealthy well knowing the risks. Our bodies belong to us and ought not be regulated by George Bush, Bill Clinton, or any other politician.

2. Drugs are morally wrong!

Drugs being legal or not is not a testament or approval from the citizens to go ahead and use them. The idea that we should ban "bad" things is the whole reason we're in the legislative mess that we are in. The US Constitution (you'll remember that as the document that established our Government) affords no authority to Congress to ban consumables based on any moral principle. The longer we go on attributing moral value to inanimate objects (drugs for the right, guns for the left) instead of the people using them BASED ON THEIR DEEDS, the longer we allow the Government to abuse its authority. The Government has a job defined by its Constitution and that job is not the mindless banning of "wrong" things, it is the banning of things which violate our inalienable rights as defined by the Constitution (such as theft, murder, fraud... things people SHOULD be thrown in jail for, but often aren't because of prison overpopulation due to drug convictions).

3. People who abuse drugs become a danger to others.

I think a lot of this thought comes from propaganda that has been forced down our throats from a very young age. In an effort to curtail drug use the Government, for admittedly noble intentions, has funded a mass campaign to inform us of all the terrible things that drugs make a person do. This notion that drugs make people do wrong things is mostly without scientific research, and if you think about it most of us know that the violence associated with drugs has to do with those selling them, not those taking them. However, for the sake of argument let's suppose someone does do a terrible act under the influence of cocaine. Say murder. Isn't the act of murder already illegal? And if cocaine inherently makes a man want to murder isn't that going to happen if cocaine is legal or not? Obviously banning cocaine hasn't stifled it's popularity. Drug use in teens is UP since the inception of the Drug War. So this is happening anyway, but a crime is a crime. Murder is murder with or without drugs. Rape is rape with or without drugs.

In fact, I would argue that the legalization of ALL drugs would empower our police forces to better investigate these types of violent crimes. As it stands, roughly 40% of our police force nation wide is dedicated to drug enforcement. Those 40% should be on the street patrolling, not behind desks planning the next big raid. Response times for police calls would go up, the ability of police to deal with large scale crisises would go up, patrols of "bad" parts of town would be more practical, and the manpower to keep the real crime in check would be more plausible.

If someone is able to use drugs without doing any of these crimes, they are no danger and should not be locked up. The pursuit of said individuals is pointless as the very act of illegalizing drug possession is the primary reason people who are drug addicts disobey the law.

Let's look at a few other benefits that would almost immediately take place with the legalization of all narcotics.

A) It would immediately eliminate the black market. Money is power and the power is currently in the hands of street gangs. For those of us near major metropolitan areas we hear monthly reports of children caught in a gang war crossfire. Where did the money for those guns come from? Our drug laws. What are they fighting over? Who sells what to who. Put the drugs in the hands of pharmacists and take the money out from under street thugs.

B) It would eliminate the international drug manufacturing industry. This seems pretty self explanatory. Cocaine should be made in a factory by men in white coats, not by 8 year olds with machine guns pointed at their backs. Take the money away from drug lords and put it in the hands of responsible business men. I think even a leftie would agree with me that a corporate CEO is better than a violent drug lord. Right?

Long term effects?

The demographics of drug use would change. See, before prohibition of illegal narcotics, recreational users of these drugs were mainly upper class citizens who had expendable incomes. While we still see that today, we see an epidemic of poor users. This is because drug peddlers in the black market know hooking the poor user establishes them a wider, more potent criminal base of people who are more desperate. Poor people cannot afford the habit but since they are hooked young by teenage dope dealers hoping to earn a quick buck, they get stuck in a cycle of addiction. On the other hand, drug use amongst adults who can afford the product would rise, it is very likely that drug use amongst youngsters and the poor will drop noticeably. This of course creates a different drug use environment than what you see today.

That doesn't even begin to get into the racial implications of our drug laws, which I suppose entire books can be written on. The fact is though, that we incarcerate more people than any other industrialized nation. Most of our jails are overflowing, not because of violent crime, but because of victimless drug crimes. And the mass majority of these people are black. At the same time our drug laws have given uneducated poor black men a way to beat the system. They rise out of poverty through the black market and give younger children something to look up to. Hard work and dedication? No, violence and blood money. Which has become somewhat of a culture, hasn't it?

All thanks to banning something we don't like.

Good ol' fashion nonsense!

I can hardly believe I just read this story.

I owe some people responses in the previous post, I know. Until then, read this story and mourn the death of common sense with me.

Rep. Harris: Church-state separation 'a lie'

MIAMI, Florida (AP) -- U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris told a religious journal that separation of church and state is "a lie" and God and the nation's founding fathers did not intend the country be "a nation of secular laws."

The Republican candidate for U.S. Senate also said that if Christians are not elected, politicians will "legislate sin," including abortion and gay marriage.

Harris made the comments -- which she clarified Saturday -- in the Florida Baptist Witness, the weekly journal of the Florida Baptist State Convention, which interviewed political candidates and asked them about religion and their positions on issues.

Separation of church and state is "a lie we have been told," Harris said in the interview, published Thursday, saying separating religion and politics is "wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers."

"If you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin," Harris said.
Her comments drew criticism, including some from fellow Republicans who called them offensive and not representative of the party.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Florida, who is Jewish, told the Orlando Sentinel that she was "disgusted" by the comments.

Harris' campaign released a statement Saturday saying she had been "speaking to a Christian audience, addressing a common misperception that people of faith should not be actively involved in government."

The comments reflected "her deep grounding in Judeo-Christian values," the statement said, adding that Harris had previously supported pro-Israel legislation and legislation recognizing the Holocaust.

Harris' opponents in the GOP primary also gave interviews to the Florida Baptist Witness but made more general statements on their faith.

Harris, 49, faced widespread criticism for her role overseeing the 2000 presidential recount as Florida's secretary of state.

State GOP leaders -- including Gov. Jeb Bush -- don't think she can win against Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson in November. Fundraising has lagged, frustrated campaign workers have defected in droves and the issues have been overshadowed by news of her dealings with a corrupt defense contractor who gave her $32,000 in illegal campaign contributions.