Sen. Brown (D-OH): Confused About his Job

September 12th, 2009

The other night I listened to Senator Sherrod Brown’s “E-Town Hall on Health Insurance Reform”.  I posted earlier about Sen. Brown’s excuse that he’s “clearly not a Constitutional expert” as his reason for thinking that the legislature has authority to force an expanded government controlled healthcare system upon us.

Something else caught my attention during his address, namely Sen. Brown’s response to "Robert of Concord Twp. in Lake County" about 2/3 of the way through he started talking about his understanding of his job as a US Senator. Sen. Brown said:

My goal is to – I took an oath of office when I was sworn in and when you gave me the privilege of representing you in the United States senate back in 2006 I took an oath of office with – from Vice President Cheney

That’s true, you can watch video of Sen. Brown taking the oath of office from Cheney.

Here’s a transcript of the oath administered in the video.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
SOURCE: US Senate, Oath of Office

Ok Sen. Brown – now we’re all familiar with the oath.  You were saying?

I pledged to do what I think is best for my – to listen to people in the state and do what I think is best.

Wait a minute – that’s not what you pledged.  You pledged to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”.  So if people from Ohio wish to undermine the Constitution, you’ve pledged not to “do what you think is best”, but to follow those instructions in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

For any politician who wants to last, you’ll need to listen to the people of Ohio and do what you think is best *within the confines of your oath of office*.  You can still make it your mission to reform healthcare, but there’s a right (constitutional) way and a wrong (unconstitutional) way to go about it.

If the people of Ohio demand a change to the Constitution then by all means, put that before the legislature, but don’t undermine your oath, your constituents, and your nation.

Brown went on to summarize:

Um, and I think – I want – I want a good bill. I want a bill that works for all Ohio. And I – and even people who disagree with me here – I know some of them are going to get pre-existing conditions and they are gonna lose their health insurance and I want to help them as much as I want to help people who agree with this bill. Uh – That’s what my job is.

Not even close.

UPDATE: Added direct YouTube links to quotes.

Posted in Civil Liberties, OH-15 | No Comments »

Sen. Brown (D-OH): “I’m certainly not a Constitutional expert”

September 12th, 2009

The other night I listened to Senator Sherrod Brown’s “E-Town Hall on Health Insurance Reform”.

Sen. Brown didn’t answer any of the 7 questions I submitted he took a question from “Mike” who asked “Where in the Constitution does it give the Federal government permission to be involved in healthcare, please cite article and section.”

I – I could do that. I’m not a lawyer – and I’m certainly not a Constitutional expert – but I’ve talked to people about this. Uh, the same part of the Constitution that allowed us to do social security and Medicare.

After a tap-dancing detour about how awesome it was that the government gave his family 640 acres through “land reform” (in other words, stealing it from Indians). He continues.

Article 1 Section 8 says ‘Yes you can do Social Security’, Article 1 Section 8 says ‘Yes you can pass Medicare’, and Article 1 Section 8 says ‘You can pass – um -  this healthcare bill’, so that’s the Constitutional cite that Mike asked for.

Actually Sen. Brown, Article 1 Section 8 (Powers of Congress) doesn’t say any of those things.  Here it is for future reference:

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;–And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

As you can see, Article 1 Section 8 talks about all of the powers of Congress, so it’s hard to say which specific section Sen. Brown had in mind.  But let’s take a moment for a history lesson from the Social Security Administration website. Here’s an excerpt from the section entitled “A President Tries to Pack a Court”:

In the spring of 1935 Justice Roberts joined with the conservatives to invalidate the Railroad Retirement Act. In May, the Court threw out a centerpiece of the New Deal, the National Industrial Recovery Act. In January 1936 a passionately split Court ruled the Agricultural Adjustment Act unconstitutional. In another case from 1936 the Court ruled New York state’s minimum wage law unconstitutional. The upshot was that major social and political reforms, including social insurance programs, appeared headed for defeat.

It wasn’t looking good for Social Security, so President Roosevelt (FDR) decided to dilute the supreme court with his own appointments:

President Roosevelt’s response to all of this was stunning and unexpected. On February 5, 1937 he sent a special message to Congress proposing legislation granting the President new powers to add additional judges to all federal courts whenever there were sitting judges age 70 or older who refused to retire.

Fdrcart2[1]The average age of Supreme Court Justices at the time was over 71. This would have allowed him to appoint 6 new supreme court justices to tip the political balance of the court in his favor.

the Court, it seemed, got the message and suddenly shifted its course. Beginning with a set of decisions in March, April and May 1937 (including the Social Security Act cases) the Court would sustain a series of New Deal legislation, producing a "constitutional revolution in the age of Roosevelt."

Sen. Brown seems to be citing court rulings that were only made because of presidential threats to completely undermine the separation of powers and the Constitution itself – and that’s according to the Social Security Administration. Is this really his best Constitutional argument for the present healthcare proposals – that because the system has been abused in the past, and nobody has had the courage to fix it – it’s ok to keep abusing the system?!?

I suppose when you’re Democratic senator from Ohio, Constitutional and historical ignorance is bliss.

UPDATE: I added direct YouTube links to the quotes.

Posted in Civil Liberties, OH-15 | No Comments »

Is Bill O’Reilly a Libertarian?

September 1st, 2009

Someone on Twitter asked the other day:

"Someone described Bill O’Reilly as being a Libertarian. Just curious how that lines up?"

- @Astrostrat89

Occasionally popular TV commentators claim that they’re “a libertarian but…” and they’ll go on to explain some major way that they’re not at all a libertarian, so that’s one easy test – use of non-libertarian qualifiers.  A prime example would be “libertarian socialists”.

It’s pretty common to find people on Twitter who manage to assert their libertarian views, and immediately refute them in 140 characters, like this guy for example:

@shannon_e I’m kind of a libertarian but they should be forced off the street, and be put into, you know those special units for cleaning?
8:52 PM Aug 29th from web in reply to shannon_e

- @Luke021

For non-libertarians, I’ll point out that the “they should be forced” part of the comment flies in the face of “The Libertarian Pledge” which is signed by all Libertarians and reads:

I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.

If you agree with that pledge, and it’s implications, then you’re considered a Libertarian.

Interestingly, I’ve heard Bill Maher, Glenn Beck, and Bill O’Reilly referred to as “libertarians”, yet none of them are on this short and fairly authoritative list of Libertarian Celebrities and VIP’s over at TheAdvocates.org.

So why is this?

The website provides a pretty quick way to determine if you or someone you know, or even a popular TV commentator is *really* a libertarian is to give them the “Worlds Smallest Political Quiz” – ten quick questions that serve as a litmus test for libertarian views.

Take a moment to take the quiz now…

* * *

While only Bill O’Reilly can answer these questions for sure, I took a crack at it.  These are my subjective assessments of things I could find on the Internet that seemed conclusive to me – and I encourage people who have conclusive evidence of his views that are contrary to my quick assessments to correct me in the comments and I’ll try to update it.

I’ve linked to resources on the net that helped inform my guess – if you think they’re inaccurate, please provide a quote from Bill himself or a more recent source on the question than my link.  Also, it’d be nice to establish a pattern of a particular view. Here goes…

Government should not censor speech, press, media or Internet.    
Disagree   

Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draft.
Disagree   

There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults.
Agree   

Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs.
Disagree   

There should be no National ID card.    
Maybe

End "corporate welfare." No government handouts to business.
Maybe

End government barriers to international free trade.
Maybe   

Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security.
Maybe

Replace government welfare with private charity.    
Maybe   

Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more.    
Maybe   

Here are the results for the quiz answers I imagine Bill O’Reilly would give:

draw[1]

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 30%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 50%.

So as far as I can tell, Bill O’Reilly is not a libertarian, but a centrist.  Of course, I couldn’t really find conclusive info on a few issues.  Here’s the quizzes definition of a centrist:

CENTRISTS espouse a "middle ground" regarding government control of the economy and personal behavior. Depending on the issue, they sometimes favor government intervention and sometimes support individual freedom of choice.

Centrists pride themselves on keeping an open mind, tend to oppose "political extremes," and emphasize what they describe as "practical" solutions to problems.

I’ve given the test to hundreds of people at festivals and events.  While you may find the results to be surprising, it’s about what I’d expect for a TV personality – especially a neo-conservative one.  He has a reputation for being rude to guests, over the top, and critical of the left, but he hasn’t really taken a stand (that I could find) on government spending, corporate welfare, or free trade – all things that would shed some more light on his economic views.

Interestingly, the majority of people I’ve met seem to land in the top half of the diamond, meaning that whether or not they’re left, right, or center on the quiz, they tend to lean libertarian – even if they’re hung up on some issue that prevents them from attaining full-fledged libertarian status in my eyes.

Another thing to note is that people change.  2008 presidential candidate Bob Barr has a voting history in the US House that is far from libertarian, but his views changed.  He admitted that some of his previous positions such as supporting “The Patriot Act” were “wrong” and while he may not be crazy about all of the implications of liberty for all.

He seems to have come to the realization that the benefits of achieving social and political goals through reason and rational discourse outweigh the common alternatives of force and fraud.

UPDATE:
I found some online commentary on the subject – they seem to agree.
Don’t Call Bill O’Reilly a Libertarian
Bill O’ Reilly is Not a Libertarian

UPDATE 2:
Libertarians care about the US Constitution – Bill O’Reilly says he doesn’t, so it seems to be pretty much settled. Bill O’Reilly is not a Libertarian.

Posted in Observations, Reader Questions | 1 Comment »

“Death Proof” Quote

July 27th, 2009

Finally got around to seeing the film “Death Proof” by Quentin Tarantino this evening.  Great piece of work with great atmosphere.  I think it also has one of my favorite in-movie conversations.  It goes something like this:

Lee: You carry a gun?
Kim: Uh-Huh.
Lee: Do you have a license to carry it?
Kim: Yeah, when I became a secret service agent, they gave me a license.
Lee: Oh, I didn’t know you were… Ok. I didn’t say it. Stop looking at me. I didn’t say it. God! Did you know Kim carried a gun?
Abernathy: Yes. Yeah. Do I approve? No. Do I know? Yes.
Kim: I don’t know what futuristic utopia you live in, but in the world I live in, a bitch need a gun.
Abernathy: You can’t get around the fact that people who carry guns, tend to get shot more than people who don’t.
Kim: And you can’t get around the fact that if I go down to the laundry room in my building at midnight enough times, I might get my ass raped!
Lee: Don’t do your laundry at midnight.
Kim: Fuck that! I wanna do my laundry whenever the fuck I want to do my laundry.
Abernathy: There are other things you can carry other then a gun. Pepper spray.
Kim: Uh, muthafucka tryin to rape me, I don’t want to give him a skin rash. I wanna shot that nigga down!
Abernathy: How about a knife at least.
Kim: Yeah, you know what happens to muthafuckas who carry knives. They get shot! Look, if I ever become a famous actress, I won’t carry a gun. I’ll hire me a dude dirt nigga and he’ll carry the gun, and when shit goes down, I’ll sit back and laugh, but until that day, it’s wild west muthafucka!

For a while now I’ve wondered why I don’t see more movies that feature characters who carry a concealed firearm for personal protection in everyday life.

Most movies feature people who have guns as part of their career, or “arm up” just to deal with a situation.  And too many feature heroes who knock out an armed bad-guy, only to leave the gun laying on the ground.

Considering that 39 states are “shall issue”, you’d think it’d become more common in movies and TV shows.  Unfortunately, most of these shows are filmed in “may issue” or “no issue” population centers that are behind the times when it comes to recognizing the liberties of their citizens.

Interestingly, though the “Kim” character doesn’t carry legally, it would have been possible in Kentucky, the setting for her part of the movie.  I also like how the dialog describe the way wealthy or famous anti-gunners deal with the situation – they hire armed security.

For those of us unable to afford private armed security, concealed carry of a firearm is a reasonable option – because a police officer is too heavy.

Posted in Civil Liberties, Firearms, Quotes | No Comments »

ACT NOW! SAVE YOUR LIBRARY!

June 23rd, 2009

According to the Columbus Metropolitan Library (CML) website, Ohio Governor Ted Strickland (D) is poised to eliminate $200 million from the Public Library Fund over the next two years.

The CML dives right in with the threat – if you allow them to be de-funded and refuse to act, they’ll be…

closing branches, halting new books and materials, and shutting down programs and services that are so vital to our community!

Sounds terrible – if traveling to a building to look at stacks of books, magazines, and other materials nobody is reading were the only way to satisfy their mission.

What is the CML mission?  Well, it’s not to staff warehouses of obscure and un-used materials gathering dust – that’s what used bookstores are for. Instead, it’s this…

At Columbus Metropolitan Library (CML), our mission is "to promote reading and guide learning in the pursuit of information, knowledge, and wisdom."

In 1922 one visionary made it big after the following realization…

We have found in buying materials that it is not worthwhile to buy for other than immediate needs. 

If transportation were perfect and an even flow of materials could be assured, it would not be necessary to carry any stock whatsoever.

That would save a great deal of money, for it would give a very rapid turnover and thus decrease the amount of money tied up in materials.

The visionary was Henry Ford, and the concept was Just-in-time (JIT) inventory strategy.

Over the past decade, the transportation part of the issue has faded. Broadband makes the flow of materials so seamless that instant-streaming of the highest quality of HD video content will be offered commercially this autumn via Xbox Live. Let’s not forget that providers like Netflix and Hulu are offering streaming video today.

Consumers can access vast libraries of audio content via services like ZunePass.net that put CML’s exhaustive collection to shame.

And if you love reading text, services like Project Gutenberg, Safari, and Books24×7 have allowed users to take entire full-text-searchable libraries with them for years.

Contrast that to the inequitable library system we have today.  We’re forced to pay for materials nobody is reading to sit idle on shelves – meanwhile popular materials have long waiting lists (want Christmas music from CML? Reserve it today and you’ll have it in time for next July!)

People in urban areas have a much wider selection of materials – and greater availability than rural communities relying on “Bookmobile” outreach from urban centers or smaller local libraries.

Broadband distribution doesn’t solve all problems – the poor will still have issues with access – but the nearest library would be at the nearest computer terminal, not miles away.  Inexpensive Netbooks and other devices like Amazon’s Kindle would be adequate for displaying most information. We could even make better use of public school computer resources that could be made available to the community during off-hours.

Best of all, the CML and other libraries are already offering digital on-demand catalogs that allow libraries to pool resources and satisfy unpredictable demand for materials that in the physical realm are expensive to store, sort, and replace due to wear and tear.

If we’re going to insist on government-guided “pursuit of information, knowledge, and wisdom.” – let’s take an intelligent and cost-effective approach to achieving the mission.

Posted in Economics, OH-15, Technology | No Comments »

Progress Ohio’s Health Horror Hype

December 8th, 2008

Over at ProgressOhio.org, Bret Thompson cited Robert Pear’s New York Times story about a former female Archway Cookie employee from Ashland, OH as an example of “when access to affordable health care is at the whim of your employer”.

The crisis is on display here. Starla D. Darling, 27, was pregnant when she learned that her insurance coverage was about to end. She rushed to the hospital, took a medication to induce labor and then had an emergency Caesarean section, in the hope that her Blue Cross and Blue Shield plan would pay for the delivery.

According to the Anthem Blue Cross Ohio website, a 27 year old non-smoker needing insurance for 1 month with a deductible of $250 and 20% coinsurance would cost $94.41 – so the net cost to wait out the baby is $344.41 + 20% of medical expenses after that.

If that’s too expensive, then your only choice is to induce labor so you can have a c-section, right?

Not really.  Federal law requires hospitals to help with labor and delivery of babies.  If a medical condition means that delivering the baby at the first hospital, then they must safely transport you to another hospital that can.  They can’t turn away mothers in labor “just because they can’t pay”.

This raises a few questions.  First, is the only way Mr. Thompson can persuade people to adopt his favored “non-employer provided healthcare insurance” to publish misleading hype?

I’m guessing he’s advocating taxpayer provided socialized medicine as opposed to the personal responsibility of buying your own insurance and obtaining it from charities if too poor to afford your own.

If Bret thinks “non-employer provided healthcare insurance” is the safety net that would prevent people like Ms. Darling from inducing labor early for economic reasons, then why is it that she still undertook this risky approach when she already has Federal mandates ensuring that her baby must be delivered by a hospital regardless of her ability to pay?!?

Unfortunately, no healthcare strategy will prevent people from undertaking unnecessary healthcare risks for a variety of reasons – real or imagined.  But handwringing articles like those by Pear and Thompson lead people like Ms. Darling to misunderstand their options and perhaps overlook safer alternatives.

Posted in Economics | No Comments »

2 Dead in California “Gun Free Zone”

November 28th, 2008

Unfortunately the reality of the real world continues to evade a fairly large segment of society, so we continue to see stories like this one featuring a tragedy at a California Toys “R” Us location.

MSNBC provides some mindless handwringing with the following quote from Palm Desert Councilman Jim Ferguson:

"I think the obvious question everyone has is who takes loaded weapons into a Toys "R" Us?" he said. "I doubt it was the casual holiday shopper."

Good question Jim. 

This holiday shopper doesn’t take loaded weapons into Toys “R” Us because this holiday shopper doesn’t place his life in the hands of toy store management who, here in Ohio, insists on a “No Guns” policy.  Like a good casual holiday shopper, I obey Ohio law and shop elsewhere. I’d wager that Toys “R” Us has a similar policy in California.

So who takes loaded weapons into Toys “R” Us in Ohio and California? In this case, the answer seems to be angry criminals willing to kill each other in a dispute over a toy. Why would any loving parent want to take their children into a toy store that might be frequented by armed criminal – without the ability to defend their children against armed attackers?

The article goes on to quote the heroism of Sara Pacia of Cathedral City who upon hearing three or four gunshots “froze” with her two boys aged 4 and 6 until unarmed store employees escorted her family out.  Sara went on to say:

"This is Toys "R" Us. There are kids shopping in there," Pacia said. Her son Jayden, 4, was clinging to her leg. He told her he didn’t want to die, she said.

Sounds like her son as assessed the situation quite astutely.  What’s a child to do when their parents, who supposedly love them and will do anything to keep them from harm, place the defensive responsibilities of a parent on police who might be miles away?

Luckily in this case the carnage was limited to the adults who escalated a meaningless confrontation.  In the long run though, I’d wager that this incident will only galvanize Toys “R” Us in their unsafe anti-gun policies, and instead of leading parents to proactively, they’ll probably vent their anger of concealed carry proponents like myself who don’t endanger lives of innocents. They’ll pile on stricter legislation against law abiding gun-owners – the easy targets of anti-gun bigotry.

But what would happen if, for example, a gun-friendly business with children inside were the scene of a violent armed robbery?  Unfortunately just such a scene played out in Akron last week. The result was that the robber was shot dead, sending a clear message to future robbers to think twice about the ramifications of their actions.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Stupid to throw around “Socialist!”?

November 21st, 2008

Today Jill Miller Zimon ranted about “throwing around” the terms “Socialist!” and
“Communist!”. Her reasoning seemed to be that Bush also advances socialist policies, therefore it’s “stupid” to call a spade a spade.

Since Jill included a definition of “stupid”, I was hoping she’d include a definition for socialism too so we can make a reasoned decision as to whether or not Bush/Obama are socialists.

Socialism
    • Economic and social system under which essential industries and social services are publicly and cooperatively owned and democratically controlled with a view to equal opportunity and equal benefit for all.

      SOURCE: Encarta Encyclopedia

Sounds just like the economic policies coming out of Washington lately.

Is it really “throwing around” a term when it appropriately describes a concept?  It’s clearly not stupid in this case.

I also wonder why Ms. Zimon seems to object to Obama’s clearly socialist policies being labeled as such.

The argument seems to be that since both Democrats and Republicans are advancing socialist agendas, maybe it’s a good idea if they agree to a truce.

If you step back and assess your own attitudes and behavior, only to find them repugnant – isn’t a better course of action reform rather than trying to marginalize uncomfortably accurate terms?

Posted in 2008 Presidential Race, Civil Liberties, Economics | 3 Comments »

Does America Want a Climate Action Mandate?

November 21st, 2008

Dennis Spisak and Progress Ohio want you to think that a clear majority of Americans want a “Climate Action Mandate”.  People actually said they want a mandate?!?  Well, not really.

According to a poll sponsored by Environmental Defense Fund (sponsor of the DDT genocide), Americans believe that we should address climate change now in a way that creates jobs and re-builds the economy.  It should be noted that mandates aren’t the only way to accomplish this – but progressives tend to favor the use of Government force to further their social goals.

Spisak asserts that survey results of 78% constitute “a majority of Americans”. We don’t yet have final voter turnout numbers, but it’s estimated that about 53% of the voting aged population turned out. Let’s do some math:

53% x 78% = 41% (not a majority)

51% / 53% = 96% of voters surveyed needed for a true majority

It’s not nearly as impressive, and an inconvenient truth for progressives who hang their hat on the notion of “majority rules” and “might makes right”.

Spisak suggests that “investing in clean energy will create millions of new jobs and rebuild the economy”.  It sure sounds nice to be able to make lemonade when life gives you lemons, but the idea that misfortune causes economic benefit (also known as “the parable of the broken window”) has already been soundly refuted.  That hasn’t stopped Progressives at all levels from touting it nearly 160 years later:  

Obama says he will "transform the challenge of global climate change into an opportunity to create 5 million new green jobs," which he likens to the economic activity triggered by the personal computer. This way of looking at climate change is a variation on the broken window fallacy, according to which the loss caused by a smashed window is offset by the employment it gives the glazier.

By the same logic, Obama should view war, crime, and hurricanes as opportunities to create jobs. All three generate economic activity, but we’d be better off if the resources spent on bombs, burglar alarms, and reconstruction were available for other purposes, instead of being used to inflict, prevent, or recover from losses.

Likewise, overhauling manufacturing, transportation, and power production to reduce the emission of carbon dioxide may or may not be justified, but it is properly viewed as a drag on the economy. We’d be better off if we didn’t have to worry about, and use resources to minimize, climate change.

SOURCE: Obama’s Job Fetish, Reason, 10/22/2008

That said, I’m concerned that Spisak seems to misunderstand the scope of the president’s authority to impose the mandates he favors.  A quick skim of Article II Section 2 of the US Constitution, I couldn’t find anything about a power to impose mandates on we the people.

In fact, Spisak’s view seems to conflict with Article I Section 1 of the Constitution that states:

Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Moreover I couldn’t find any authorization under Article II Section 8 of the Constitution that allows Congress to impose such mandates.

Dennis concludes with:

It’s clear that the public no longer buys the tired argument that economic progress and environmental protection are at odds with one another.

This may well be the case, and I hope that more people come to understand that pollution is a form of economic waste (inefficiency) that all people should work to reduce and eliminate.  I just don’t agree that mandates are the best way to affect change, or that the Executive or Legislative branches of the Federal Government are authorized to meddle in the issue.

Posted in 2008 Presidential Race, Civil Liberties, Economics | No Comments »

Libertarians Stealing Votes in OH-15?

November 13th, 2008

It ended up being a very close race in Ohio’s 15th congressional district – so close that as of this writing, nobody really knows who won.  It didn’t take long for supporters of Stivers and Kilroy, the first and 2nd finishers, to sling accusations of “stealing votes”.

What are “stolen votes”?  They apparently happen when a candidate alienates and abandons a group of voters, kicks them to the curb – and then when a minor-party or alternative scoops them up, that’s regarded but the major parties as “stealing”.

Interestingly, as of this writing, the piece was the 4th “Most Read” story at PolitickerOH.com which to me indicates interest in understanding the effect of alternatives slurping up 10% of the vote in close races.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Give? Take? What’s the Difference?

November 10th, 2008

The Houston Chronicle today has the headline U.S. gives $40 billion to save AIG, gets ownership stake – shouldn’t that read “U.S. takes $40 billion to save AIG, gets ownership stake”?

After all, the US can only “give” what it steals first.

Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,

Posted in Civil Liberties, Economics | No Comments »

NBC Propaganda: Bailout the Only Out

November 9th, 2008

Last night’s NBC Nightly News featured some odd unsubstantiated claims regarding the likely effects on the economy if a government bailout failed to prop up automakers.  Specifically I’m addressing comments made by CNBC’s Trish Reagan and Phil LeBeau, another CNBC reporter in this piece:

Here’s Trish’s quote:

"If one of them fails, the entire industry would be at risk."
- Trish Reagan 0:45

And here’s Phil’s":

"If one goes bankrupt, you’ve got a domino effect where it may bring the others into bankruptcy." 
– Phil LeBeau 1:15

Both seem to assert that the major auto manufacturers, GM, Ford, and Chrysler are somehow intertwined such that what is bad for one of them, going out of business for example, would be bad for all others.

This doesn’t make sense.

Presently, the three major US automakers are competing for the same set of resources.  They need talented workers, raw materials, and services from various suppliers.

Moreover, as the story states, while the nation needs autos – we’re not buying them as a leisure activity.  We’re buying what we need to get us around – practical cars that do the job frugally – assuming that we’re buying them at all.

Since there is a lack of demand, the supply of cars is very high if factories continue to produce at prior levels (this is what the Democrats want since they hope this would preserve jobs).  Another alternative is to let factories lay idle (which eats away at profits as expensive equipment depreciates unused).

The third major option is to consolidate.  Left to it’s own devices, market forces will allow the stronger competitors to cannibalize the weakest automaker – taking the most desirable brands, product lines, equipment, and employees.  The remaining skeleton can be sold at auction or scrapped.

The result would be an auto industry capable of making the cars we need, employing enough people to make that number of cars, and freeing the remaining auto workers to use their manufacturing skills and expertise in other industries – or to branch out into new endeavors.

Admittedly, if a government bailout focused on only one automaker, it’d have negative economic effects on the others – the government picking winners and losers should be ruled out entirely.  But if the economic bailout is spread among all automakers this just preserves the oversupply situation.

So where are Trish, Phil, and the CNBC folk getting the idea that having one less competitor would be bad for the other two?

Posted in Economics | No Comments »

Media Oblivious to Real Story of Found Cash

November 9th, 2008

To give you an idea how much the Federal Reserve and Congress have inflated our currency through poor financial policy, let’s take a look at the latest sweeps hype parroting the AP: 

a contractor who found $182,000 in Depression-era currency hidden in bathroom walls

SOURCE: Money Found House’s Walls No Treasure

Sounds like a lot of money – and the people who found it have been fighting in court while the homeowner lost or squandered a large portion of the money on a lavish vacation.

Nothing to sneeze at, but what would that money buy today versus in 1920 – adjusted for inflation?

According to one inflation calculator:

What cost $182,000 in 1920 would cost $1,869,024.30 in 2007.

SOURCE: http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

So today, the full amount found would buy a house like this in the Cleveland area with 3 bedrooms and 1.5 baths.  A little over the median home value for Ohio.

But without the Government and Federal Reserve abusing us with the hidden tax of inflation, the same money would buy this house with 6 bedrooms and 7.5 bathrooms.

Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2007 and 1920,
they would cost you $182,000 and $15,733.03 respectively.

SOURCE: http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

It’s of critical importance that the new administration must reign in inflation to protect us from this hidden tax – but so far I haven’t seen any evidence that anyone has any intentions of shoring up the $53 trillion in un-funded liabilities of the US government.

Posted in Economics | No Comments »

"What works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne,"

November 8th, 2008

…but Barack Obama seems poised to give it a whirl.  Citing support for "common-sense" gun control, Change.gov, the official website of the office of the president-elect lists the following approach:

Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade.

SOURCE: http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/

Presently, all purchases through a firearms dealer must be run through the National Instant Check System (NICS) after the applicant fills out Form 4473.  The record of the inquiry must be purged within 24-hours to prevent an illegal firearms registration scheme.  Considerable evidence exists that some law enforcement agencies are already keeping illegal lists of gun owners.  Repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment would ensure that the Federal government will have a shopping list of who owns what guns in the event that congress decides to confiscate all or some guns (more on that below).

Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn’t have them.

SOURCE: http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/

This is code for requiring trigger lock and disassembly requirements that prevent property-owners from using their firearms for lawful self-defense.  By following NRA Safety Training guidelines for the safe use and storage of firearms for self-defense, firearms pose no danger to children – and ensures that criminals are unable to obtain loaded firearms.  Instead of expanding training efforts by showing gun owners more effective ways of defending themselves, unimaginative ill-informed bureaucrats will impose overly broad mandates that prevent legitimate and safe uses for firearms.

They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof.

SOURCE: http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/

“Closing the gun show loophole” is code for making it illegal for individuals to sell guns directly to each other with no middle-man.  This happens every day with no ill-effects.  It is already illegal for any individual to sell a firearm to a “prohibited person” such as a criminal.  So where is the gain?  To stop illegal firearms sales – there is none.  Criminals will still steal firearms – and other criminals will still sell them to people who shouldn’t have them.  What it will do is drive all legitimate firearms sales through licensed dealers who will be required under the Tiahrt Amendment repeal mentioned above to catalog all firearms sold and provide that information to Federal authorities.

No firearm could ever be made childproof – nor could a car, a pair of scissors, or a steak knife.  Firearms are designed to be used by adults. The proposal to “childproof” firearms is a popular way of spinning an attempt outlaw of all firearms under the guise of “consumer product safety”. If you ban all firearms that are not childproof, and it’s impossible to make a tool that should only be used under adult supervision childproof, the effect is an outright ban.  Undoubtedly, police and military will be permitted to continue to use firearms that are not childproof – this legislation will only be applied to innocent individuals who have broken no laws and hurt nobody.

They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

SOURCE: http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/

The fact of the matter is that most firearms used in street crime are relatively unremarkable handguns.  With the help of Hollywood, the anti-gun forces have led Americans to believe that military weapons are commonly used on our streets.  This couldn’t be further from the truth.  Weapons suitable for “foreign battlefields” area already tightly regulated, so this leaves every day firearms as the primary targets of confiscation – the last time these firearms were singled out based not on ballistic performance or lethality, but by appearance alone as if looks could kill.

Ultimately, we’re in for one hell of a ride.  Congress is likely to propose and pass sweeping legislation that will pave the way for a complete ban on technology that millions rely on to defend themselves and their families.  The biggest problem with what “works in Chicago” is that it doesn’t even work there.  Chicago, with it’s near total gun ban is delighted that it may manage to end the year with under 500 homicides.  In Miami, a city where defensive firearms ownership and use is legal and common, the city recently celebrated 40 days in a row without a homicide – the longest stretch in 52 years.

Posted in Civil Liberties, Firearms | No Comments »

Campus Area Shooting After Man Stabs Officer

October 22nd, 2008
Problem is widespread as evidenced by 7 violent attacks in 7 Days at The Ohio State University campus

Often when the issue of safety on campus arises – typically due to news of a violent attack on or near campus like this one, the media and educators assert that they are shocked because “campus is supposed to be a safe haven” from violence.  Organizations like The Brady Campaign capitalize on such nonsense with absurd campaigns like “The Pledge”.

Over at “Of Arms and the Law”, they make a good point that:

a person who is not deterred by the thought of life in prison is not likely to be deterred by the thought of breaking a promise

The problem is that violent individuals could care less about the wishes of civilized educated people to be left alone – it’s like lions hunting at watering holes on the African savannah – the criminals go where the soft targets are.

Federal law already prohibits anyone under the age of 21 from possessing a handgun, even for lawful self defense – and even if the individual has had police, military, or other training in the proper use of firearms for self defense.

Older students, faculty, and staff are also prohibited from carrying firearms to defend themselves by Ohio law. My wife is a student at Ohio State and also a firearms instructor certified in concealed handgun and defensive firearm use.  My brother is also a student and has undergone Ohio’s concealed handgun training – yet both are prohibited from defending their lives on campus, and as a practical matter, in the surrounding neighborhoods as they travel to and from class each day.

The story near the Franklin campus was only in the news because it involved injury to a police officer.  Let’s take a peek at violent crimes where my loved ones go to school over the last seven days (10/15/2008 through 10/21/2008). 

We see that in that short window of time there were six people robbed and one raped – all situations where defensive firearm use may be appropriate.

The corporate media in town tells me that these attacks “aren’t news” because “they happen all the time”. Could it be that the fact that gang attacks on college students continue to be news BECAUSE they continue to happen “all the time”?

The FIRST robbery (10/15/2008) happened near High St. at 10:01p where a group of black males assaulted the victim and stole his MP3 player and cash. This is not a situation where Mace, a loud whistle or personal alarm, or car keys are an effective defense. The safest way to end a violent robbery by a gang is to respond with a firearm.

The victim was white and lives in the campus neighborhood (the watering hole), the predators (three of whom were arrested) came from an area Southeast of Whitehall, Tamarack Circle area in Northeast Columbus, and the neighborhood Southeast of the I-670 and I-71 interchange.

How does a gang of four people from different parts of the city end up getting together for a night of robbery – and why did they pick campus?  They came to the university area because they knew that the statutorily defenseless residents of the area were less likely to fight back.

The SECOND robbery (10/17/2008) happened at 11:05p in the charming neighborhood at Iuka and Woodruff. in this case, two Caucasian males aged 20 and 78 respectively were carjacked from their Cadillac and their cell phone were stolen (along with an expensive textbook). A description of the assailant was omitted from the report.

The THIRD robbery (10/18/2008) occurred at 2:21a when an inebriated white female walking alone in a bad neighborhood was struck in the back of the head and had the contents of her purse stolen.  She was unable to provide a description of the suspects. One might wonder how armed students in the campus area could protect irresponsible people setting them selves up to be the ideal robbery target.  With concealed carry, the robbers won’t know who is armed and who is not – a sort of “Viceroy Effect”.

The FOURTH robbery (10/19/2008) took place at the CVS* near Lane and High just off campus at 7:14p.  My wife frequently stops there if she needs medicine on the way home.  I never enter a CVS store without my firearm, and this store is no exception.  If properly executed, most of the customers would probably not notice that a robbery was taking place – but if the robbery goes bad and the robber starts shooting, I’d rather be able to fight back than serve as somebody’s meat-shield.

The FIFTH robbery (10/19/2008) at 2:30a near the intersection of Oakland and Adams.  Three suspects approached a white 19 year old male (prohibited by law from possessing a firearm), put a gun to his head, and demanded his phone, wallet, and baseball cap.  The robbery started when the three asked the individual about the final score of the OSU game.

In candid discussions with me, OSU and Columbus police have been unsympathetic to students walking in the neighborhood.  When I was robbed at a COTA bus stop returning home from class one day they questioned why I was in the neighborhood at all and insinuated that I was there to buy drugs or for some other nefarious purpose. While licensed to carry, I the law left me to defend myself with a can of pepper spray. While no property was stolen, my medical bills were in excess of $700.

OSU recommends “walking in groups” and “carrying valuables with you” to avoid robberies and prevent thefts from cars and dorm rooms. Unfortunately, my firearm is the most valuable thing some students carry to campus and and state law requires that the life-saving tool be left in the car or at home.

The public needs to get serious about Concealed Carry on Campus and stop handwringing any time an attack like the one last night destroys their naive view of the world.

UPDATE: According to Columbus police, drug store robberies are up more than 400 percent over a year ago, totaling 56 in 2008 compared to 16 in 2007 and only nine in 2003.

Posted in Civil Liberties, Firearms | 1 Comment »

Ohio’s 15th Congressional District Candidates and The Law

October 18th, 2008

It dawned on me today that I hadn’t checked the criminal records search for the candidates in the OH-15 Congressional race.  I’m sure the Republicans and Democrats vetted their candidates to ensure that there are no felonies or anything really embarrassing, but it never hurts to check – and sometimes you can gain insight into the candidates views on the nature of law.

After reviewing Franklin County court records; Stivers, Kilroy, and Eckhart all had traffic offenses. Noble had no traffic offenses.

The interesting thing is how the candidates dealt with their offenses.  Mary Jo Kilroy was caught speeding while not wearing a seatbelt. She paid $140.  Independent candidate Eckhart was fined $80 for an improper right turn – and he paid.

Steve Stivers on the other hand had several offenses.  Cited with a “Prohibited Turn”, the charge was amended to a “Mufflers/Smoke/Gas” offense with a $0 fine. 

A later “Stop Sign” violation was treated the same way. The charge was amended to a “Mufflers/Smoke/Gas” offense with a $0 fine.

A pair of “Traffic Control Device” violation charges were amended to “Horn/Siren/Alarm” and “Inadequate Brakes” violations – both with $0 fines.

Even when Stivers was caught driving 80mph in a 65mph zone, the charge was amended to – you guessed it – a “Mufflers/Smoke/Gas” violation and the $107 fine was reduced to $20.

Ohio’s 15th Congressional District Candidate Traffic Violation Summary:

Candidate Violations Fines Paid
Mary Jo Kilroy (D) 1 $120
Don Eckhart (I) 1 $80
Steve Stivers (R) 6 $20
Mark Noble (L) 0 N/A

Everybody makes mistakes – and when people do make mistakes, it’s best to take responsibility for them.  Some of the candidates seem to learn quickly from their mistakes – while others seem to make skirting the law an art form.

It’d be interesting to hear from Stivers and Kilroy about their opinions on speed limit laws – especially Federally mandated speed limit proposals.  In the case of Kilroy, does she support Federal mandates on seatbelt use?  And does Stivers support “red light cameras” that might enforce stop sign and “traffic control device” violations?

It’s estimated that there are over 4,000 Federal Crimes specified in the US Code alone – and you’re responsible for ensuring that you don’t violate any of them.

While it’s best not to break the law at all – the current Federal legal climate makes this impossible.  To address this problem we should elect libertarian candidates who will begin revising and consolidating the existing law and to bring it in line with the legislative constraints imposed by the US Constitution.

We need to be careful that we do not elect candidates with a view that it’s ok for people to be randomly subjected to punishment for arbitrarily enforced crimes.  We should also be wary of candidates who habitually skirt the law.

A candidates jurisprudence manifests itself in traffic law, but it gives us a hint of what’s in store when it’s time to defend and uphold the Constitution.

Posted in Civil Liberties, OH-15 | No Comments »

Paul Krugman wins Nobel Economics Prize

October 13th, 2008

Here’s a rundown of some commentary on the issue. I got a kick out of this article about Krugman’s commentary on energy markets back in 2001.  Here his understanding of the effects on Zoning on housing bubbles is applauded.

Reason has a short piece on the story along with links to some of their favorite articles about him in the past.

The folks at Cato had some nice things to say as well, a sentiment echoed by Reason.

Posted in Economics | No Comments »

The Wonders of Cell Phone Tethering

October 12th, 2008

In my spare time I do a lot of volunteer work and one of the organizations I volunteer with holds it’s meetings in an office building that is as close as I’ve found to a WiFi dead zone.  There are three wireless networks available and all of them are secured (two of them are 2-Wire access points).

To make matters worse, I only get two bars of cell coverage there as well, but as it turns out – that’s enough.

A lot of my co-workers have higher-end HTC mobile phones and a few had gotten into ROM and registry hacking to accomplish various feats. The most impressive to me was cell phone tethering.

I have an unlimited data plan with my provider for a few extra bucks per month, but if I wish to use that unlimited wireless data with my Tablet PC or desktop they insist on selling me hundreds of dollars of extra hardware, $50/mo. in extra service charges, and a 5GB cap on the amount of service I use. All for the pleasure of a bigger keyboard and monitor.

PDAnet for Windows Mobile Luckily a company named June Fabrics has created an app called PDAnet for Windows Mobile devices (they also have versions for PalmOS and iPhone based devices). It costs about $34 and allows users to use their cell phone as a wireless modem so that they may extend their existing wireless data plan to laptops or even desktop machines.  In my case, at an EvDo (Rev. A) connection at 2.4 Mbit/s downstream. Plenty for checking email, browsing the web, and IM.

The best part was the ease of use. Simply install the software and connect the phone to a USB port. The phone automatically connects and displays a message on your PC indicating that the connection is ready. Just click and you’re online.

This should go a long way toward increasing my productivity at meetings and we’re even looking at the possibility of video conferencing with a committee member that has mobility issues.

If you have a Windows Mobile, PalmOS, or iPhone device and an unlimited data plan, I’d advise trying PDAnet to see if it can fill in some coverage gaps for you.

UPDATE: A friend pointed out that Steve Harman has tested an approach that uses Internet Connection Sharing (ICS) included on his phone to avoid the need to purchase any software at all. His work was on a Blackjack II with AT&T service.

Posted in Technology | No Comments »

“Stop Opening Chats! It’s Annoying!”

October 9th, 2008

A few weeks ago Microsoft (MS) released Windows Live Wave 3 to public Beta. It didn’t take long for a few of the people on my contact list to start complaining. Here’s how the conversation started this morning:

10/9/2008 8:55:04 AM
Stop opening windows on my desktop!!

As it turns out, I most frequently get this complaint from users of Pidgin and Adium.

The bug seems to be tied to Windows Live Messenger 9 (WLM9) support of multiple sign-on locations.  If I’m signed on at two machines, Pidgin users have reported that a multi-user chat window pops up with one of them and one of me for each machine I have logged in.  This happens each time I sign-in, which can be a pain if the WLM9 user has an unstable net connection.

The root of the problem seems to be the “libpurple” IM library support used by Pidgin and Adium.

With WLM9, Microsoft updated it’s Microsoft Notification Protocol to version 16 (MSNP16) – I’m not sure what Pidgin supports. As I understand it, libpurple has MSNP16 support in a source branch, so it sounds like they’re working on it – but who knows how soon Pidgin and Adium will offer support to correct the problem.

They’ll need to get it worked out by 2/10/09 because that’s when WLM9 is slated to go RTM.  Presently the problem only affects Pidgin and Adium users with a contact using the WLM9 Beta, but in a few months the number of WLM9 client users is sure to blossom so the issue will only get worse.

I provided Feedback on this bug to MS, so they should be aware of the issue on their end, but I wouldn’t expect MS to overhaul their proprietary IM protocol to fix a bug in multi-IM clients.

So if you’re having issues with multi-user chats opening, the problem isn’t your buddy running the most current software, it’s probably an issue with your Open Source client – so download the source and fix it already. ;)

UPDATE: According to the Pidgin FAQ:

Pidgin 2.4.3 and older versions use MSNP9, an outdated version of the MSN protocol that does not support status messages or offline messaging.

Pidgin 2.5.0 comes with updated MSN protocol support (MSNP15) and therefore supports these features.

So it’s only one behind, but still no idea on when either a fix or support for MSNP16 will be made available.

UPDATE 2: Another Pidgin user reports:

I experience a bug recently (only with WLM9 users) where I can’t message them unless they message me first.  If a time passes between their message and my reply, I can’t message them unless they message me anew.  The error is "cannot send message, there was a connection error"

So it seems like the window pop-ups aren’t the only annoyance.

Posted in Technology | No Comments »

Don’t Overlook Media Center Capabilities

October 5th, 2008

Sometime before Vista went RTM, I took advantage of a sale at a local retailer and picked up an ATI DV Wonder HDTV Tuner Card. It was supposedly one of the last tuner cards that didn’t support the “broadcast flag”. It’s been a while and I don’t remember the details, plus, it was a bit of a whim purchase back then – I just wanted a cheap way to start receiving HDTV content, so I was hardly an informed consumer.

I slapped the card into my XP Pro workstation with a sub-2Ghz processor, integrated graphics, and in need of more room on the HD. The performance wasn’t impressive. DTV video worked ok, but any HDTV broadcasts showed up as a black screen. I was able to pause and resume programming, but it wasn’t very smooth. The video would jerk to catch up sometimes.

In June of 2007 I graduated from college and received a Soyo HDTV as a graduation present. I cannibalized the cheapo HD antenna that came with the DV Wonder, and used it to pull in free Over The Air (OTA) HDTV and DTV broadcasts. Since I live near busy railroad tracks and the antenna was only about 7ft off the ground, reception was a nightmare.  Any time a train passed we’d have interference and the signal would cut-out, and depending on the station we’d have to re-orient the antenna for decent signal. I spent a lot of time playing Xbox 360 and watching DVD’s since the picture quality wouldn’t be interrupted.

This spring I got approval from my landlord to replace the old TV antenna on the chimney with a new one optimized for HDTV.  This solved most of the issues with our OTA signal – the trains were no longer a factor, but PBS reception was terrible since it is broadcast from a tower in the opposite direction from the majority of the broadcasters.

Radar-Digital
The line marked 38 represents WOSU signal, most are at heading 195°
SOURCE: http://tvfool.com

I’d been dabbling with Windows Media Center Extender on my Xbox 360 lately, watching coverage of the Olympics made available by a TVTonic Media Center plug-in – and messing around with the year-old Internet TV beta.

After a discussion with my brother about Ubuntu v. Vista, I remembered my idle DV Wonder card. Before the Vista launch there was talk that Microsoft wouldn’t support old HDTV tuner cards that didn’t support content management controls in Vista. I paid too much attention to the naysayers and assumed I’d need a new Vista-compatible tuner card in order to use my Vista box as a DVR and share content across devices on my home network.

This weekend I figured I had nothing to lose – I wasn’t using the tuner in my old box, so I might as well throw it in the Vista box and see what happened. It took me about 30 minutes to disconnect the cables, find some screwdrivers, and slap the card into my Vista box.

I powered it on and my copy of Vista Ultimate discovered the card, searched Windows Update for the correct drivers, and installed them. Less than five-minutes after rebooting I was greeted with the message “Your hardware is ready to use”.

I fired up Windows Media Center, selected my stations, and downloaded the schedule. I could immediately and effortlessly watch Live TV – as well as pause it when needed. Best of all, it was trivial to scroll through the schedule to set programs for recording. One-click records that episode – two record clicks record the entire series. If there’s a conflict you can easily set priority between two shows so it records your favorite.

Next I headed downstairs to my Xbox 360 setup in the living room and fired up Windows Media Extender there. Microsoft doesn’t recommend it, but I had decent performance over an 802.11g wireless connection. I plan to have antenna and network hard-wired connections dropped through the wall soon and that should drastically improve the bandwidth available for watching content on the Extender.

One gripe I have is that the Windows Media Center Guide doesn’t seem to pull down the proper schedule info for digital sub-channels. In my market, sub-channels 4.2, 6.2, 34.2, and 34.3 simply echoed the schedule info for the main channel.  That’s pretty annoying, so I hope to figure out a fix soon.

Considering the first tuner card was fairly cheap, I might consider a second tuner so I can look into recording two shows at once. Also, with all of this recording going on, it makes sense to add some more storage space with a terabyte or two of extra HD.

The moral of the story is that if you have a version of Vista with Media Center installed, you don’t need a tuner to start messing with it thanks to the Internet TV beta. If you have an Xbox 360 on your home network you should start using it as an extender for your Media Center. If you, like me, had an HDTV tuner card laying around, throw it in the box and start using it.

Anyone with a Vista machine with Media Center and Xbox 360 that isn’t using this awesome home theatre technology is really missing out.

Posted in Technology | No Comments »

Installing ATI Remote Wonder Plus (Vista)

October 5th, 2008

This weekend I spent some time getting familiar with Windows Media Center. An ATI Remote Wonder Plus came with my tuner card, so I plugged it in.

Vista automatically installed the software and said the device was "”ready to use”, but the remote still wasn’t working, so the next day I looked into the issue and found this article.

ATI Remote Wonder Plus Install for Vista

Turns out it’s an old article and no longer current, so here’s an update. First, after the ATI/AMD merger it wasn’t obvious, but I found the driver page mentioned in the above article. Here’s the ATI “Drivers & Software” page.

If you need the driver for 64 bit Vista, Windows XP, Windows 2000, or Linux, that page is your best bet – but since it’s what I needed, here’s a direct link to the 32-bit Vista driver.

Installing was straightforward, though after extracting with a status bar, there didn’t seem to be a lot of feedback from the installer. I hit <Ctrl> + <Alt> + <Del> to see if the process was running and got some start-menu toast explaining that the drivers were being installed.

This process ended with a note that a reboot may be required, this was also mentioned in the article linked above, but in my case the remote worked without a reboot – which is good because a reboot would have interfered with programs Media Center was recording.

Posted in Technology | 1 Comment »

Christian Concerns with the Libertarian Party?

March 10th, 2008

A friend of mine pointed out a post on a political forum, and I thought I’d take the opportunity to clarify a few points that the original author seemed to overlook:

However, the core problem with libertarianism is that the philosophy refuses to acknowledge that our rights come God (like the Declaration of Independence states).

The philosophy of liberty (Flash animation) takes no position on God because that’s the role of a philosophy.  People make such acknowledgements – not philosophies.  It does make an effort to analyze why some acts of people are good, and others might be bad.  None of this seems to be in conflict with biblical teachings.

Arguing over the nature of our creator is a distraction from key facts that all people must recognize. 

We exist. 

We can make a personal choice to resist tyranny against our persons. 

If we are absolute in our insistence on liberty, it can only be taken by killing us.

Let’s look for a minute at what it takes to be a libertarian.  According to the Libertarian Party of Ohio (LPO), you are a libertarian if you sign the following pledge:

‘I certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.’

Based on what you have read in the Bible, what part of this pledge should any Christian take issue with?

Instead, it relies on the sovereignty of man and the false belief that liberty in and of itself is the answer to all our problems.

The philosophy of liberty makes no claim as to the origin of our rights – only the recognition that they exist in all people.  If anything, long term study of libertarian concepts leads one to the conclusion that when one person forces another to do something, the result is often suffering.

Abortion

The author goes on to offer his opinion on the issue of abortion:

The libertarians’ stubborn refusal to recognize unborn children as human beings with the same constitutional rights as everyone else still baffles me. If we were talking about three-year olds, this insane argumentation flies out the window in about ten seconds. The only differences between an unborn child and a toddler are size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency (easily remembered as the S.L.E.D. argument).

It’s important to remember that a libertarian should always defend self ownership and oppose the use of force against others.  This applies to fetuses too – and abortion deserves much discussion because the interests of the fetus and mother may conflict.

It is my personal view that the time a fetus spends in the womb is a gift from the mother – and that the gift of life should not be taken at any age.

This view does pose some problems.  Scientists are already able to generate stem cells from a variety of human tissues.  Someday scientists might be able to collect living cells from someone’s handkerchief, coax them into becoming an embryo, and perhaps being born as alive and human as you and me.

At that point will every skin cell we shed be considered an abortion?

I’m not sure if it’s a result of imagining a future where that sort of technology is available, but some people object to this sort of technology and seek to use government force to obstruct it.  Astonishingly, the free market (a natural force) clearly celebrates medical advances in sustaining premature babies out of the womb at earlier and earlier stages of development, as well as advances in fertility.

Something is going to have to give.

In the mean time I’d propose that if the people believe abortion to be murder, we should include it in state laws where the rest of the murder statutes are kept.  I would wonder though where people get the notion that it is the duty of man to punish men for their sins when Christian doctrine seems to place that responsibility firmly in the realm of God.

Marriage

On the topic of marriage the author said:

Human beings did not invent the institution of marriage and people have no authority to redefine the institution to suit their deviant nature.

The institution of marriage is clearly an establishment of religion.  Our Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

So it would seem that the author seeks to use the Federal government as an implement of force to impose his social views on others.  I don’t know about the author, but I object to government issued marriage licenses because it attempts to inject government control into a matter that is between me, my spouse, and God. 

It is my understanding that God is perfectly capable of handling such matters without help from the government at the insistence of authoritarian busybodies.

(Illegal?) Drugs

Next the author foists his puritanical views on drugs upon the reader:

Since when is drug use an inalienable right? Are we seriously advocating for cocaine to be made available at CVS? Should employers be forced to higher cocaine users? What about the dangers to children?

What is drug use?  Fundamentally, it is putting something in one’s own body.  A body that you own.  People put all manner of unhealthy things in their bodies.  Should that be prohibited?  Could that be prohibited?  It can’t be prohibited in maximum security prisons.

The author asks when drug use became a right.  I think that’s best answered in (2004 Libertarian presidential candidate) Michael Badnarik’s book “Good to be King” which explains the difference between a Privilege and a Right.

Unfortunately today, it is probably possible to buy cocaine illegally just outside many of the CVS locations or grocery store pharmacy’s in town.  The black market product is of unknown potency and purity – unlike the commercial products sold inside.  The drug alcohol, now sold at locations all over the city was once a black market commodity.  More serious than the health effects of drinking bathtub gin were the health effects of black-market turf-war justice. 

According to John Lott, 90% of gun crime happens in the 3% of counties with the largest drug problems.  He has also found that gun crime dropped by 60% upon the end of prohibition.  In view of these facts, I still encounter gun owners that are ardent proponents of the war on drugs that fuels the war on our gun liberties.  Maybe they’re on drugs?

Hopefully upon reading this far, the author will understand that libertarians oppose the use of government force to achieve social goals such as a drug-free society (of course, alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine are probably ok with him).  With this view, how could a libertarian stand by and allow the government to force employers to hire cocaine users?

As for the dangers of children, this is the responsibility of the parents and guardians of the children.  All manner of substances exist in our society that are dangerous to children, yet somehow we generally seem to get by.  I suspect this is because people (including children) are able to make rational comparisons between the relative dangers of say, allowing alcohol to fall into the hands of children as compared to allowing them to come in contact with high voltage wires.

Conclusion

In reviewing the authors claims, I’ve detected a pattern.  This pattern trends toward the government having a right as “a God-ordained institution” that may interfere in the lives of individuals “as a means of achieving political or social goals”.

Libertarians however believe that political goals should be achieved with compelling arguments and rational debate.  When it comes to social goals, we have faith that people will do what is right in accordance with their personal relationship with God and do not feel that God needs help from from government to beat down moral dissent.

The author closes with:

There are certainly huge deviations from what Ron Paul believes and advocates.

I’d have to argue that this is pure speculation.  Considering his very libertarian debate answer that sex in the military should be treated the same regardless of whether it’s homosexual or heterosexual seems like a fine example.  Ron Paul’s position on the War on Drugs would also seem to indicate a libertarian approach.

Maybe the author woke up this morning and decided Dr. Paul wasn’t his candidate after all but can’t bring himself to say it.

Posted in Civil Liberties, Economics, Firearms, Ron Paul, Technology | 1 Comment »

N.Y. governor reportedly in prostitution ring – Politics- msnbc.com

March 10th, 2008

It should be interesting to hear how this plays out.  Note the careful choice of words – he wasn’t caught in a “sting”, the media says he was part of a “ring”.

Federal prosecutors last week arrested four people in connection with an expensive prostitution operation, the Times reported.

A person with knowledge of the case told the Times that the governor is one of the men identified as clients in court papers.

N.Y. governor reportedly in prostitution ring – Politics- msnbc.com

When you’re involved in a ring, it means you’re a player getting the spoils.  So for example, to be involved in this prostitution “ring” he’d have to be either a pimp or a prostitute.

6. group of people operating dishonestly: an organized group of people who work together in a dishonest or unethical way
a gambling ring

ring (1) definition – encarta.com

When you’re involved in a sting, it means that you were a dope and didn’t think you would get caught, but that’s what happens.

7. crime police undercover operation: a complex undercover operation to catch criminals ( slang ) ( often used before a noun )

sting definition – encarta.com

I’d imagine that for political reasons he’s trying to cast it as involvement in a “ring” because there’s some confusion as to his role (was he working with them, or patronizing them).  Still, considering that the confusion leads people to believe that he had a larger role than being a “John”, I wonder how implying deeper involvement is a good thing.

That said, Vice Cops are America’s “church police”.  The government should not place restrictions on contracts between consenting adults.

Posted in Civil Liberties | No Comments »

Studies: CO2 output must cease altogether – Washington Post- msnbc.com

March 10th, 2008

Everybody hold your breath.  Warmists conclude that a radical approach is the only way to force nature to our whims.

This sort of thing is the pinnacle of arrogance.  First, it assumes that Earths climate at the moment is perfect.  Second, it assumes that humans (who never make mistakes) should devote endless resources to the task of keeping climate change (a natural process that has gone on for centuries) in check.  And perhaps most arrogant of all, it assumes that the government is not only the right tool to do the job, but if only those obstructionists would get out of the way – it couldn’t fail!

Just look at a quote from this MSNBC article:

The Senate is poised to vote in June on legislation that would reduce U.S. emissions by 70 percent by 2050;

Studies: CO2 output must cease altogether – Washington Post- msnbc.com

Of the pool of major-party presidential nominees, Senator McCain favors a scheme to drop CO2 emissions by 60%, while Senators Clinton and Obama both favor an 80% cut (see, the major parties are completely different!).  Maybe they’re banking on some “broken window” economic benefits.

Sounds like a sure thing.  Of course we all know the realities of science and government.  They are at their most effective when there is the most vibrant debate.  Don’t pin your hopes on warmists who have concluded “the debate is over“.  Science is debate.  They’ve made their decision, we’re going to ignore the science and go with what is emotionally expedient and popular.

But what of the other side of the coin – the folks who haven’t given up on science?

After three days of what the chairman called “the kind of free-spirited debate that is virtually absent from the global warming alarmist camp”, the 500 delegates issued the Manhattan Declaration, stating that attempts by governments to reduce CO2 emissions would “markedly diminish further prosperity” while having “no appreciable impact” on the Earth’s warming.

Climate dissent grows hotter as chill deepens – Telegraph – telegraph.co.uk

So here we have the warmists claiming that the only way to address the problem effectively will be a total stop to CO2 emissions.  The opposition concludes the same result, but notes that we could get the same result if we don’t destroy the global economies with bureaucratic handwringing.

Warmists assume that because we burnt gigatons of fossil fuels to get where we are today, the third world must do the same.  This isn’t the case however.  We used fossil fuels because they were cheap – and they aren’t anymore. 

The fastest path out of poverty for third world nations will be cheap alternatives to fossil fuels – but for those solutions to become apparent, governments will need to drop their protectionism and subsidies of favored industries and let the free market reflect true costs of energy.  With this information, the people of developing nations – and the modernized western world – can make intelligent decisions about their fuel sources.

For now, my bet is on nuclear.

Posted in 2008 Presidential Race, Economics, Technology | No Comments »

A Look Ahead

March 4th, 2008

Ohio has been seeing it’s share of presidential campaign ads on TV.  Mostly from Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in my market.  I’ve found a few of the ads to contain troubling authoritarian messages.

Take for example Obama’s “Choices” ad with footage of him at the 2004 Democratic National Convention:

[applause] It is that fundamental belief: I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper, that makes this country work.

No man is my keeper, thank you.

Clinton was even more direct in promoting her plans for our future with her “Fighter” ad narrated by Ohio Governor Ted Strickland who said:

I think she’s a person who has devoted her life to caring about other people­ making sure that America works for everyone, not just the privileged few.

Sounds nice doesn’t it…  except when you remember that when Democrats talk about “making sure” of things, they mean using force against anyone who refuses to go with the program.  She’s going to ensure that Americans don’t work hard to fuel their own dreams and ambitions – but everyone’s.  What a noble cause – to prohibit such selfish behavior!

“Making sure that America works for everyone” is hinting at how Clinton’s policies would seek to redistribute wealth.  Then it pours on a class-warfare dig on “the privelaged few”.

People who devote their lives toward keeping others and robbing the privileged to fund everyone are authoritarians and socialists.

But don’t worry – we have McCain, right?  In April of 2007, Reason Magazine published Be Afraid of President McCain, The frightening mind of an authoritarian maverick.

Does he not understand that there are at least some people in American life who take liberty as seriously as McCain takes his notions of national duty? Judging by a comment he made recently on the Don Imus radio show, the answer seems to be no. Defending campaign finance reform, McCain said, “I would rather have a clean government than one…where ‘First Amendment rights’ are being respected that has become corrupt. If I had my choice I’d rather have a clean government.”

When we have “lesser of two evils” like these, it makes sense to start seriously considering the other evils in the race.

Posted in 2008 Presidential Race, Civil Liberties, Quotes | No Comments »

Papers Please: Arrested At Circuit City

March 4th, 2008

My brother sent me a link to The Consumerist which had some interesting articles on individuals being assertive about their liberties. 

I found one story to be especially interesting for a number of reasons such as the customer’s attitude toward an ignorant police force who needlessly harassed him, and the way the media portrayed this upstanding citizen when the ordeal was settled.

On the issue of the police, the customer seemed to take the position that his intent was to create firm legal precedent, but upon learning that they existed, he felt no need to litigate further.  Unfortunately, lawsuits are what should happen when the City infringes on civil liberties and violates such precedents. 

The point of a legal precedent is to provide others with an easier path to a legal victory in a lawsuit and to put aggressors on notice that they will lose, so it seems inconsistent that the customer here elected to back down.  At the very least he should have requested a settlement covering all court fees and his time and trouble for having to deal with the fiasco.

As glad as I was to see someone standing for their rights (in this case, the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches) in such a case, I was troubled by another aspect of the customer’s reasoning.  In his initial blog post he said:

I can reluctantly understand having to show a permit to fish, a permit to drive and a permit to carry a weapon. Having to show a permit to exist is a scary idea which I got a strong taste of today.

I understand that he didn’t say “I must” understand, but I don’t see how it’s any more reasonable to be required to show a permit to fish, drive, or carry a weapon.

Since I’m more familiar with firearms law in Ohio, I’ll use the “permit to carry a weapon” example in the quote.

Under Ohio law and the Ohio constitution, there is no requirement to obtain the permission of the state to purchase firearms.

Moreover, there is no law against walking around with a gun in a holster.

The reality is much the same as the shopper experienced.  The police are ignorant of the law, and creative about which other laws to apply as an excuse to arrest a person and “resolve the situation”.

In the case of one Ohio man, the nonviolent act of buying gas at a gas station with a gun in his holster evoked this response from police (YouTube video).

The result of this case was identical to the our brave customer – case dismissed.

So I suppose my question for the consumer is, considering that he seems to understand and respect his rights enumerated by the 4th Amendment, why does he “reluctantly understand” a non-existent requirement to show a permit to carry a weapon?

The state of Ohio does require a license to carry a firearm concealed at this time, but Alaska and Vermont do not.  Are citizens of those states somehow more trustworthy?

It should also be noted that according to a Feb, 2008 article in The Columbus Dispatch, an estimated 1 in 80 Ohioans are licensed to carry concealed firearms, and anyone else may carry a handgun in a holster unless otherwise prohibited by federal law (for reasons such as being a convicted criminal, being insane, or being under 21 – which is apparently right up there with insanity and criminality in the eyes of the Federal government).

Only two states prohibit carrying concealed firearms outright – Wisconsin, and Illinois.

Posted in Civil Liberties, Firearms | No Comments »

Dick on Hillary

March 4th, 2008

A neighbor sent an email supposedly from Dick Morris with the following assertion about Hillary Clinton:Dick Morris

3. She wants to grant constitutional rights to enemy combatants captured on the battlefield.

Hillary may “want to grant constitutional rights”. Unfortunately, she can’t – nor does the Constitution “grant” rights. If a person takes the time to read the Constitution it is clear that rights are inherent in all humans.

A good way to consider whether something is a right or a liberty (or as authoritarians call them “privileges”) is to evaluate the nature of the activity – is it inherent in all men, or is it something special that we must have permission to do.

For example, look at the 1st Amendment and freedom of speech. The government cannot take your “right” to free speech away. No matter how much the government punishes you, you still have the ability to share your thoughts and ideas with others. The only way to ensure that they do not speak against a government is to have them killed.

This is also true of the 2nd Amendment – our right to keep and bear arms exists as long as our will to survive exists. The government may punish us for bearing arms – but even prisoners in jail devise weapons. The right to keep and bear arms can only be removed entirely by killing them.

Conversely, many leftists assert a “right to public education”. This is not a right because it is not inherent in the individual. There may well be a right to self educate oneself – but not to force others to subsidize your education or that of children.

Occasionally I hear of a “right to feel safe”. This one is completely made up. Feeling safe is a mental state that has no bearing on reality and the presence of natural or man-made dangers. While driving is statistically one of the most dangerous things we all do, many people “feel safe” doing it.

Feeling safe depends on the mindset of the individual. 

For an excellent discussion on rights vs. liberties (or privileges), please take a moment to read a chapter from a good book a friend of mine wrote:Good to be King by Michael Badnarik

Good to be King by Michael Badnarik – Chapter 2, Rights vs. Privileges

I couldn’t believe that Dick Morris could make such a blunder with that

statement, so I checked it out – it seems that he really did write the contents of the chain mail I received.

So I’d guess that he’s either ignorant of the nature of rights as explained above, or he’s aware, and with his quote above, is asserting that Hillary doesn’t want to kill enemy combatants because allowing them to live could be the only possible way she could “grant rights” to them.

I’m betting the former.

Posted in 2008 Presidential Race, Civil Liberties | No Comments »

Cons of Bureaucratic Infrastructure Maintenance

January 20th, 2008

From an article circulated amongst my family members:

Oberstar said the discovery of the Ohio bridge problem and its similarity to what happened in Minneapolis should renew concerns about the nation’s bridges. He said it underscores the need for a bill he’s sponsored that would increase the number of bridge inspectors around the country, as well as offer them more training opportunities.
SOURCE: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MN_BRIDGE_COLLAPSE_PRECEDENT_OHOL-?SITE=WBNSTV&SECTION=HOME

Note how the solution to the failure of big government is always *MORE GOVERNMENT*.  The problem was a systematic failure of bureaucratic processes to build and maintain safe bridges.  Simply adding more inspectors for input into the bureaucracy, or dumping more money into the wasteful bureaucracy will not fix the problem.

When this first happened I thought to myself, “Where can I find examples of bridges of similar size, load-bearing capability, and age that are privately owned – and do they ever have failures?”

The answer is that the railroads are expert private bridge builders and maintainers.  Even though a bridge failure might cost only two human lives (Conductor and Engineer), the economic impact of a bridge failure would be severe – resulting in bottlenecks, delays, and all sorts of other headaches for the railroad at a substantial loss of profit.

I conducted a search of railroad bridge collapses in several periodical search databases from the library.  There *were* several railroad bridge collapses, but all failures were either in cases where the bridge was damaged by an accident (for example the Bayou Canot, LA bridge failure that swallowed up the Sunset Limited after a barge accident damaged the bridge)  or in cases where extreme weather such as flooding or a hurricane damaged the bridge.  In *most* of these cases the bridge was inspected *before* the accident happened (privately owned bridges do not face a shortage of inspectors).  In fact, the CSX bridge that led to the Sunset Limited wreck was damaged between the time when it was inspected *earlier that day* and when the Amtrak train crossed it.

For every hour that a railroad bridge is out of service, it may make an entire cross country rail route unusable and cost the railroads millions of dollars in train re-routes, crew overtime, and late fees to “Just in Time” shipping customers.  The railroad has an obligation to its shareholders (people like you and me who probably own railroad stock as part of our retirement funds) to keep things running – and when they fail, to get them running again, even at great effort and expense.

The government, however, faces no such sense of urgency.  Though a bridge outage may also cost millions or even billions in losses, it’s not viewed as a direct loss by bureaucrats and politicians tasked with re-building it.  Just look at this case from the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina:

In August, 2005, Hurricane Katrina flattened two bridges, one for cars, one for trains, that span the two miles of water separating this city of 8,000 from the town of Pass Christian. Sixteen months later, the automobile bridge remains little more than pilings. The railroad bridge is busy with trains.

The difference: The still-wrecked bridge is owned by the U.S. government. The other is owned by railroad giant CSX Corp. of Jacksonville, Fla. Within weeks of Katrina’s landfall, CSX dispatched construction crews to fix the freight line; six months later, the bridge reopened. Even a partial reopening of the road bridge, part of U.S. Highway 90, is at least five months away.

“It shows the difference between the private sector and the public sector,” says Harold “Buz” Olsen, chief administrative officer of Bay St. Louis, who displays a photograph of the train bridge in the city council chambers as a reminder. “By the time CSX was done with their bridge, we were just getting around to letting the contract on ours.”
SOURCE: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07029/757969-84.stm

The public infrastructure system also suffers from another fatal flaw.  The politicians and bureaucrats charged with maintaining bridges and other vital public infrastructure need to secure public funding – often through taxation – to fund their repairs.  The sad fact is that this is a *lot* easier if your infrastructure is falling apart than if it is in great shape. 

With the railroads, funding to maintain their infrastructure is automatic.  Preventative maintenance is a financial necessity.  As a result, many railroad bridges in service today are in excellent shape – despite being built long before the 40 year old highway bridge that failed in Minnesota.  Private railroad bridges rarely require replacement – unless the railroad needs greater capacity either due to larger loads, an increased number of tracks, or to increase bridge clearances to accommodate modern railroad equipment such as “double stack” Intermodal railcars.

With highway bridges, often only decades old, the structures are neglected.  By the time maintenance funding is secured through political and bureaucratic wrangling, total replacement is the only feasible option.

Posted in Economics, Observations, Technology | No Comments »

Collective Right?

January 17th, 2008

I recently came across a Letter To the Editor (LTE) in the Toledo Blade, here it is:

2nd Amendment is about collective right

In The Blade’s Dec. 27 Readers’ Forum there was a letter headlined “Other amendments suffer in 1939 ruling.” The letter writer questioned if the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is a collective right, or an individual right. Obviously, if one were to read the Second Amendment, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,” then one would know that the Second Amendment is a collective right. “Militia” is a collective word (done by or belonging to all the members of a group), which explains who the people in this amendment are.

The National Rifle Association’s deliberate omission of the militia language is nothing more than a constitutional illusion created by mass advertising to further a commercial and monetary goal.

It is this deliberate omission that confuses some people about the meaning of the Second Amendment. There is nothing in the language even remotely suggesting a constitutional right to keep and bear arms for hunting, self-protection, target shooting, or other individual pursuits unrelated to the operation of state militias.

Besides the 1939 Supreme Court case, United States vs. Miller, there have been 35 Supreme Court cases and numerous federal court cases that quote, cite, or discuss the Second Amendment. Out of all of these cases, the courts that have stated a firm position have said that the Second Amendment is not an absolute or individual right.

And for those who are wondering, I own numerous guns.

Don Kosmider

Monclova

SOURCE: http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080117/OPINION03/801170324

Don’s letter contains key factual errors.  For one, he asserts that “‘Militia’ is a collective word”.  To me it seems as if he is arguing that Militia is not only a term for a group of individuals, but also an exclusive group.  Let’s see how the law defines militia:

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

SOURCE: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

It is mildly exclusive.  People under age 17 aren’t in the militia.  And people over 45 years old aren’t in the militia.  Presumably because it’s assumed that people outside of these age ranges are not generally suitable for military service.  It also excludes women, though women have proven themselves in combat and military service.  Aside from those constraints, all males at least are in the militia and have the right to keep and bear arms.  The LTE author seems to have a smaller subset of people, perhaps National Guardsmen in mind.

The author also brings up United States vs. Miller to assert that “the courts that have stated a firm position have said that the Second Amendment is not an absolute or individual right.”

A common myth is that the Miller ruling laid the groundwork for legislators to impose restrictions on gun ownership based on any characteristic they found expedient. 

The fact is that in the Miller case, the court found that the defendants did not have a right to own arms that were not suitable for military use as part of their participation in the militia.

The gun in question was a sawed-off shotgun.  Interestingly, if the court had known at the time that sawed-off shotguns are occasionally employed by the military, the ruling might have been different and saved us a lot of Constitutional heartache.

If anything, the Miller decision set a precedent that all firearms owned must be suitable for national defense – for modern military use.  It’s interesting that the anti-gun elements in our society have used Miller as an excuse to specifically ban “military style weapons” as was the case under the Clinton Gun Ban.

The LTE author asserted “There is nothing in the language even remotely suggesting a constitutional right to keep and bear arms for hunting, self-protection, target shooting, or other individual pursuits unrelated to the operation of state militias.”

The fact is that there is nothing in the language of the 2nd Amendment remotely suggesting restrictions on firearms use – aside from the statement that they should be suitable for militia use.  As such, the military style weapons we own may be used for all lawful purposes.

It should also be noted that Mr. Kosmider ignored the fact that the Constitution only enumerates individual rights.  He didn’t address why he feels that while the rest of the Bill of Rights applies to individuals, when writing 2nd Amendment, the framers suddenly became interested in defending “collective rights” of states for example.  His support of this position would be especially interesting to me considering that only individuals have rights.

Posted in Civil Liberties | No Comments »

Bush Administration "Pretending" to be Anti-Gun?

January 16th, 2008

When the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was due to sunset, Bush explained that he was in favor of the ban and that if the Congress passed a renewal of the bill, he would sign it.

I asked my pro-Gun Republican friends what they thought about that, and the consensus was that – for political reasons – Bush had to “pretend” to support the ban when in fact he did not.  Of course that was the most naive view, Bush apologists had all sorts of excuses at the time.

Of course, it could have been that he genuinely was in favor of the ban because he sees the 2nd Amendment protections as problematic in a Constitution that he described as “a goddamned piece of paper“.

Now the Bush Justice Department has filed a brief supporting Washington DC’s unconstitutional gun ban.

Let’s see what the Bush apologists have to say for themselves now.

The favorite candidate of  pro-Constitution gun groups such as the Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is clear.  They favor Ron Paul because his message of liberty and protection of Constitutional freedoms is consistent and strong.

Aside from Congressman Paul, most of the Democrat and GOP field seems to think that the 2nd Amendment has something to do with hunting.  When they view guns as overkill for sporting purposes, they seem to fall in line with Jim Zumbo on the issue.  Let’s hope that like Zumbo, they experience an intervention that gives them some time to think about the ramifications of their unconstitutional positions before, like Bush, they are swept into office for fear of the leftist in the race.

Posted in 2008 Presidential Race, Civil Liberties, Ron Paul | No Comments »

Back Doors?

January 16th, 2008

Of course we can’t eliminate the possibility of an elaborate government disinformation plot, but stories like this seem to indicate that encrypted data security is alive and well.  Here’s the meat:

For more than a year, the government has been unable to view drive Z.

A government computer forensics expert testified that it is “nearly impossible” to access the files without the password, the judge wrote. “There are no ‘back doors’ or secret entrances to access the files,” he wrote. “The only way to get access without the password is to use an automated system which repeatedly guesses passwords. According to the government, the process to unlock drive Z could take years . . . “

I’ve been an advocate of encrypting as much personal Internet traffic as possible since I learned about the technologies over a decade ago.  The defendant in this case used PGP, it has strengths (such as the ability to encrypt different types of content) but for most people I feel that S/MIME is a better tool for encryption of email because it is so transparent to the end user, more easy to use, and already installed on most computers.

People ask me “how secure is this?” and my answer has always been to explain that no encryption is unbreakable – it just takes time.  When you use the strong RSA encryption used by PGP and S/MIME, you buy a lot of time – in this case, over a year.  I generally tell them to consider the level of secrecy of their information compared to the level of sophistication of the prying eyes.

I started using encryption because I didn’t want my IT colleges to casually read my emails (which are sometimes stored as simple text files on the email server).  Email is like a postcard – anyone, at any time, with access to a postcard can read the entire contents – even potentially change the meaning of the message.  So employing encryption prevents tampering and eavesdropping.

So is some hacker or IT person going to waste a year decrypting some inane email to your mother?  They might, but if they did they might think twice about whether or not it was worth it to encrypt other emails.  On the other hand, the governments of the western world might be able to team up and crack a file containing plans for a terrorist attack in minutes or hours, but judging by this case, they’re not willing to leverage that sort of potential for a kiddie porn case. 

The net result is that reasonably good people using strong encryption probably face zero risk of a brute force attack on their data – and since it’s fairly easy to set up and use, why not take advantage of such wonderful odds?  If the court upholds the ruling that a person can’t be compelled to hand over the password, the argument in favor of routine encryption of personal data becomes even stronger. 

EPIC had this to say:

“The consequence of this decision being upheld is that the government would have to find other methods to get this information,” said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. “But that’s as it should be. That’s what the Fifth Amendment is intended to protect.”

Of course, the enemies of liberty fret that drug dealers and pedophiles will use the technologies to avoid prosecution:

Mark D. Rasch, a privacy and technology expert with FTI Consulting and a former federal prosecutor, said the ruling was “dangerous” for law enforcement. “If it stands, it means that if you encrypt your documents, the government cannot force you to decrypt them,” he said. “So you’re going to see drug dealers and pedophiles encrypting their documents, secure in the knowledge that the police can’t get at them.”

Yet again a government shill laments the restriction of government application of force to intrude on personal liberties.  He uses the extreme cases, focuses on the negative, and fails to mention the benefits of widespread encryption and civil liberties benefits to the law abiding.

Bear in mind that encrypted emails and other items that are accessible with two keys are risky because either sender or recipient could expose the contents to prying eyes – or even forward it along unencrypted.

For those interested in taking advantage of encryption, here are a few resources:

S/MIME Secure Email Tutorial
Secure Instant Messaging with Skype
Encrypting Data in Windows XP Professional

Posted in Civil Liberties, Technology | No Comments »

Little Seattle

October 23rd, 2007

I knew it’d be raining when I woke up – and it was.  Wife was up late working on a school project – no idea how late though, I don’t speak snore.  I turned in at about 1:00a after reviewing some documents for friends and doing a little financial planning.  Slept through "In Rainbows" on the clock radio CD player and woke up to incessant beeping.  Somehow I turned off both alarms and set the nap timer.  I started to gain awareness after flicking on the TV.  Local news is a blur, but California is burning.  The rain here is quite a contrast – but nothing compared to the 10" in New Orleans yesterday.

Grabbed a shower, threw on my clothes with an eye toward compatibility with the damp.  It was about 10 till launch, so I grabbed two donuts and a Game Fuel.  Better than nothing.  I usually stay away from canned beverages before noon.  Just enough time to get upstairs, shave, figure out how to tame my fresh haircut, and brush the aftermath of breakfast and a night of coma-like sleep into the basin.

I checked my watch for the high/low and forecast, then grabbed the fleece and Gore-Tex.  Checked on the wife and said bye, then down the stairs, off with the TV and lights and out the door.  I paused under the porch as I drew my umbrella from it’s position in my bag and charged across the street like Roosevelt at San Juan Hill.

The trees were low and heavy with leaves.  To avoid them, it was sort of a tactical crouch-run as my eyes darted to detect incoming road spray, the leavings of dog walkers, and the possibility of an early bus.  None were apparent.  I paused at my way-point in the bus shelter and shook off my umbrella, then a car swerved into a long pool in the gutter and sent half of it my way in slow motion.  Halo 3 reflexes handily deployed the shield and protected me from the brunt of the tsunami.  The bus rolled up not long after and I paused inside as the driver scowled – I juggled my wallet and umbrella to present my bus pass.  I’ve ridden every day but two for three weeks – she knows me, but apparently seeing a well-worn ID with an indistinguishable photo of me in a goatee somehow helps.  Mere authoritarian theatre.  It’s unconsionable to fund transit with taxes then charge a fee for use.

The bus was a Flexible, built in my hometown.  I toured the plant before it closed, apparently because the busses leaked and rattled annoyingly at the slightest bump.  It was dark and the headlights on window droplets made it impossible to see much but the road ahead.  The other riders mostly reading, napping, or groggily staring ahead like zombies satiated by a belly-full of brains.

STOP REQUESTED scrolled in blinding red LED’s on the marquee as the bus lurched around the corner toward the stop on Chestnut (Grandpa had worked on this corner for much of his life).  A few of us stood – our umbrellas as rifles in defense of the assaulting rain, then we were out – in the canyon of tall buildings the wind blew rain from every where and nowhere at once.  My goal, on the other side of a river of jostling steel was a brass revolving door at Three Nationwide.  The light flashed WALK and I stepped forward as two piggly drivers pushed through the crosswalk ahead of the saturated pedestrian mass.  At least they didn’t splash much.

As I reached the door I passed a guy in a rain suit leaning on a broom.  His task – sweep leaves.  Unwinnable in these conditions, more so without effort.  Maybe they could give him a blower so he could waste gas too like on campus where the grounds crew seems to judge status by the number of small gas engines under his/her command.

I pushed through the door and paused to shake of my umbrella – not working in the building, just visiting to avoid the wet.  Strolled under the un-blinking cameras then out the other side a block away.  "Press button to cross Front" said the sign, and I did.  A minute later I was out in the rain again but headed for awnings on a parking garage.  It was tempting to hug the building wall, but in an effort to prevent the little alcoves from being too cozy, the architects left an opening to the sky up close – the driest path was out over the sidewalk.

No trains rumbling beneath me this morning – a small disappointment. 

Doors "secured" by key-cards at work before open, and I saw a woman bobbling her umbrella as she searched for her card.  I stopped by the main door and watched as I shook off my umbrella, then in past the guards office (blinds drawn, no ID, and no security check) and watched the numbers count down to a cheerful "Good morning!" as I stepped in the opposite elevator door.  She swiped her key that activated the controls and I casually tapped the button to my supposedly secure floor.  Security theatre.  Nobody wears or checks for our ID badges.  You could stroll in with an AMRAAM with a cheerful attitude and an air of decision.

"Top o’ the mornin’ – FOX THREE".

Posted in Observations | No Comments »

Presidential Race A Muddy Mess

October 18th, 2007

This week MSNBC started an in-depth, long-term study of public perception of views of the candidates with R’s and D’s next to their names (hopefully as some drop out they’ll throw in a few independents and alternative parties). It’s called the “Candidates + Issues Matrix” In the mean time we see quite a pretty underwhelming outcome.

msnbc-candidates-issues

It’s pretty clear that Biden, Dodd, and Kucinich need to change their positions on Immigration (or at least MSNBC’s wording of their stance on the issue). Dodd also seems to draw an unfavorable response on Healthcare.

Looks like Richardson is doing well on Energy (apparently people remember that he was Secretary of Energy – a lot of good it did us). Huckabee got strong marks overall on the Economy, but tied Fred Thompson for my lowest rating among Republicans on the subject (I’ll show my rating later in the post). The respondents seem to like Giuliani overall – but not on Immigration or the Iraq War (which gives me some hope that maybe people realize that Iraq wasn’t behind 9/11).

Interestingly, the respondents seem to like Ron Paul and Fred Thompson about equally (they like Fred a little bit more on Iraq). I doubt that most folks have delved into Paul’s stance aside from what they’ve heard from Giuliani and Fox News, but the support for Thompson seems a little high considering that his solution boils down to acting like we’re winning (but it’s about what I’d expect from an actor that flip-flopped on most of the Senate issues he encountered).

Brownback (the spell checker suggested “Blowback”, nice) is scheduled to drop out on Friday so it will be interesting to see if that affects anything and who, if anybody, his support goes to. Based on my own agreement and disagreement on the issues maybe it will go to Hunter. Of course, Hunter and Tancredo have ratings that are similarly lukewarm, so they may be out next.

On the left it looks like Biden, Dodd, and Kucinich have the most negatives. Interestingly Brownback’s message seems to be resounding about as well as Clinton and Edwards – so hopefully they’ll take a cue and step aside from the more interesting Dems like Gravel (who did better in my own ratings than any other Democrat).

Anyway, here are my results…

msnbc-candidates-issues_mmn

No alarms and no surprises. I have to give props to Gravel and Kucinich who managed to have tolerable stances on the war. And kudos to the Republicans overall for their generally favorable positions on the Economy. I’m supposed to trust Romney on those issues because he’s a businessman but my results just make me wonder how companies manage to thrive at all with such goofballs at the helm while at the same time wondering if a background in Austrian Economics would have landed him at the helm of a company any of us have heard of.

Be sure to include a link to a screenshot of your own results in any comments you expect me to keep.

Posted in 2008 Presidential Race | No Comments »

The Wisdom of Crazy People

October 9th, 2007

It’s interesting working downtown.  Yesterday, while waiting at a COTA stop, a grubby looking guy on a bike coasted by on the sidewalk and said to me "Hillary Clinton wants to kick in your nutsack!"

He was probably right.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

ZD’s Berlind: Mailbox Providers Responsible for Spam Solution

September 20th, 2007

In a recent article on the Spam problem and one mans ideas to fix it, ZD Net contributor David Berlind advocated an unimaginative approach to solving the problem.

We have to go back to square-one on e-mail and rebuild the entire system. Who is in a position to do this? Basically, all it would take would be for Google, Microsoft, AOL, and Yahoo to make it happen

It’s tempting to think that this could be true – especially if, due to the myth of Corporate efficiency, you see these corporations as Gods that can remedy any problem – if only they were to join forces. 

It’s the same fallacy that leads people to suggest that if Oracle, Novell, IBM, and other huge corporations with many times the manpower of tiny (by comparison) Microsoft merely set their differences aside they could create a Windows-killer desktop OS that everyone would want to use.  It hasn’t happened – and it won’t, largely because most of Microsoft’s competitors don’t really want to support the typical consumer.

I’m a little troubled by the proposal that a few major corporations colluding to force a standard on the masses will somehow fix the problem.  Just look at how well Google, Microsoft, AOL, and Yahoo have been able to get along when it came to IM interoperability.  Only recently did Microsoft and Yahoo start offering true IM interop.  Google has hitched itself to the Jabbr format and AOL has fought bitterly against interop with anyone it doesn’t own and completely control.

This kind of reminds me of one of the core fallacies with socialism. It’s the idea that if you take the myth of corporate efficiency, and consolidate all of those corporations into one government-controlled mega-corporation then all of your problems will be solved.  This approach has time and again brought massive failure on massive scales.

Berlind and others would do well to consider this from a property rights standpoint. 

According to the cited Cisco IronPort press release…

More than 80 percent of spam comes from infected “zombie” computers, typically in consumer broadband networks.

Spam is a form of Internet pollution.  If we used a water supply analogy, it’d be raw sewage from an upstream neighbor’s septic system.

How would we deal with this?  First of all, I would demand from my own water company that they deliver clean water to me.  And they would in turn, have agreements with other water networks in the area.  If water from another supplier was found to contain sewage, my supplier would not allow their water to contaminate their clean system.  If that supplier realizes that they have been shut off (preferably after a warning or two) then there will be great incentive for them to identify the source of pollution and disconnect it until the problem is resolved.

So let’s do the same thing with Spam.  It’s not hard to spot a PC gushing out bulk-email 24/7 so ISP’s should look for abnormally high amounts of outbound email traffic.  This should result in an automated test filter to see if it seems to be Spam.  If this is the case, then the users traffic would be restricted and the customer would only be able to navigate to a quarantine page with links to tools to remove the infection as well as real-time contact information for the ISP.

The Spam problem has only existed as long as it has because ISP’s are unwilling to police their own network traffic – unless there is a complaint.  The cost of Spam should be felt by the operators of Zombie computers and by the ISP’s that host them.  Failure to behave should result in quarantine until the pollution of the greater network is halted.

This is a property-rights approach to Spam that would work because it places the responsibility of dealing with Spam where it belongs – on those who generate it – and not on the end users.

Posted in Technology | No Comments »

Free Speech Zone

August 16th, 2007

Today I was out volunteering my time canvassing for a presidential candidate.  I was delivering fliers to people on a list of reliable party voters in my neighborhood and it had been relatively uneventful aside from the occasional “Good afternoon” exchanged with passing neighbors out for walks. 

As I was climbing the mile-long hill out of the Olentangy river valley, I noticed a house with a POD and a bunch of furniture out in front.  A woman in a car pulled up and got out, then upon noticing the furniture started screaming at a man who seemed to be doing some kind of work in the garage.  She went from 0-60 in no time flat.  One moment she was casually stepping out of her car, the next she was engaged in a full-on tirade.  I assume it was her house (the county auditor lists it as belonging to a Julia Sycks-Alldredge). 

About 3 houses up the hill and across the street, I had an address on my list, so I laid down my bike near the street, walked up to the door, and unobtrusively placed the flier under the doormat with a few inches sticking out so it couldn’t blow away but it’d be noticed. 

I was out of water and it was a hot day, and I only had 8 houses to go when I noticed the woman from down the street yelling something in my direction.  She seemed to be demanding to know what I put on her neighbors porch.

I picked up my bike and crossed the street and thought, you know, it’s really none of her business.  She’s not on my list, and as far as I know, it’s not her house (according to the County Auditor, the houses do not belong to the same person so it seems my first guess was correct).  She didn’t seem to be in a good mood so I figured I’d offer her one as well and I said “It’s a political campaign flier, would you like one?”

She immediately responded that she did not want one and that the neighbor did not want one either.  Then she said that the neighbor was handicapped and could not pick things up.  I pondered this for a moment.  Maybe she was telling the truth, but I saw no evidence of this.  Furthermore, I know many elderly people who cannot pick things up – and their neighbors often help them in this task.  At any rate, all I knew is that this woman several houses away was *ordering* me to go pick it up, and I didn’t know her from Eve.

I asked the woman if the house was hers.  She didn’t really answer, but becoming increasingly irate, she stormed up the street to the front porch of the house and said “Fine!  If you won’t pick it up – I’m calling THE POLICE!!!”.  Then she explained that I was really in for it because she “works for the police department”.  My response was that in that case she should be aware that it is illegal to file a false police report.

She angrily asserted to the police dispatcher that I had placed an item on *her* porch and that when asked, I had not removed it.  Indeed, if this were the case, I would sympathize.  In fact, even if she would have lied and said she owned both houses, then I would have probably retrieved it and apologized for the misunderstanding.

She demanded my name and I said “I’ll gladly give it to the police when they arrive.” to which she replied that I had really done it now because the police were on their way.

Knowing the police in my city, it could have been a half-hour or more before they arrived – and they could have never bothered to show up.  Furthermore, the woman could have been lying about calling the police at all.  With that in mind, I decided to finish up the street at a leisurely pace just in case the police really did want to infringe on my civil liberties on her behalf.

I easily dropped off fliers at the next 8 houses, then began a leisurely ride back to my house.  Suddenly a police car (31-R) pulled up beside me and the officer asked if I could stop to talk for a minute.

He said “Hey buddy, why am I getting calls about you putting stuff on peoples porches and not taking it off?”

I explained that I was canvassing for a presidential candidate based on a list of registered voters with that party and had been for days in the neighborhood without incident.  Then I told him of witnessing the woman unleash a tirade on someone at her own house before turning her authoritarian rage my way.  I explained that when ordered to remove the flier I asked her if she owned the house and she did not indicate that she was the owner, and that considering that fact I owed her no more credence than the many neighborhood dogs that had barked at me earlier in my day, I did not comply.

I explained that if the woman opted to make an issue of it, I’d be happy to push back for her filing a false report to the police and, considering she said that she worked for the police department, impersonating police.  The officer smiled and said “It’d be hard for me to believe that she has anything to do with the police department”.

The officer explained that I had to remove materials if people asked me to, and I clarified that I had to remove them if the property owner asked me to.  This woman did not indicate that she was the property owner – and every other indication was that she was 16B (the Columbus police code for a crazy person).

The officer then smiled and said “Heh, she probably is.  You didn’t break any laws, and I won’t be filing a report, just remember that if people ask you to remove stuff to do so if it’s their property.”  I said I’d continue to do that, then he said he was glad to see people out exercising their rights to free speech and becoming involved in our nation’s political process.

I explained that he could expect to see me canvassing in the neighborhood in the future and he smiled, nodded and drove off.

Who knows what the woman’s problem is.  Clearly she was having a bad day.  But that’s no reason to harass people walking down the street and waste the time of the police when they could be dealing with crimes.

Posted in Civil Liberties | No Comments »

Are Antitrust Laws Designed to Protect the Consumer?

July 9th, 2007

Last week in it’s ruling on LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. v. PSKS, INC., the US Supreme Court took the position that anti-trust laws are not designed to protect the consumer, but instead, manufacturers.  Here’s an excerpt:

A single manufacturer?s use of vertical price restraints tends to eliminate intrabrand price competition; this in turn encourages retailers to invest in services or promotional efforts that aid the manufacturer?s position as against rival manufacturers.

It goes on to explain how locking prices into tiers supposedly benefits the consumer:

Resale price maintenance may also give consumers more options to choose among low-price, low-service brands; high-price, high-service brands; and brands falling in between.

What’s wrong with high-service brands without the high-service overhead at the low service price?  The court explains that as well:

Absent vertical price restraints, retail services that enhance interbrand competition might be under provided because discounting retailers can free ride on retailers who furnish services and then capture some of the demand those services generate.

I agree that customer service in discount stores is minimal, but considering that service in general is so abysmal, I’m happy to bypass it and I don’t think I’m alone.

When I shop, I go for a combination of the best product for the least money with the least time spent obtaining it.  I’m resigned to the fact that any additional services will require phone/email contact direct to the manufacturer.  For me, the best thing retailers can do is stay out of my way and let me give them my money for the product I want as effortlessly as possible.

For example, I judge my ideal retail service experience on a visit to Roush Hardware in Westerville, OH (sometime in the autumn of 1997).  They operated with a sort of proactive zone model.  As a customer enters the store the greeter asks you if you’re looking for anything specifically.  In my case, it was a bolt for my license plate.  The greeter pointed the appropriate aisle out to me and paged an associate who met me in the aisle.

The guy knew exactly what kind of fastener I needed and grabbed a few, along with a screwdriver.  He walked me out to my truck and installed the bolts to make sure they’d fit, and when they did I went back inside and paid.

I’m sure I could buy discount bolts somewhere, but the court is clearly wrong that I would bypass the service I received for bolts that were  few cents cheaper.

The ruling dealt with shoes, and since I’m married, I’ve had plenty of opportunities to observe shoe shopping.  My wife tends to go shop for shoes that she needs to be comfortable at stores that offer better service.  When she wants shoes for style, she shops at stores where she can be left to dig through thousands of deeply discounted shoes from a variety of brands with nobody to bother her – sometimes even online.

The court would have you believe that it would somehow benefit my wife to artificially inflate the prices at discount shoe warehouses and drive her to more intimate mall retailers.  Our household budget says otherwise. 

Presently she can afford brand name style and quality at closeout prices, and that’s the best of both worlds.  The court’s position illustrates clearly that the law here is designed to protect business at the expense of consumer choice.  That’s something to consider next time someone becomes defensive about big-government anti-trust laws framed as a consumer protection.

Posted in Economics | 2 Comments »

Experimenting with Skype and Ron Paul

July 9th, 2007

A few days ago I was informed that imeem would be discontinuing it’s encrypted chat client so I started using Skype as my IM client for encrypted conversations, file transfers, etc.  It has a few other interesting features that I figured I’d try out.Â

One of the features is the ability to host a "Public Chat" and the other is the ability to host a Skypecast – a live audio broadcast with real-time interaction from the audience.Â

Here are some links:

Ron Paul 2008 Public Skype Chat (Updated: 11/7/2007)

Ron Paul 2008 Skypecast (12:00p – 4:00p 7/9/2007, limit 100)

Last I checked, my friend and I couldn’t stay in a Skypecast (the call was dropped) so maybe that won’t work during the scheduled time.

Posted in 2008 Presidential Race, Ron Paul, Technology | No Comments »

Thoughts on Fred

June 5th, 2007

You asked what I thought of Fred Thompson. He seems to be the Obama of the Republican party – he has a lot of fans, but the supporters I’ve spoken with seem unable to articulate exactly why he’s so great. He *is* an actor, and a pretty good one as anyone who saw his Michael Moore response video knows. This comes in handy for acting like a badass – just the sort of quality we need in a presidential character for a show like 24.

As a legislator, Thompson is hardly the runt of the litter. The National Taxpayers Union rated him third behind two other candidates in the race, Ron Paul #1, and Tom Tancredo #2 (why vote for 3rd place?). I can’t overlook his vote in support of “No Child Left Behind” which has been a complete boondoggle, nor his absurd vote in support of McCain-Feingold (which, like most of the Dems on Iraq, he now admits was not such a good idea).

On the issues that matter most to me, defending our civil liberties and restoring the US Constitution, Thompson’s record falters. He voted for a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning (if I own something, who is the government to say whether or not I can burn it?) and an expansion of Federal police powers that would make the founding fathers cringe. I’d like to see him take a stand in defense of habeas corpus and in opposition to the use of torture, and surveillance that skirts the 4th amendment’s requirement of strict judicial oversight.

On foreign policy he takes a neo-conservative role. Surely he’d brand candidates like Ron Paul as “isolationist”, but undoubtedly nothing has isolated the US on the international stage more than our aimless and menacing approach to foreign policy under the Bush administration. Under Thompson the situation with China and Iran which would best be addressed through economic influence will likely continue to escalate with saber rattling and nuclear proliferation.

I also find a war-hawk to be unappealing since war is a big-government program that more than makes up for his discretion in other areas. The Dems may have a “tax and spend” philosophy, but the GOP has a “spend and spend” philosophy. I’m a fiscal conservative and I’m not convinced that Thompson will mark a change from the current “wisdom” of borrowing money from China to burn bridges around the globe.

I think Thompson is a better choice than Rudy McRomney, but he’s hardly the best choice for Americans who want real reform in Congress such as compelling our legislators to read the bills before a vote and honor their oath of office.

Most of my Fred-head friends seem to like him because he’s a great storyteller. The legend of his red pickup truck is fine evidence of an actor who isn’t opposed to stretching the truth by a few miles to round up a following. I’m not looking for someone to lead by grift. I’m looking for someone to lead by example with honesty, morality, and a firm set of constitutional principles. There isn’t a candidate in the race from either major party that comes close to fitting the bill better than Ron Paul.

 

 

Posted in 2008 Presidential Race | No Comments »

NH Dem Debate Brings Blatant Bull from Hillary

June 4th, 2007

In the Dem Presidential Debate from New Hampshire last night, CNN debate moderator Wolf Blitzer asked candidate Hillary:

Senator Clinton, you voted in favor of every funding for the U.S. troops since the start of the war until now. And some are accusing you and some others of playing politics with the lives of the troops. What is your response?

Her response included the following statement (Video):

Everybody on this stage, we are all united, Wolf. We all believe that we need to try to end this war. In two nights you’re going to have the Republican candidates here. They all support the war. They all support the president. They all supported the escalation. Each of us is trying in our own way to bring the war to an end.

This couldn’t be further from the truth. Ron Paul opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning, voted against the Iraq War Resolution – and opposes it to this day. Ron Paul does not support the president – in fact, he voted to impeach him. Ron Paul opposed the escalation – and voted against the Democrats “compromise” that continued to fund the war despite the clear mandate from the people.

Hillary may be trying “in her own way” to end the war, but lying, violating her oath to uphold the constitution, and refusing to admit that her vote in support of the war was a mistake are not proven approaches to peace.

She did get one thing right – you’ll be able to see Ron Paul stand up to the pro-torture, anti-liberty hawks of the Republican party in the CNN debate on June 5th. Then you’ll see a man whose positions on war put the Dems to shame.

Hillary voted YES on the Iraq War, YES on the Real ID Act, YES on the Patriot Act, and YES on the Military Commissions Act that eliminated Habeas Corpus. Ron Paul voted against all of these. The only way Hillary’s statement could have been remotely true is if she replaced Ron Paul in the GOP debates and said “Everybody on this stage, we are all united, Wolf.“

Posted in 2008 Presidential Race, Ron Paul | 3 Comments »

Media/Government Breathlessly Misstate Terrorism Facts

June 3rd, 2007

As an Engineer and scientist, I’m irritated by the intentionally misleading statements of the government regarding the JFK Terror Plot.

MSNBC Said:

Federal authorities announced Saturday they had broken up a suspected Muslim terrorist cell planning a “chilling” attack to destroy John F. Kennedy International Airport, kill thousands of people and trigger an economic catastrophe by blowing up a jet fuel artery that runs through populous residential neighborhoods.
SOURCE

Really!?! Blowing up a jet fuel line would “destroy the airport” and “kill thousands”?!?

Turns out, below the fold, the answer is “No, not really…”:

Expert: Damage would have been isolated

Richard Kuprewicz, a pipeline expert and president of Accufacts Inc., an energy consulting firm that focuses on pipelines and tank farms, said the force of explosion would depend on the amount of fuel under pressure, but it would not travel up and down the line.

“That doesn’t mean wackos out there can’t do damage and cause a fire, but those explosions and fires are going to be fairly restricted,” he said.

In other words, they won’t destroy the airport, they wouldn’t kill anyone, and they’d be fairly easy to repair quickly.

It’s the same as the railroad threat announced shortly after 9/11 that led to the arrest of several railfans (one, a police officer) after taking pictures of trains.

The fact is that our safely engineered infrastructure is, from time to time, destroyed by accidents. This is frequent enough that we have become experienced in dealing with these problems quickly. The California freeway that was completely collapsed after a tanker fire was replaced in 30 days. The CSX rail line completely destroyed by Katrina was back in operation after 30 days as well, and the Norfolk Southern derailment north of Delaware a few weeks ago was repaired and replaced in just two days.

During the last presidential election cycle, John Edwards made a claim in a debate that terrorists releasing industrial chemicals would “kill millions”. The fact is that industrial accidents are far more likely and common than terrorist acts and the worst ever killed thousands – not millions.

The problem here is the same as the problem with anti-gun crackpots. They put hysteria before reason and ignore science when it conflicts with their pre-conceived notions. Pro-gun folks also want to see an end to senseless gun violence and accidents. The difference is that the anti’s are willing to go to absurd ends to justify their means – even when science and rational thought have proven their solutions to be fruitless and immensely wasteful.

The anti-gunners aren’t the only ones who suffer from this though. People who insist on pressing forward with our irrational, wasteful, and crime causing war on drugs suffer from the same affliction – as do people who support the trampling of civil liberties to facilitate the “war on terror”.

Terror attacks are most effective in places where the citizens’ rights have been curtailed in the name of safety. Places like jetliners where citizens have been disarmed to the point that mere boxcutters and chemical sprays are sufficient to hijack planes.

I just wish people would take a moment to think about whether or not blowing up a fuel line would *really* kill thousands or destroy an entire airport. Maybe it would happen in the movies, but not in a world where industrial accidents and liability insurance keep dangerous designs in check and ensure our safety even against murderous extremists.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Ohio State Community: We Want Concealed Carry

May 22nd, 2007

Readers of The Lantern spoke out Monday in a poll that asked “Do you think concealed carry should be allowed on campus?”

Final results were:

 

Yes. 

62% 
 

No. 

38% 
     

 
 

This follows a referendum about a year ago where 25% of voters asked Student Government to lobby the statehouse to lift the statewide ban on campus CCW. Students are aware of the day-to-day dangers of living in the OSU campus area. With one of the highest violent crime rates in the city, violent armed robberies happen several times a week. Students realize that the police cannot be everywhere at once, and that they typically arrive on the scene after the attack is over – just in time to fill out the paperwork. Self defense is a human right and nothing about being a student changes that.

 
 

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Ron Paul has More YouTube Subscribers than Jesus

May 20th, 2007

It’s official, Ron Paul has more YouTube subscribers than Jesus.

Here’s the list as of 9:59a today:

Paul – 5,679
Obama – 5,678
Clinton – 2,998
Edwards – 2,750
Romney – 1,977
Kucinich – 1,685
Giuliani – 1,370
McCain – 1,233
Gravel – 824
Richardson – 756
Biden – 582
Hunter – 381
Dodd – 221
Huckabee – 187
Tancredo – 166
Brownback – 86
Gilmore – 40

Only Brownback and Gilmore have fewer subscribers than Jesus.

Note: Ron Paul also has more YouTube subscribers than The Beatles.

Posted in 2008 Presidential Race, Ron Paul | No Comments »

What is Unity08?

April 28th, 2007

I’ve noticed some increased coverage of “Unity08″ in the Main-Stream Media (MSM) lately, so I thought I’d take a moment to shed some light on the organization. I’ll start with their own description from the Unity08 website:

What We Believe

Unity08 believes that neither of today’s major parties reflects the aspirations, fears or will of the majority of Americans. Both have polarized and alienated the people. Both are unduly influenced by single-issue groups. Both are excessively dominated by money.

For most of the 20th Century, the contest for the U.S. presidency was waged over those “in the middle.” Recent Presidential elections, however, have not been focused on the middle but on the turnout of each party’s special interest groups — with each party’s “base” representing barely ten percent of the American people.

We believe that, while the leaders of both major parties are well intentioned people, they are trapped in a flawed system — and that the two major parties are today simply neither relevant to the issues and challenges of the 21st Century nor effective in addressing them.

As a result, most Americans have not been enthusiastic about the choices for President in recent elections, the key issues they ran on, or the manner in which the campaigns were conducted.

Therefore Unity08 will act to assure that an alternative ticket is presented to the American voters in 2008.

I generally have to agree with the first two paragraphs, but with a few exceptions.

I think the accusation of the process being “unduly influenced by single-issue groups” is a little suspect. It’s hard to get a group of passionate people to agree on anything more than a single issue – and there’s often significant disagreement within such a group on the best means to affect change on that single issue. The best way to drive a political process is to have as many single-issue groups as there are issues and leave it up to people to decide which groups and issues are most deserving of their time and effort.

The mindless assertion that politics is “excessively dominated by money” struck me as funny. You can’t have much of a campaign without money. It only makes sense to put campaign dollars under the control of the candidate so that the campaign team can make decisions on how best to leverage the funds it receives. Even grassroots campaigns revolve around money – people have to donate valuable time (which is all we really have), spend money on transportation, and other necessities if they want to do anything for a campaign. The mere fact that the value of time might be quantified by money shouldn’t be breathlessly touted as the cause of political ills.

The second paragraph merely states the obvious. Any way you look at the numbers, we are governed by the minority of voting age Americans who care enough to show up. People always talk about election results as if our leaders were picked by the majority. It’s exceedingly rare for even half of voting age Americans to show up on election day. In most cases, the “majority vote winner” collected votes from less than a quarter of those eligible. If you want to be angry with someone for Bush or Clinton’s time in office, don’t blame the Democrat and Republican base. Blame the majority who don’t take the time to ponder their perpetual state of political rape long enough to show up at the polls on election day or request an absentee ballot.

If every partying 18-20 year old in America put down their illegal beer or liquor long enough to register to vote they could crush the teetotalers that ensure perpetual persecution under the strictest drinking age laws in the world!

I take issue with paragraph three however. The leaders of both major parties are NOT “well intentioned people” – merely “trapped in a flawed system”. The two major parties in America are of two flavors.

The Democrats tend to favor a few personal freedoms and civil liberties that they feel are useful while legislating that a kind of civic morality should be imposed on all – for the common good.

The Republicans tend to favor a few economic freedoms and civil liberties that they feel are useful while legislating that a kind of religious morality should be imposed on all – for the common good.

Note:
If you haven’t already, why not take a moment to see where your tend to stand on personal/economic freedoms by taking this short quiz (10 short questions).

With the parties being mere clones of each other with stances on personal and economic issues being they key difference, it’s no wonder that Unity08 sprang up in an attempt to capitalize on this “centrist” common ground. But this supposes that the centrist common ground is also for the common good and that if only we can find some candidates willing to compromise on civil liberties in general and specific personal and economic freedoms, then we will be able to effectively address the issues of the 21st century (which, coincidentally are no different than the issues encountered by humanity throughout eternity).

The second to last paragraph supposes that if only we could find the ultimate ho-hum candidate who would steer clear of any divisive issues, run a moderate and poorly funded campaign, that’s the kind of hopeless candidate that the non-voters could really get behind.

The biggest problem with Unity08 is that they seek to take the worst of both major parties and ask “Will it blend?” The ultimate answer is not to provide an overlord that centrists will gladly serve, but instead to provide candidates like Congressmen Ron Paul of Texas that will uphold their oath of office, protect our right to self ownership, and follow that fundamental right to its logical conclusion when calculating the effects of legislation on we, the people.

Posted in 2008 Presidential Race, Ron Paul | 3 Comments »

Obama Fundraising Letter

April 28th, 2007

A few days ago I received a letter from Senator Barack Obama’s campaign asking for funding. I’m including a reply below that you may wish to use in the event that you also receive a postage paid envelope and a request for donations to this man.

 

Senator Barack Obama

Obama for America

PO BOX 802798

Chicago, IL 60680-4263

Dear Senator Obama:

After careful study of the campaign materials included in your mailing along with a familiarity of you and your work in the Senate.

Your letter offered only vague platitudes, and your Senate votes bespeak a lack of faith in the economic aspects of my core belief that I own myself and that no person or group of persons has a legitimate claim over me.

In general, on key votes, you have admirably supported my personal freedoms (with the notable exception of your support of a renewal of the Patriot Act [Vote 29: HR 3199, 3/2/2006]). Your record on reducing government interference in economic aspects of my life, however, is abysmal.

Allow me to remind you of your oath of office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.


From your voting record I surmise that you either do not understand the strict limits imposed on the Congress by Article I of the Constitution of the United States, or you willfully ignore your solemn oath to support and defend it.

When you begin to take your oath of office seriously, you will earn my respect and my campaign contributions.

Sincerely,

Your Name

Citizen of Your State

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Ron Paul Poised to “Sanjaya” Republican Primaries

April 8th, 2007

It’s hard to watch the news anymore without seeing bemused analysis of how Sanjaya Malakar manages to stay on American Idol. The contestant is known for his unique hairstyles and singing off-key. Perhaps his greatest appeal to his base is his ability to undermine the establishment.

As you may have noticed, the Republican party’s version of the “American Idol” popularity contest is under way, and one of the candidates is standing out for his popular support – especially on the Internet – is Texas Congressman Ron Paul, also known to Republicans as “Doctor No”. The neo-con faithful are uneasy at the prospect of his success because of his long-standing commitment to adhere to the US Constitution in his votes. They’re coming out swinging.

Conspiracy Theories
Some have accused call centers in India of gaming the system by calling in thousands of votes from overseas. Others put their stock in the influence of Howard Stern’s support for the website “Vote for the Worst“, a campaign to “help the amusing antagonists stick around”. Fueled by hype surrounding “the crying fan” (Ashley Ferl), others view his success as a direct result of massive support from emotional pre-teens who think Sanjaya is dreamy. We can’t discount the possibility that FOX is behind his success – when other networks are promoting your show every morning you’ve got to be doing something right. Upon elimination, one contestant explained – it’s not a singing contest – it’s a voting contest.

It doesn’t take long to find odd occurrences surrounding Ron Paul’s success. Over the span of his fifteen-year career in Congress (he is an Obstetrician and Gynecologist by trade) he has faced obstacles from his party and traditional party allies. After gaining the trust and support of one district, he was re-assigned to a different district with a completely new group of constituents. He recovered and was recently re-elected with a 20% margin over his opponent. The NRA even took a swipe at him, despite being a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment (and all of the rights enumerated in the Constitution), and awarded him with a “B” rating as a result of voting against NRA sponsored legislation that he found to be unconstitutional. His Democrat opponent received an “A” rating.

Despite the efforts of Congressman Paul’s detractors, he has seen impressive support online – and surging support in traditional polls as a result of his unique blend of anti-war, small government, and fiscal conservatism. Early on, Ron Paul took the lead on MySpace which recently announced an “Internet Primary” via their recently launched “Impact Channel“. Since then his vocal online supporters have promoted him with rabid enthusiasm in any number of online polls. His numbers were so much higher than expected that several poll operators have had second thoughts about including him since he detracts from attention for traditional Republican candidates. Even the Wall Street Journal slammed his supporters for “ballot-stuffing”, yet whenever poll operators think they’ve found a way to mute his support, he surges again to the top among Republicans.

Some of the most vocal cries have been among the Digg community. There, assertions are made that because articles on Ron Paul are frequently and prominently supported, he must be hiring scores of people to molest the results. Either that or assertions that Paul supporters are abusing the free democratic system at Digg by actively voicing their opinions – an activity that the site was intended to promote.

Unlike the case of Sanjaya, Ron Paul’s amazing successes online and in fundraising have been largely ignored by the mainstream media. When there hasn’t been a total blackout, coverage has often been amateur and antagonistic. Not all support has been as hostile, but for the most part positive interviews have been under the radar.

Youthful Exuberance
When it comes to Sanjaya, the most likely explanations for his success seem to be massive support from the young and idealistic who believe that American Idol really should be an opportunity for anyone to make it big – instead of serving as a large focus-group, controlled by the recording industry, and manipulated to deliver a product with pre-tested mass appeal. For the young-at-heart monkey-wrenching supporters of Vote for the Worst, the idea is to take a stand against being told what to like by the media. A similar thing happened in April of 1998 when People Magazine was surprised by the emergence of “Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf” as the winner of their Internet “Most Beautiful Person in the World” Poll. The people had discovered that despite the mainstream choices they had been provided, they could deliver a message to the big media puppet masters. People responded, as so many other shameful organizations such as Pajamas Media have, by ignoring the results and declaring their favorite a winner.

This is what the younger, better educated Internet set are doing with the primaries. They are speaking through support of candidates like Ron Paul to the mainstream media and the political establishment. They will not stand for unconstitutional election systems and media bias. They’ve discovered that on the Internet their voice can be heard – and they’ve discovered that the forces that attempt to steer them in day to day life are also making inroads on the net.

The Future
In the case of Sanjaya, I’m more amused at the fact that some people see the mindless “American Idol” popularity contest as being ruined. It’s the same sort of joy one might feel at the end of an 80’s movie where the nerds eventually win out at the end when the conceit of the popular people backfires.

A time is coming where the people will seize control of the political system as they have this television show. The scores of eligible voters who pessimistically ignore the polls may soon realize that they outnumber the media-programmed drones and send a resounding message to the powers that be. The blogosphere is already rumbling with the recognition that technology has empowered the people to make their own ads and commentary that can reach immense audiences. There is also a bit of trepidation at the uncertain future that may result. Nobody is as fearful as the media mouthpiece industry that ensures its profitability through campaign ads.

Ron Paul’s candidacy embodies the novel idea that our officials should abide by the US Constitution and merely live up to the oath of office. That is the central idea, along with an understanding of the Constitution that drives all of his policy decisions. The first thing that should strike you when faced with a Ron Paul detractor should be “Why does this person think our officials should ignore their oath of office?”.

It’s a question that should be asked often of candidates and their supporters alike. And as more people get to the root of that answer, support for Congressman Paul and candidates like him can only grow.

Posted in Ron Paul | No Comments »

You Fight for the Lost Causes Harder Than for Any Others

April 7th, 2007

“You see, boys forget what their country means by just reading The Land of the Free in history books. Then they get to be men they forget even more. Liberty’s too precious a thing to be buried in books, Miss Saunders. Men should hold it up in front of them every single day of their lives and say: I’m free to think and to speak. My ancestors couldn’t, I can, and my children will. Boys ought to grow up remembering that.” – Jefferson Smith (James Stewart), “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington“

Posted in Quotes | No Comments »