Delicious! If anyone is more clueless than PC advocates about the real concerns of average people, then it has to be academic PC advocates. Case in point...The University of Iowa held a panel"to discuss sexual harassment with students." No students showed up. So the panel discussion became"how to get young people to focus on the issue." The fact that students -- from first-year to grad-level, from enthusiastic newcomers to wisdom-steeped twenty-somethings -- did not think the free information was worth showing up for did not daunt the panel, whose livelihoods may well be somehow connected with sculpting or enforcing UI policy. They know better than the average student how he or she should be expending their time and attention. It should be spent on what they value, not what the student values. Everyone on that panel should GET A JOB!
Harriet Martineau's (b. 6/12/1802) life was a struggle from the very beginning. Her father's death in 1826 would force her to support her mother and herself by needlework and discover her writing ability in her spare time. During the next year she would discover Jane Marcet’s works on political economy and became convinced that she could do better. A fiercly independent intellectual, constantly underappreciated for her talents by relatives and friends, battling against the biases toward her sex and physical frailties (Lord Brougham would call her “his little deaf girl.)” it would have come as a great surprise that she would be remembered as one of Great Britain's greatest teachers of economics (influenced by James Mill) in her popular Illustrations of Political Economy (9 vol., 1832–34) and Illustrations of Taxation (1834), two works bringing classical economics to the layman, and as author of two major works criticizing American social and political practices from a classical
liberal standpoint, Society in America (1837) and Retrospect of Western Travel (1838). She would go on to write novels (including one based on Toussaint Louverture, the leader of the black revolt in Haiti) and work as a journalist for the last decades of her life.
As an activist, she would become known as one of the leading abolitionists of her time, promote the career of Florence Nightingale for generations of young women, lead the fight for women's rights, write a candid autobiography as well as a popular work on the sociology of August Comte and one on Mesmerism.
The following is excerpted from"Political Non-Existence of Women" from her Society In America:
POLITICAL NON-EXISTENCE of WOMEN. General Treatise on the Denial of Full Citizenship Rights to Women.
One of the fundamental principles announced in the Declaration of Independence is, that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. How can the political condition of women be reconciled with this ? Governments in the United States have power to tax women who hold property ( to divorce them from their husbands; to fine, imprison, and execute them for certain offences. Whence do these governments derive their powers? They are not" just," as they are not derived from the consent of the women thus governed. Governments in the United States have power to enslave certain women ( and also to punish other women for inhuman treatment of such slaves. Neither of these powers are" just;" not being derived from the consent of the governed. Governments decree to women in some States half their husbands' property; in others one-third. In some, a woman, on her marriage, is made to yield all her property to her husband; in others, to retain a portion, or the whole, in her own hands. Whence do governments derive the unjust power of thus disposing of property without the consent of the governed ? The democratic principle condemns all this as wrong; and requires the equal political representation of all rational beings. Children, idiots, and criminals, during the season of sequestration, are the only fair exceptions. The case is so plain that I might close it here ( but it is interesting to inquire how so obvious a decision has been so evaded as to leave to women no political rights whatever. The question has been asked, from time to time, in more countries than one, how obedience to the laws can be required of women, when no woman has, either actually or virtually, given any assent to any law. No plausible answer has, as far as I can discover, been offered for the good reason, that no plausible answer can be devised. The most principled democratic writers on government have on this subject sunk into fallacies, as disgraceful as any advocate of despotism has adduced. In fact, they have thus sunk from being, for the moment, advocates of despotism. Jefferson in America, and James Mill at home, subside, for the occasion, to the level of the author of the Emperor of Russia's Catechism for the young Poles. Jefferson says" Were our State a pure democracy, in which all the inhabitants should meet together to transact all their business, there would yet be excluded from their deliberations,
" 1. Infants, until arrived at years of discretion.
" 2. Women, who, to prevent depravation of morals, and ambiguity of issue, could not mix promiscuously in the public meetings of men.
" 3. Slaves, from whom the unfortunate state of things with us takes away the rights of will and of property."
If the slave disqualification, here assigned, were shifted up under the head of Women, their case would be nearer the truth than as it now stands. Woman's lack of will and of property, is more like the true cause of her exclusion from the representation, than that which is actually set down against her. As if there could be no means of conducting public affairs but by promiscuous meetings ! As if there would be more danger in promiscuous meetings for political business than in such meetings for worship, for oratory, for music, for dramatic entertainments, for any of the thousand transactions of civilized life! The plea is not worth another word.
Mill says, with regard to representation, in his Essay on Government, “One thing is pretty clear, that all those individuals, whose interests are involved in those of other individuals, may be struck off without inconvenience.... In this light, women may be regarded, the interest of almost all of whom is involved, either in that of their fathers or in that of their husbands."
The true democratic principle is, that no person's interests can be, or can be ascertained to be, identical with those of any other person. This allows the exclusion of none but incapables.
The word"almost," in Mr. Mill's second sentence, rescues women from the exclusion he proposes. As long as there are women who have neither husbands nor fathers, his proposition remains an absurdity.
The interests of women who have fathers and husbands can never be identical with theirs, while there is a necessity for laws to protect women against their husbands and fathers. This statement is not worth another word.
Some who desire that there should be an equality of property between men and women, oppose representation, on the ground that political duties would be incompatible with the other duties which women have to discharge. The reply to this is, that women are the best judges here. God has given time and power for the discharge of all duties, and, if he had not, it would be for women to decide which they would take, and which they would leave. But their guardians follow the ancient fashion of deciding what is best for their wards. The Emperor of Russia discovers when a cost of arms and title do not agree with a subject prince. The King of France early perceives that the air of Paris does not agree with a free-thinking foreigner. The English Tories feel the hardship that it would be to impose the franchise on every artizan, busy as he is in getting his bread. The Georgian planter perceives the hardship that freedom would be to his slaves. And the best friends of half the human race peremptorily decide for them as to their rights, their duties, their feelings, their powers. In all these cases, the persons thus cared for feel that the abstract decision rests with themselves; that, though they may be compelled to submit, they need not acquiesce.
It is pleaded that half of the human race does acquiesce in the decision of the other half, as to their rights and duties. And some instances, not only of submission, but of acquiescence, there are. Forty years ago, the women of New Jersey went to the pol1, and voted, at state elections. The general term," inhabitants," stood unqualified as it will again, when the true democratic principle comes to be fully understood. A motion was made to correct the inadvertence; and it was done, as a matter of course without any appeal, as far as I could learn, from the persons about to be injured. Such acquiescence proves nothing but the degradation of the injured party. It inspires the same emotions of pity as the supplication of the freed slave who kneels to his master to restore him to slavery, that he may have his animal wants supplied, without being troubled with human rights and duties. Acquiescence like this is an argument which cuts the wrong way for those who use it.
But this acquiescence is only partial; and, to give any semblance of strength to the plea, the acquiescence must be complete. I, for one, do not acquiesce. I declare that whatever obedience I yield to the laws of the society in which I live is a matter between, not the community and myself, but my judgment and my will. Any punishment inflicted on me for the breach of the laws, I should regard as so much gratuitous injury, for to those laws I have never, actually or virtually, assented. I know that there are women in England who agree with me in this. I know that there are women in America who agree with me in this. The plea of acquiescence is invalidated by us.
It is pleaded that, by enjoying the protection of some laws, women give their assent to all. This needs but a brief answer. Any protection thus conferred is, under woman's circumstances, a boon best owed at the pleasure of those in whose power she is. A boon of any sort is no compensation for the privation of something else; nor can the enjoyment of it bind to the performance of anything to which it bears no relation.
Because I, by favour, may procure the imprisonment of the thief who robs my house, am I, unrepresented, therefore bound not to smuggle French ribbons? The obligation not to smuggle has a widely different derivation. I cannot enter upon the commonest order of pleas of all; or those which relate to the virtual influence of woman; her swaying the judgment and will of man through the heart and so forth. One might as well try to dissect the morning mist. I knew a gentleman in America who told me how much rather he had be a woman than the man he is; a professional man, a father, a citizen. He would give up all this for a woman's influence. I thought he was mated too soon. He should have married a lady, also of my acquaintance, who would not at all object to being a slave, if ever the blacks should have the upper hand; it is so right that the one race should be subservient to the other ! Or rather, I thought it a pity that the one could not be a woman, and the other a slave so that an injured individual of each class might be exalted into their places, to fulfil and enjoy the duties and privileges which they despise, and, in despising, disgrace.
The truth is, that while there is much said about" the sphere of woman," two widely different notions are entertained of what is meant by the phrase. The narrow, and, to the ruling party, the more convenient notion is that sphere appointed by men, and bounded by their ideas of propriety ; a notion from which any and every woman may fairly dissent. The broad and true conception is of the sphere appointed by God, and bounded by the powers which he has bestowed. This commands the assent of man and woman, and only the question of powers remains to be proved.
That woman has power to represent her own interests, no one can deny till she has been tried. The modes need not be discussed here: they must vary with circumstances. The fearful and absurd images which are perpetually called up to perplex the question, images of women on wool-sacks in England, and under canopies in America, have nothing to do with the matter. The principle being once established, the method will follow, easily, naturally, and under a remarkable transmutation of the ludicrous into the sublime. The kings of Europe would have laughed mightily, two centuries ago, at the idea of a commoner, without robes, crown, or sceptre, stepping into the throne of a strong nation. Yet who dared to laugh when Washington's super-royal voice greeted the New World from the presidential chair, and the old world stood still to catch the echo?
The principle of the equal rights of both halves of the human race is all we have to do with here. It is the true democratic principle which can never be seriously controverted, and only for a short time evaded. Governments can derive their just powers only from the consent of the governed.
From Ken Gregg: Leonard Read’s essay"I'd Push The Button" was published in April, 1946. This is a statement of quite a radical nature and is an important point to consider. Read explained this in his Elements of Libertarian Leadership (and Murray Rothbard continued in “Why Be a Libertarian?”) thus:
Following World War II and prior to the relaxation of wartime wage and price controls, I made a speech entitled"I'd Push the Button." This title was taken from the first sentence,"If there were a button on this rostrum, the pressing of which would instantaneously release all wage and price controls, I'd put my finger on it and push."
This was regarded as a radical notion, radical in the sense of being so thoroughgoing that few persons shared it. However, if an act is morally wrong or economically unsound, the quicker it is abolished the better.
Many people seem to hold the view that the beneficiary of special privilege acquires a vested interest in his unique position and should not be deprived of it all of a sudden. They give little thought to the many persons from whom the plunder has been taken. It makes no difference what example of wage or price control one takes--rent control is as good as any. Under this control people have been permitted to occupy someone else's property at less than the free market would allow. By reason of this fact renters have been privileged to buy more tobacco or vacations, or some other good or service than would otherwise be the case. The landlord has been deprived of the fruits of his own labor. Yet, when it comes to the matter of restoring justice, most people will think of the disadvantages suddenly falling upon the renters rather than the accrued damage done to the owner.
Imagine a habitual and successful thief. For years he has been robbing everybody in the community without their knowledge. He has a fine home, cars, servants, and is a pillar of society. Upon discovering his fraud, should his robbery be diminished gradually or should justice be restored to the community at once? The answer appears too obvious to deserve further comment.
People, when contemplating the removal of authoritarianism, seem to fear that a sudden restoration of justice would too severely disrupt the economy. The fear is groundless. During the early days of our New Deal we were the victims of the NIRA, the National Industrial Recovery Act, a system of wage floors, price ceilings, and production quotas. Originally, it was accepted with enthusiasm by most of the business community. Slowly, the fallacy of this nefarious program was realized. Thoughtful business leaders agreed it had to be repealed. But, many of them argued that the repeal would have to be gradual. To remove it at once would throw the economy into a tailspin. Then, one afternoon the Supreme Court ruled that NIRA was unconstitutional. As of that moment all of its regulations and controls ceased to exist. Did this shake our economy? There wasn't a noticeable quiver except that all indices of prosperity showed improvement.
The fallacy of the theory of gradualism can be illustrated thus: A big, burly ruffian has me on my back, holding me down. My friends, observing my sad plight, agree that the ruffian must be removed. But, believing in the theory of gradualism, they contend that the ruffian must be removed gradually. They fail to see that the only result of the ruffian's removal would be my going to work suddenly!
There is nothing to fear by any nation of people in the removal of restrictions to creative and productive effort except the release of creative and productive effort. And why should they fear that which they so ardently desire?
Truly an important point to consider.
The specifics of Obama's plans to"fix" the economy do not get a lot of press time because no one seems to know what the hell they are. Although Obama is extremely eloquent, his speeches appeal to emotion and have little content to be analyzed. The specifics behind his"Hope, Hope, Change, Change" can be best discerned by watching the other leaders of the Democratic Party.
The Carolina Journal reports Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate workers’ personal retirement accounts — including 401(k)s and IRAs — and convert them to accounts managed by the Social Security Administration. Triggered by the financial crisis the past two months, the hearings reportedly were meant to stem losses incurred by many workers and retirees whose 401(k) and IRA balances have been shrinking rapidly. The testimony of Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, in hearings Oct. 7 drew the most attention and criticism. Testifying for the House Committee on Education and Labor, Ghilarducci proposed that the government eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts, such as IRAs, and confiscate workers’ retirement plan accounts and convert them to universal Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs) managed by the Social Security Administration.
Of course, the nationalization of private retirement funds is being advocated in the name of protecting workers. The argument goes: there is a long-standing trend away from pensions for which employers assume the risk and toward 401(k)-type retirement investments for which individuals assume the risk. Such private retirement accounts are being gutted by the collapsing economy and individuals need protection against risk and further losses. Thus -- just as with banking and (perhaps) mortgages -- the government should intervene to provide a guarantee.
Rep. George Miller, Chairman of the committee called to discuss how the financial upheaval is affecting pensions and private retirement accounts, explained"Unlike Wall Street executives, America's families don't have a golden parachute to fall back on. It's clear that their retirement security may be one of the greatest casualties of this financial crisis."
I do not know if the American public will accept the nationalization (read, confiscation) of their retirement funds. When Argentina moved to nationalize pension funds (an ongoing move), the media correctly identified it as a "grab" and people took to the streets in protest. I think Americans might just roll over, however. Why? For several reasons, including:
---Obama has inspired such devotion that he can do almost anything in the"honeymoon" period of his Presidency; everyone will cry out to critics"give the man a chance"
---People with retirement funds are terrified of their decline and the nationalizated substitutes are being sold as"Guaranteed Retirement Accounts."
---Most people do not have private retirement accounts and, so, the majority of people will raise no objection. Indeed, since those with healthy 401(k)s etc. are seen as the"haves", the"have-nots" may well snicker in a shameful satisfaction.
---Nationalizing pensions and private investment funds would shift burden from employers. GM and Ford would love for the government to take over the pension liabilities that are killing them.
---Americans are naively trusting of government. Argentinians know their government is not"their protector" and they've gone through enough financial crises to understand some of the basics of money/financial policies.
Obama wants to take decisive,"brave" action to establish his control over the economy and his role as savior. God protect us all from"brave" government and saviors, especially when any one party (in this case the Democrats) have a de facto monopoly over the reins of salvation.
Whatever the average Canadian thinks, the Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper favors McCain as President. In this, he may be almost unique among global heads of government. Harper (aka Fido) has forged a close relationship with the Bush administration of which a McCain administration would be a continuation. Moreover, Harper views Obama as a threat to NAFTA -- the agreement that defines trade between the two nations.
Paul Cellucci -- the ambassador to Canada for 4 years under Bush -- explained,"There's a danger for Canada in that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton during the primary campaign were just about in a race to see who could take us out of NAFTA the quickest. They made some pretty strong statements about the North America Free Trade Agreement, and if Barack Obama is elected with a strong Democratic majority in the House and the Senate, there's going to be a lot of pressure on him to do what he said he would do."
Yes, I know Cellucci may be shilling for the GOP but there is no question that McCain is pro-NAFTA; Obama is not. Personally I wouldn't mind if NAFTA went down in flames as long as 1) it wasn't replaced by a worse, more protectionist agreement, or 2) Canada was not so dependent on the States as a trading partner.
As a way to escape that dependency, Canada is currently discussing a sweeping free trade agreement with the European Union. The Vancouver Sun reported,
IProgress is being made, it appears. Canada and the EU are already preparing their positions on what such a pact might cover. Substantive talks are to start"as soon as possible in 2009," Prime Minister Stephen Harper said last week. They might cover harmonizing regulations, an open-skies deal, a carbon-trading accord, and farm subsidy issues....If Canadians had easy access to the European market, with its 500 million people, and if Europeans had assured access to the Canadian market, the benefits could be substantial on both sides; totalling something like $27 billion a year
Of course, much of what the EU wants access to are Canada's immense natural resources -- minerals, timber, oil, water...
As I understand it, a likely term of the pact would be the ability of Canadians to work in or for the EU without the current red tape; in short, Canada might function somewhat as though it were an affiliate-member of the EU. Freer labor policies and open-skies sound appealing. But, then, government agreements are not known for producing greater freedom or efficiency...
In the last few months, I have been noticing shortages of various food stuff in grocery stores. Nothing significant, nothing I can't easily work around by substituting or by using the stock in my pantry...but I'm not used to prolonged shortages of common items. The latest one: concentrated lemon juice of which there is apparently a worldwide shortage.
An article in the Calgary Herald explains,
Freezing weather in California and Argentina in 2007 destroyed fruit and created shortages; drought conditions in Spain and Australia have also hurt crops...we will still see shortages in the market in mid-2009, until this year's crop is juiced, packaged and on store shelves across North America.
Friends on a BB I frequent report going to several stores before finding even a small bottle of lemon juice for their Christmas cooking. One writes, the Store I work at was out for months when we finally got the HUGE bottles in they sold out in 2 days. Now its been at least another month and Nada
Not an earthshaking topic...but, as I said, I'm not used to food shortages of any sort, even minor ones due solely to weather. I'm used to the goods of the world being at my fingertips whenever I walk into a grocery store -- even one in rural Ontario. The world's supply-and-demand seems to be stretched so thin these days that there is little flexibility.
A clip from the Howard Stern radio show(1/10/2008) in which Sal Interviews"Obama Supporters" in Harlem. It is a street interview with a twist; Sal attributes McCain's positions -- and even McCain's VP pick (Sarah Palin) -- to Obama and finds that people support Barack because he is prolife and they think Palin was a good choice for VP. This is the audio link sans video and, so, it downloads quickly.
It has been a while since I rang the alarm bell on how deeply and how often government-on-all-levels will be reaching into your pocket in coming months.Governments everywhere are desperate for cash; they are willing to be as brutal and innnovative as necessary to pry that last dime out of your resisting fingers. Fortunately, there are some steps you can take to protect your hard-earned money from those who are all too willing to take food off your table in order to gorge themselves.
Governments will not let common sense or decency come between them and your money. Frank Hughes discovered this when he"flouted new nationwide laws [in the UK] which force companies to declare industrial waste." Of course, declaring waste is accompanied by the need for an expensive license. Hughes filled in the form, truthfully declaring that his company produced no industrial waste. An official showed up for a surprise inspection. He found nothing. Then, Hughes made a mistake. He explains,
“It [the inspection] got me a bit riled. Then I remembered that my wife had made me cheese sandwiches that day so I produced the cling film and said, ‘the only waste here comes from my sarnie wrappers’. “But he jumped on that saying, ‘Well that’s waste!’ He also asked if we drank tea and when I said ‘yes’ he told me that tea bags were also classed as waste.It was laughable really, I thought he was joking. We take the wrappers and bags back home with us at night. “But he said we should pay for a licence and save them up for a week and then call them for collection. I showed him the door and he said we’d be getting a £300 fine.”
It is not clear whether Hughes will be similarly fined for the used teabags from his customary cuppa...no, I'm not kidding, I'm serious. To rectify his egregious behavior, Hughes must not only get a license and pay the fine, he must also"pay a company to come out every week to take away a bag of food wrapping." He asks"How much will they charge for that £50? £100? It’s madness."
Nope. It is government.
Your greatest protection is privacy. Hughes should never have volunteered the presence of any waste. (By saying this, I do not mean to say"he had it coming!" Far from it. But Hughes foolishly contributed to his own victimization both by taunting the inspector and by providing unnecessary information.) Tell no one outside of a small, trusted circle about your income, possessions, investments, etc.. If disclosure is an inescapable legal requirement (e.g. for car insurance), then disclose as little as possible and demand to know the privacy policies of those with whom you deal. Governments can gather almost any data they.want from whomever they want it but making their job as difficult as possible means they are likely to target easier prey. Remember: there is no such thing as an innocent question/conversation when it comes to your wealth. Your benevolent next-door-neighbor may be nothing but pleased that you received a raise in salary...but what of his wife and of the several dozen people with whom she gossips? If you feel awkward about being rude to those who ask nosey questions, then lie...but lie in the proper direction. Don't brag. Downplay.
Argh...I have so much more to say. I've gotta find more time.
I have not sung the praises of frugality lately...but the current economy cries out for optimism and that's what I see in a frugal lifestyle and a personal philosophy of voluntary simplicity.
As always, I start by defining what I don't mean by frugality and voluntary simplicity. I don't mean denying yourself the goods, services and experiences that make your life exciting or satisfying. I love to travel; I am addicted to live theatre and that is expensive; I relax by doing ethnic cooking with costly ingredients (but less costl than eating at restaurants); Brad has every computer gismo he values and none he doesn't; we have dogs and cats which are expensive to maintain but just try taking our buddies away; our house is wired for ether net and we have satellite TV...I could go on and on about the many expenses on which we do not stint. You live once and it makes no sense to deprive yourself of what makes the go-around a joy.
Nevertheless... I drive a 17-year-old car that is meticulously maintained (I LOVE my car); I grow some of our food (in a garden that means the sun is on my face once a day); I reduce the remaining grocery budget by at least 50% through coupons, barter and price comparison (and, then, brag obnoxiously about it with sister-cheapos on a BB)... In short, I enjoy frugality. If the lifestyle has downsides, one is that I am starting to view people who engage in conspicuous spending as a bit trashy. I am wrong in this response -- they are merely people who disagree with my economic preferences -- nevertheless...
Some of the main upsides of frugality are:
when I exchange time for money, it is because I value what is purchased more than the time the purchase requires. Time is life in the most literal sense. Don't trade your life away for fripperies, like designer clothes.
being self-sufficient robs government both of its hold over you and its revenue source from you. When I barter for eggs with a neighbor, I eschew government surveillance, taxes, and attention. I am living government-free
we achieve a high quality of life by reversing the normal process. The norm is making more and MORE money -- expending ever more time and stress. The reverse is to decrease the cost of living your life as you wish to do so. And maybe extending your lifespan in the process.
re-evaluating values. Why do you need a new car that is no faster and no more efficient than your old one? Because your family values members according to a manifested income level? Isn't it time to tell your family and its values to fuck off?
So what is the frugal move I'm sharing with you today? Cancel every magazine, newspaper or periodical to which you subscribe...with 3 expections:
1) if the subscription is necessary to your work;
2) if you truly enjoy opening the newspaper over breakfast coffee; or 3) if the material you value in the periodical is available nowhere else.
Most information is available on the Internet...for FREE. Fall in love with this word: FREE. Free is not taxed. Free does not require you to trade your time/life. Free is not (yet) regulated by the government. Free is, well, free. Other than justice, does the English language contain a more beautiful word?
A reader comments on the bailout bill that passed the Senate last night:
Here is the first link to the new bill that I've found today. It grew from 3 pages to 451 pages. (I'm confident that all Senators carefully read, digested, and mulled the content change before voting, and that the Representatives will do the same.[Note from site: this is sarcasm]) Tax breaks that increase the cost from 700BN to 805BN are being employed to sell a bill that was already going to do most of its damage by catastrophically increasing taxes - interesting"logic". Breaks (from the LA Times, which also published the pdf of the new bill): increased insurance coverage for mental illness; and bicycle commuting (among many others). Most interesting in the LA Times article is this quote from Rep. Brad Sherman, California, about what is being said by some House members to urge passage:"I've seen members turn to each other and say, 'If we don't pass this bill, we're going to have martial law in the United States.'" Rep. Sherman regards that to be mere"fear mongering." Interesting, that this comment comes on the very day that the 1st Combat Brigade Team of the 3rd Infantry that has been rotated back from Iraq goes on domestic assignment (euphemistically referred to as"dwell time") (For more on the military's"dwell-time mission" please see an earlier post entitled Time for a Second American Revolution.)
I'm uncertain about whether the"martial law" claim is repetition of something that key committee members have been briefed about by the Bush administration. I believe that if they think there are sufficient controls in place, the claim could be a deliberate propaganda release to start"softening the ground" for an actual imposition of such a regime. I think it's time for every US resident who values Liberty to make a strategic decision about which direction to choose in such an eventuality: emigrate to a better place; or stay and resist.
Quote of the day from Oscar Levant. It makes me think of Sarah Palin.
"A politician is a man who will double cross that bridge when he comes to it."
SF and libertarian guru L. Neil Smith is circulating to friends the following response to a news item.
The news item: Paul McCartney has refused to cancel his concert in Israel, despite threats from Islamic militants, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported. The response follows comments made by Omar Bakri Muhammad, a militant Lebanese Islamic activist, in an interview. Mr. Bakri said, “If he values his life, Mr. McCartney must not come to Israel… He will not be safe there. The sacrifice operatives will be waiting for him.”
L.Neil's reponse: As you know, I'm a staunch, life-long atheist, and my opinion, after many decades of study, is that all religions are equally wacky.
However it is vitally important for all of us who consider ourselves decent to remember that is is not Islam that has targeted Paul McCartney for death if he plays a concert in Israel, it is a single individual who calls himself Omar Bakri Muhammad. Most of the Muslims I have met in my life -- and they have been many -- have been kindly, gentle, warm, generous people who love their families and have a marvelous sense of humor. One murderous cuckoo squatting in a minaret somewhere should not be permitted to influence our view of these people, a third of the world's population. How would you like it, my friend, if that same world were to judge you, not on on the basis of your own behavior, but on the inane rantings of an Al Sharpton or a Jerry Falwell?
Libertarians are, first, last, and always, _individualists_. As we demand that the world view us as individuals, so we must strive to view the people of the world the same way. Group punishment and preventive law enforcement are not a part of our political vocabulary. Moreover, adopting the socialistic policies of, say a Hillary Clinton or a George Bush, only feeds their insatiable lust for raw power and unearned wealth. If 9/11 had happened on a libertarian's watch it would have been dealt with as the crime it was, rather than as an act or war, which it was not, under any definition of the concept. The remaining individuals criminals responsible for 9/11 (assuming they really were Middle Eastern terrorists, an assertion never proved) would have been run to earth, captured, tried, and punished. And we would not now be at war and plunging into a Depression.
I'm extremely glad Sir Paulie, in effect, told this cowardly threatener -- who sends young people out to die for him, exactly like American politicians do -- to shove it. But the creature was not speaking for Islam, and it is is not Islam that McCartney will be defying, but a single moral and intellectual toadstool.
P.S. If you think Islam and the Koran are uniquely evil or favor unbridled violence, I suggest you read your Old Testament a bit more closely.
On Wednesday, the TruthOut site had a fascinating article entitled"Lose Your House, Lose Your Vote." The gist: Republicans in Macomb County, Michigan (Detroit area) are using foreclosure lists in an attempt to disqualify voters who are listed on it. The justification is that 'foreclosed' people have no proof of residence within the voting district and, so, they no longer have a provable right to vote there; no one is suggesting that the people did not legally register to vote at some point. The real reason (not stated by the article): people who have been foreclosed are more likely to be black than white, poor than wealthy, outraged by Bush's handling of the economy rather than pleased with it. In short, foreclosed people in the Detroit area are likely to vote en masse for the Democrats. If successful, the number skewing by the Republicans could be significant; in July, one household in every 285 in Macombe (or 1,834 families) went into foreclosure. If you assume a modest 2 voters per household, that's close to 4,000 voters who could be neutralized from July alone.
Moreover, the GOP tactic is not isolated to Michigan. TruthOut explains,"In Ohio, Doug Preisse, director of elections in Franklin County (around the city of Columbus) and the chair of the local GOP, told The Columbus Dispatch that he has not ruled out challenging voters before the election due to foreclosure-related address issues."
I call the article fascinating because the heart-and-soul of this election is proceeding at the grassroots leve and the machinations in microcosm by both Republicans and Democrats reveal its true face. Besides which, I have taken a firm stand with myself: I am NOT sickened; I am NOT outraged; I am officially amused and bemused. That stance makes the morning coffee sit more easily on my stomach.
A reader who recently attended a high-level security seminar along with a number of US government infosec employees has given me permission to post his description of the event...
Bona fides: The instructor spent 9 years sitting in the back seat of a USN spy plane. Most of the students (all but one or two of 22) were either current or recent past US government high level IT employees. One was a current DHS systems guy. Another was recent ex-NSA infosec. Several more were chief network security admins for Pentagon and the like.
Here is the scoop. We were discussing secure erasure of magnetic media, and a comment was made about recovering data using electron microscopy (to read remnant magnetic patterns in layers beneath current data) after a 7-pass overwrite (DOD standard for secure erasure - the presumed state of the art for wiping data.). I stated my belief that such a procedure had to be prohibitively expensive and that, absent becoming a"person of interest" to the NSA, should probably not be of concern. My statement went unchallenged by the instructor, but the ex-NSA guy was looking directly at me, with a friendly smirk, and shaking his head"no". On the next bathroom break, I asked him if he was implying that the procedure had become economical. He replied in the affirmative, and added that he was aware of a single DHS laboratory with five electron microscopes in 24x7 use for this purpose, and that other labs undoubtedly exist.
So now we know what happens to a TSA-confiscated laptop, and probably to many that are listed by the owners as as"missing or stolen in airport". The following day, class disucssion topic was techniques for limiting employee access to web pages at work. The DHS systems guy stated that the method currently under discussion would not work for him"because we have five sections that do nothing but look at libraries". Remember the incident a couple of years ago where the two DHS goons announced to patrons in the Maryland public libnrary that they were there to stop them from looking at porn, etc? The disclosure may have been unintended by TPTB, but evidently the attitude truly reflects DHS philosophy. Time and concerns about self-identifying as an anti-government person kept me from making further inquiries, but that certainly does not sound encouraging.
Going forward, the assumptions must be that no information that is not very securely and correctly encrypted is even remotely safe, Big Brother is watching everything that we do at the public library (in person or on-line), and the only way to securely erase data from magnetic media is to melt or completely incinerate it and scatter the ashes.
A reminder: Big Head Press offers free online graphic novels by the inimitable libertarian-likes of L.Neil Smith and Scott Bieser. Click here to access.
And the smart just keeps coming...
The San Francisco Chronicle reports, The boyfriend of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's unwed, pregnant daughter will join the family of the Republican vice presidential candidate at the GOP convention in St. Paul, Minn. Levi Johnston's mother said her 18-year-old son left Alaska on Tuesday morning to join the Palin family at the convention where Sen. John McCain will officially receive the Republican nomination for president. The boy's mother, Sherry Johnston, said there had been no pressure put on her son to marry 17-year-old Bristol Palin and the two teens had made plans to wed before it was known she was pregnant."This is just a bonus," Johnston said.
This is exactly what Palin needs to do -- embrace the young man as family and publicly glow about the expected grandchild as wonderful news. Make the liberals (and not the conservatives) be the ones to cry out"OMG, a teenager had sex! The horror! The horror!" Make them look petty and ridiculous, anti-family and anti-forgiveness. Let them take the rap for politically exploiting the sex life of a 17-year-old; let them be the ones to smirk with glee or foam with faux outrage over a child that is wanted and welcomed. Meanwhile, as long as Palin's daughter carries the fetus to term and marries the father, will show compassion and applaud the manner in which a commonplace -- albeit unfortunate --
I wouldn't be surprised if Palin literally embraces Johnston on the GOP convention stage. What a photo op that would be! Not that Palin needs to draw media attention by dangling enticements. The woman has accomplished a near-impossible feat. She's made Obama 2nd-page news.
Like everyone else, I was stunned by John McCain's choice of VP: Sarah Palin. I fall on the"stroke of brilliance" side of the debate on whether his choice was wisdom or folly. Why? With one announcement, McCain changed the election dialogue -- something he needed to do because the conversation wasn't going at all well for Republicans. He established a wow factor for his campaign; the spotlight shifted from Barack; the evangelical GOP base consolidated and opened its wallet; women voters are likely to be more receptive; the Dems are scrabbling on exactly how to lambast Palin. Even the mud being flung at Palin is not likely to stick. Her 17-year-old daughter's pregnancy is not alienating the conservatives who are applauding the daughter's decision to carry the child to term and to marry the father. Meanwhile, the liberal criticism re: the pregnancy revealing Palin's hypocrisy about teens abstaining from sex is strange; as one blogger commented,"[it is] as misguided as asking a non-violent person why her spouse is violent toward her." And, even if the scandal about her arranging to have her brother-in-law fired from his government post is true, the apparent circumstances are such that Palin may become a heroine in the eyes of other women. Those circumstances apparently include the man's tendency to brutally beat Palin's sister. As for her inexperience...frankly, I think that is a selling point. She is not an insider, she is a fresh voice and a new force. What's Barack been running on and for: CHANGE.
BTW, I am not exactly what you'd call"a fan" of Sarah Palin. Nor of McCain or the GOP. But McCain is making some wise moves. Another example...his decision to hold a minimalist GOP convention and to tour the expected devastation of Hurricane Gustav instead of being"man of the hour" in Minneapolis. This move accomplished several important goals:
1) Bush and Cheney had an acceptable excuse to NOT attend the Convention and, so, kept a salutary distance away from McCain,
2) the Republicans gave the appearance of putting the American people before party politics;
3) the much, much smaller GOP Convention could not be unfavorably compared by the media to the massive Dem-fest; the almost empty convention center looked like an expression of compassion rather than of unpopularity;
4) on his tour, McCain both acted and looked Presidential; he was"on site" to take credit for the vast improvement over Katrina in terms of co-ordination, police presence in New Orleans etc.; 5) objectionable aspects of the GOP Convention almost entirely escaped media attention -- e.g. the platform's resolution to ban abortion with no exceptions for a woman's health or rape.
As unbelievable as it seems after 8 years of Bush, McCain could win. The world could get Frick instead of Frack and still be f*cked in the process.
An interesting letter from a reader opens by quoting an article she mistakenly attributes to me. The article/blog post in question is Support Your Local Rape Gang by William N. Grigg on the Pro Libertate blog. The confusion arose because the post ends with the note, Thanks to Wendy McElroy and "CLS" at Classically Liberal for their work on this story -- in short, my name was the first one the reader saw at the end of the piece. (BTW, I thank Grigg in return for his impassioned and in-depth analysis of the story upon which I commented on August 11th in the post Teach Children to Fear the Police.)
The news story in question dealt with an 18-year-old high school student who was brought into a detention center in Kentucky on traffic charges. Three deputies teased the teenager about his physical appearance and, then, broke procedure by housing him with violent criminals who proceeded to rape him repeatedly over a period of hours. Some accounts state that the 3 deputies solicited the assault upon the boy. Certainly, the deputies and their co-workers would have been aware of the boy's screams for help through the night. Reports were falsified to cover the incident.
That's the background. Here's the letter I received from a mother who had a less dramatic but chilling story to tell about her young son's run-in with the police state. One of the reasons her story is chilling, BTW, is because I think it is more typical and far more common than the jailhouse rape. Two key differences: her son's brutalization by the system is stretched out over years, and no one will be held accountable for the boy's nightmares.
K. writes...
I recently read your article on the prison guards in KY where you said...
Living down to every cinematic stereotype of the dim-witted, in-bred rural prison guard (stereotypes have to come from somewhere, I suppose), the deputies told the young boy he'd make a good"girlfriend" for some of the other inmates. [Note: the quote is from Grigg. The photos of the deputies that Grigg posts at the head of his article, however, do look like the nightmare trio from a rough roadhouse bar...They look like the type that casting agents would send up for dumb thug roles.]
This has bothered me since I read it because it is so absolutely true.
There is something desperately wrong in Kentucky. I am a Buckeye from XXX living in KY due to being rendered homeless by foreclosure.
Please let me tell you about my 14 year old son. I will try to summarize so please bear with me.
Last Sept. two 17 year old boys climbed over a fence and entered the swimming pool which sits right beside the skate park in a tiny little KY town called West Liberty. Once they got in, they opened a gate and 5 younger boys also went in. My son who was 13 then was one of them. The boys engaged in what boils down to vandalism or possibly criminal trespass. They drew on the walls and unrolled toilet paper took down the mirrors and put them outside. They did not to my knowledge steal anything or cause any major damage. I am not sure how the police found out who the older boys were but when they questioned them they admitted what they had done and gave them the names of the younger ones.
The next day my son was walking down the street and was stopped by the police and questioned. He was told if he did not tell them what they all did they would take him to jail. He was forced to write a statement -word for word - what they told him to write or once again they would take him to jail. He was not allowed to contact me or offered the opportunity to speak to a lawyer. Just forced to write. He has had no prior dealings with the police so needless to say he was very scared.
When he came home that night he told me about his encounter. I had him try to write down exactly what he wrote for them. Once he told me his part in this which was"I helped carry a mirror out" I saw a completely different story on paper. I knew something was wrong.
A week later a cop called me and wanted his SS number. He then told me 6 of the 7 boys were being charged with Felony 3 Burglary -mine was one of them. When I asked why such a serious charge he said"Because all of their stories match".
I guess they would all match since they were all forced to write the same thing. So FF to court. None of the boys could afford a 'real' lawyer so all were processed by a public defender - all 6 boys had the same one because there is only one! 4 of the 6 plead guilty very early on and one I was told got a deal to testify against anyone who they needed him to. Only me and another Mom held out and asked for trial because we both knew our kids rights had been violated. When I told the public defender I would not let my son plead guilty he got pretty angry. He told me he would not be allowed to represent my son unless he plead guilty. I would have to pay someone else.
There was also the matter of restitution. When I asked how much, he got annoyed with me and said no one had came up with a dollar amount -yet. I knew this was a lie because this was now JULY. The pool was repaired and had been open since May. Let me add that the pool is owned by the Kiwanis- who just happen to be all the men who own and run the town including the court system and including the one and only prosecutor. A special prosecutor had to be brought in from another county.
So, on Aug XX, I was forced to allow my son to plead guilty. The other mother too. Both boys received 30 days in Juvenile Detention - 23 were suspended. They have to serve 3 weekends. After your story on the guards I seriously considered fleeing the state but I am quite sure they would issue a warrant for me because restitution has not been paid. Restitution has been determined to be $4200.00 which is laughable. My son's (my) share is $710.00. I guess they bought the expensive paint.
Here is the best part. My child is on probation until he is 18. I have met with the probation officer the same day. During our first visit she informed my son that if she comes to our house someone better open the door because she would come with the cops. She said if she felt like it she would come into our home and flip the beds over if we were sleeping. This woman has threatened 3 times now to"take him away for a year if he does anything wrong" She goes to the school and talks to him alone and the principal must report any problems to her. He has 8 pm curfew which is fine - he is never out anywhere without me anyhow. He is on voice monitoring which is a automated phone call to check and make sure he is at home. If he is not going to be home he has to call her long distance ahead of time, which is ridiculous.
My son has done 2 of his 3 weekends so far. This past weekend he spent his time listening to a 16 year old girl tell him how she and some others robbed and murdered a old man. She gave him all the details too. The other boy did one weekend and then missed a day of school so when he returned he was arrested and got 30 days.
The young man in your article who was raped should have never even been taken to jail. Come on - it was traffic and he was 18 years old. In KY people have NO RIGHTS - Its do as you are told -or else. Schools are the same way. There is no rewards for the positive just punishment for negative. People are taught not to BACK TALK. My kids are afraid to ask for a pack of ketchup at McDonald's these days. Roadblocks are set up just to try to catch people driving with no license. God help anyone who is dumb enough to try that -you automatically go to jail. Where you are placed in a life threatening situation where you are helpless. Especially children.
The young man in your article who was raped should have never even been taken to jail. Come on - it was traffic and he was 18 years old. In KY people have NO RIGHTS - Its do as you are told -or else. Schools are the same way. There is no rewards for the positive just punishment for negative. People are taught not to BACK TALK. My kids are afraid to ask for a pack of ketchup at McDonald's these days. Roadblocks are set up just to try to catch people driving with no license. God help anyone who is dumb enough to try that -you automatically go to jail. Where you are placed in a life threatening situation where you are helpless. Especially children.
Your comment on the stereotype is driving me insane because it did come from somewhere and it is so obvious to those who do not belong here. I am forced to turn my son over to people who I swear look just like the 3 guards. There is something very wrong here, something very evil. I want to say - its all about the money... but it is more than that.
Emily Feder's piece entitled "At JFK Airport, Denying Basic Rights Is Just Another Day at the Office" on Alternet is excellent in a bone-chilling way. Feder writes, I was recently stopped by Homeland Security as I was returning from a trip to Syria. What I saw in the hours that followed shocked and disturbed me. She concludes, In the past five years I have worked for human rights and refugee advocacy organizations in Serbia, Russia and Croatia, including the International Rescue Committee and USAID. I have traveled to many different places, some supposedly repressive, and have never seen people treated with the kind of animosity that Homeland Security showed that night. In Syria, border control officers were stern but polite. At other borders there have been bureaucracies to contend with -- excruciating for both Americans and other foreign nationals. I've met Russian officials with dead, suspicious looks in their eyes and arms tired from stamping so many visas, but in America, the Homeland Security officials I encountered were very much alive -- like vultures waiting to eat.
Feder's observations accord with my own, far more limited travel experiences. Even the customs guards in Communist China were professional and polite (in a bored way) compared to almost every American security or customs official I've encountered. Travel agents up here (in Canada) say that one of the most common requests they hear is"How do I avoid making a connection in the U.S.?" Going through an American aiport is like being processed through a prison or an animal stockyard. And Feder is correct; one of the most unsettling aspects is that American guards are not just doing a job; they seem to be emotionally invested in it and swollen with an arrogant enjoyment of authority.
Which is not to excuse those security agents who are just doing a job. You do not escape responsibility for brutalizing someone just because you are being paid to do so. Taking money to strip them of rights should make your actions more and not less despicable. And, yet, agents hide their bruality behind"just doing my job" or"just following orders."
The libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick said that some bucks stop with all of us. How we chose to treat the rights and dignity of another human being is one of those bucks. There is no such thing as disappearing into the job or behind the uniform and, so, becoming the bureaucratic"nobodies that Hannah Arendt portrayed in her book Responsibility and Judgment, in which she uses a wonderful term she had coined : the"banality of evil". The banality when evil becomes an unthinking routine -- the agent who says"just doing my job and watching the clock while I violate your rights." Arendt writes,"The greatest evildoers are those who don't remember because they have never given thought to the matter."
The trouble with the Nazi criminals was precisely that they renounced voluntarily all personal qualities, as if nobody were left to be either punished or forgiven. They protested time and again that they had never done anything out of their own initiative, that they had no intentions whatsoever, good or bad, and that they only obeyed orders. To put it another way: the greatest evil perpetrated is the evil committed by nobodies, that is, by human beings who refuse to be persons. Within the conceptual framework of these considerations we could say that wrongdoers who refuse to think by themselves what they are doing and who also refuse in retrospect to think about it, that is, go back and remember what they did (which is teshuvah or repentance), have actually failed to constitute themselves into somebodies. By stubbornly remaining nobodies they prove themselves unfit for intercourse with others who, good, bad, or indifferent, are at the very least persons.
In his work"On Civil Disobedience," Henry David Thoreau made a similar point while pondering the Mexican-American war. Thoreau wondered about the psychology of men who would fight a war and, perhaps, kill strangers out of obedience. He concluded that soldiers, by virtue of their absolute obedience to the state, become somewhat less than human. He wrote, “Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power? Visit the Navy Yard, and behold a marine, such a man as an American government can make, or such as it can make a man with its black arts--a mere shadow and reminiscence of humanity…” This is how “the mass of men” employed by the state render service to it, “not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies.” In doing so, the men relinquish the free exercise of their moral sense and, so “put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones.”
In putting on their uniforms, agents of the state discard their humanity.
Murray Rothbard's theoretical approach to history included the idea and importance of what he called"the lone crazy." The lone crazy is a wild card -- the individual (or small group) who seems to appear out of nowhere and acts in an unpredicted manner that dramatically and forever alters the world as we know it. An example would be the nationalist zealot Gavrilo Princip who assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife in Sarajevo in 1914 and, so, sparked World War I.
Murray's point was that the best-laid plans of policy-makers can be shattered by a single bullet fired from one man's hand; future history is neither predictable nor amenable to social engineering. This Rothbardian theory came to mind while I was thinking about the current conflict between Georgia and Russia which, admittedly, involves a whole lot of non-lone crazies. But the sudden conflict stands as another example of how the balance of global power can suddenly and surprisingly shift. While neocons were making other plans, Russia abruptly asserted its status as a super-power that would not brook interference with its zones of influence. (In stating this, I do not mean to show admiration or sympathy for Russia...or Georgia, for that matter.)
While the West (largely the U.S.) was busy planning to include Georgia in its zones of influence -- e.g. through inclusion in NATO -- Russia acted in a lone crazy manner that changed the conditions of history/politics in this region. Arguably, given how important Russia is to the Middle East, the conflict with Georgia has changed that history as well. Certainly, it has exposed the weakness of America/Bush who can do little more than shake a forefinger at Putin and Medvedev.
