A Michigan court has once again ruled that the police have absolutely no responsibility to"serve and protect" anyone except the local government. (I examined this theme in two articles "Prevent Violence: Disarm the Police" and "The Thin Blue Lie". In the"Thin Blue Lie" I criticzed the police not merely for not providing protecting but also for presenting a positive threat to liberty. The article opens,"I'd rather take my chances with criminals than with the police. For one thing, criminals usually want your property, not control over your life. Policemen will angrily assure me that they are the barrier between civilians and a world of random violence. This was a common theme in the flood of hate mail I received from policemen who responded to my earlier column, 'Prevent Violence: Disarm the Police.' Many officers provided the further assurance that - given my bad attitude - I had best not count on their assistance against a rapist."

Now the threat posed by the police has just increased. An article in the New Scientist examines"Long-range Taser-like high-voltage weapons that do not use wires, and can potentially"stun" (electrocute) entire crowds." The article states, in part,"The laser pulse must be very intense, but can be brief. So the makers of the weapons plan to use a UV laser to fire a 5-joule pulse lasting just 0.4 picoseconds - equating to a momentary power of more than 10 million megawatts. This intense pulse - which is said not to harm the eyes - ionises the air, producing long, thread-like filaments of glowing plasma that can be sustained by repeating the pulse every few milliseconds." A correspondent who is a physicist in an unrelated area wrote to me,"...said not to harm the eyes"?!!? I am no laser physicist, but I would venture to guess that anything that packs enough power density to IONIZE CLEAR AIR *will*, in fact, harm the eyes. Acutely. Further, 5 joules"every few milliseconds" translates to hundreds of watts of average power, more than enough to roast most biological materials even if *not* concentrated into a point at the end of a"thread-like filament". Now, if you wanted to adapt this into a dot-matrix-style"printer" to print custom suntans... :-)" Here's another advance in police tactics and technology."A police officer stops you on the street, then taps something into a device in the palm of his hand. The next minute, he knows who your relatives are, who lives in your house, who your neighbors are, the kind of car you drive or boat you own, whether you've been sued and various other tidbits about your life. Science fiction? Hardly. A growing number of police departments now have instant access via handheld wireless devices to vast commercial databases that contain details on just about anyone officers encounter on the beat." the article comments,"But placing a commercial database full of personal details at an officer's fingertips also raises troubling questions for electronic privacy activists." As a feminist, just the first question that comes to mind concerns the series of recent allegations and convictions against police officers who sexually assaulted women they'd pull over for traffic offenses. Now they're to have easy access to unprecedented information on those women? Yeah, that'll encourage victims to come forward.

For more commentary, please see McBlog.

In yesterday's McBlog, I posted the observation,"The IRS seized Tax Rebel Larken Rose's computers over a year ago, but have apparently been unable to find any actual tax violations to charge him with during all this time. Now, suddenly, after more than a year of scrying, the IRS suddenly claims to have found `kiddie porn' on these machines." As well as expanding their jurisdiction to include disclosures of child pornography, the IRS seems to be assuming regulatory powers over the wages that charities pay their executives. The stated justification:"The rules governing charities and private foundations say they cannot pay executives more than reasonable compensation. Excessive compensation can be penalized by excise taxes. A group's tax-exempt status can be revoked if trustees, founders, directors or others use the charity for their own benefit." Since there are tax rules/exemptions governing a a vast of businesses -- and especially corporations -- the justification of"just checking on the tax status" could easily be expanded. Moreover, implicit in the investigations is the notion that the IRS rather than some other regulatory factor -- like the free market -- should define what is a"reasonable salary" for a given position. The IRS is clearly gearing up to launch a major assault on wallets across the U.S. It is not merely that IRS Commissioner Mark Everson has vowed an"aggressive program" of examining charities. Or that the agency seems determined to"get" tax rebels by any means, including smearing them as pedophiles. Consider this news item:"Suspect your company is cheating the IRS out of millions in taxes? Pass along the inside information to the Internal Revenue Service and you stand to collect up to 30 percent of taxes and penalties recovered under whistle-blower legislation aimed at snaring high-dollar tax cheats." Aggressive, yes, but the flexing of new muscle is not unpredictable. On November 23, 2003, political activist Robert R. Raymond {{link reported,"In a precendent-setting case, the IRS wielded new power to punish the political speech of those who"espouse views" the government considers"inconsistent" with government-held beliefs. In a hearing originally closed to the public in a secret tribunal on a military island, but moved to a public location after protests from the press and the public, the IRS wants to wield this power against a former IRS whistleblower, who was forced to resign upon his discovery of fraud in the agency. After monitoring and taping the whisteblower's appearances on Sixty Minutes, talk radio shows, and political publications where he rebroadcast his findings of IRS fraud, the IRS initiated this inquisition against their former whistelblower. This new power may find new political targets soon enough."

For more commentary, please visit McBlog.

Here is my understanding of what is happening in Iraq re: Muqtada al-Sadr, an understanding which may well be imperfect but which may be useful nevertheless for those who are consuming news-lite from sources like CNN... Al-Sadr is an anti-American Shiite cleric who is a major player in the internal jostling for power within the Shiite community -- which is the largest community of Iraq -- and, thus, al-Sadr is a major player within Iraq itself. Estimates of his popularity vary widely, with some reports in the Western press claiming that 1/3 of Shiites are sympathetic to the"Sadrists"...but sympathy does not constitute hardcore allegiance. (Some of the sympathy may well come from his anti-US stand around which otherwise indifferent Shiites are rallying.) Al-Sadr has a private army estimated from 1,500 to 10,000 strong. The slums of Baghdad -- East Baghdad -- is called Sadr City after his family and it forms a base of support for al-Sadr. (His father was a powerful Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Sadiq al-Sadr; his uncle was a renown Shiite activist; much of his family was killed by Saddam.) The coalition clearly wants to marginalize or to eliminate Sadr as a factor in the politics surrounding the faux transfer of power set for June 30th. (I say faux because the Iraqi authorities will be hand-picked by the Bush administration and US troops will remain to enforce order/supervise.) In an open and free democracy, the anti-US Sadrists might become sand in the wheels because many would be elected. Thus, on March 28th, on the direct order of Paul Bremer, the Sadrist newspaper Al Hawza in Baghdad was abruptly shut down on the grounds that it incited violence. Thousands protested its closure -- and continue to do so -- saying that Bremer was following Saddam in crushing freedom of the press. On April 3rd, Mustafa al-Yaqubi, a senior aide of al-Sadr was arrested by the Coalition for the murder of a Shia cleric who was a rival to Sadr. A similar warrant for Sadr's arrest had been issued already -- apparently last summer -- but it had been held, presumably to be served at a time most opportune to the States.

Sadr saw his newspaper (his voice) suppressed, his right-hand man arrested, andhis own arrest imminent. Then, on Sunday, the Coalition appointed a list of Iraqi ministers to whom they clearly intended to hand over the previously mentioned faux authority. No Sadrists were included. At that point, Sadr had nothing political to lose and, perhaps, little time to make a move. Never one to despise violence, he called for a de facto jihad against the American occupiers and violence erupted in at least six cities. Sadr himself is holed up in one of Iraqi's holiest mosques in one of its holiest cities, Kufa, surrounded by hundreds of his armed zealots. It remains to be seen whether the US military will be arrogant enough to assault the mosque in order to serve an arrest warrant. But the US has to do something. Sadr is a clear challenge to their authority and every other group in Iraq is watching. The US has painted itself into an interesting corner: by referring to Sadr as a murder suspect and issuing a warrant for his arrest, they have left themselves no room to negotiate with him. They have utterly cut off even the possibility of political or diplomatic options.

Bush warns that violence will grow. It seems clear that more US troops will be sent in to relieve the overstressed and overextended military there. (BTW, the Sadrist revolt came at a time when US troops were undergoing a massive rotation out of the area -- a rotation home that may well be cancelled now. I've seen no confirmation of this latter possibility, however.) The latest news I've read comes from the New York Times,"On Monday evening, American troops appeared to be moving into the area around Kufa, where Mr. Sadr's followers have seized control and the cleric has taken refuge in a heavily guarded mosque. Mr. Sadr shot back a defiant message, saying he would"welcome" a showdown with the American forces he has pledged to drive out of Iraq.

For more commentary, please see McBlog

The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal has published the 10th annual 'Index of Economic Freedom,' and the U.S. has dropped from being tied for 6th place worldwide to being alone in 10th. [Click on nation's name at the ranking list to access detailed description]

Under the heading Monetary Policy for the US, the Index states,"From 1993 to 2002, the United States weighted average annual rate of inflation was 2.05 percent." I believe the figure is low. Greg Burns had a fascinating article in the Chicago Tribune,"Prices rising despite low inflation rate: Key indicators questioned," which I synopsize because accessing it involves registration and" cookies." The article opens,"At the same time the federal government is reporting inflation at rock-bottom levels, the cost of medical care, tuition and housing have shot up. From gasoline to coffee to gold, commodity prices are soaring to heights not seen in years." For example, food and medical prices are up 10% since last year. The article questions the method by which bureaucrats calculate inflation since the Bush administration has a vested interest in keeping those figures low, especially during an election year."Inflation may well be tamed in the manufacturing sector...the costs of finished products like computers, apparel, furniture and electronics. But it is pronounced in...'the essentials people need on a daily basis,' such as food and fuel." Thus, the official inflation rate of 1.7% over the past year does not reflect the reality of everyday purchases."Inflation's down except for what you actually buy," said portfolio manager Chad Hudson of the Prudent Bear Fund.

An example of how the government distorts inflation is"housing.""Instead of capturing the sizzling prices being paid in the latest home sales, the CPI [Consumer Price Index] uses an estimate of how much those homeowners could collect in rent. With home ownership soaring, rental rates are depressed, and the index is a full percentage point lower than it should be." Paul Kasriel, chief economist at Northern Trust in Chicago" compares today to the mid-1960s, when a long period of debilitating inflation originated, and he is unswayed by the Fed's reassuring message. 'When central bankers tell me not to worry about inflation, that's when I start to worry,' Kasriel said." Meanwhile,"unemployment remains elevated." In other words stagflation:" A combination of high inflation and slow economic growth. A term coined in the 1970s, stagflation described the previously unprecedented combination of high unemployment (stagnation) with rising prices (inflation)."

Increasing employment is a key to turning the economy around but this requires less regulation -- e.g. removing the laws and policies that make the American worker uncompetitive, such as mandated union benefits. The Index of Economic Freedom indicates that freedom brings prosperity...and with amazing speed sometimes. (Ireland, ranked 5th in freedom, is enjoying an incredible upward economic swing.) But movement here seems to be in the other direction with constant criticism of outsourcing, free trade, inexpensive imported goods, etc. Michigan has taken the frightening step of mandating job protectionism. The Detroit Free Press reports,"To help keep jobs in Michigan, Gov. Jennifer Granholm will sign a pair of executive directives...to prohibit the state from contracting with businesses that would do the work in foreign countries. In addition, companies now doing business with the state would be required to say who is doing the contracted work and where it is being done." This is the way affirmative action began in the US -- by imposing it as a policy on private business that contracted with government. Specifically: in 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson established the Office of Federal Contract Compliance, which ensured that private businesses who did work for the federal government followed non-discrimination requirements. With this, a large block of the American economy adopted affirmative action. The rest is history; affirmative action expanded from government contractors and eventually became the de facto law of the land, largely enforced by court decisions. I hope job protectionism is not on the same course.

For more commentary, please see McBlog

I am not familiar with the debate that previously occurred on Liberty and Power over Naomi Wolf's recent article on Harold Bloom nor do I have the time at the moment to acquaint myself with it. I apologize, therefore, if I cover ground already ploughed or misinterpret someone based on the most recent exchange alone. I have written a column on the savage response of virtually all feminists and most mainstream media to Wolf's article, analyzing it as an indication of a cultural shift on the issue of victimhood. For example, what I consider to be the most vicious attack on Wolf occurred in The New Statesman; in 2000, that periodical uncritically published Andrea Dworkin's similar confession of having been raped - an account with far more questionable aspects than Wolf's but one which received only muted skepticism or respectful silence from the media. The synopsis of my take on Wolf's confessional: I have no sympathy for her, which my article makes clear. On the other hand, I have little sympathy for most of her feminist critics, for two reasons: 1) their attacks resemble a gleeful catfight; and, 2) many of them would have been her cheering section a few years ago. But rather than discuss Wolf, I want to address the question of what is individualist feminism in today's society. Robert Campbell opens his series on Wolf,"Some feminists, in today's world, believe that women have the same rights as men; that this equality of rights is getting close to being consistently recognized in countries like the United States; and that further feminist efforts, in this part of the world, should be narrowly targeted at those remaining areas where the legal and political systems privilege men over women." He refers to this position as individualist feminism, and I basically agree with some slight disagreement. For example, there are still important issues of inequality for women under law/policy in North America that require attention. One of them is the widespread legal persecution of lay midwives by governmental health professionals. But, by in large, the main task is to end the"gender war" by dismantling the laws and other institutions that continue it through mandating privileges for women over men. Roderick Long responds to Campbell's definitional description,"what concerns me is the implicit suggestion that to regard something as a legitimate object of feminist concern is ipso facto to regard it as an appropriate object of legislation?as I see it, both sides are making the same mistake: they both think of feminist concerns and legislative activity as going together." (I will leave Robert to indicate what he did or didn't implicitly suggest.) It is the curse of almost every current movement that legislation is the goal and individualist feminism hasn't. escaped. There is a division of opinion on whether to use legislation and the State; that division breaks down to whether the person arguing accepts or rejects governmental authority over anything beyond direct protection of one's physical person and property. (As an anarchist, I don't even accept that.) Thus, Joan Kennedy Taylor and I vigorously debated each other two decades ago because she supported the ERA and I opposed it. Neither of us has changed our position over the years. My position: More legislation wasn't and isn't going to produce more justice. For me, the entire connection between individualist feminism and legislation is properly a push for repeal, disobedience, or other tactics that would render such laws"dead letters." (When I use the word"legislation, I refer specifically to governmental law.)

My opposition to legislation may not always come across in brief, popular columns because - in the 850 words a week I am allowed by FOX - I often make comments like"rape should be illegal" without further specifying that the legal system I advocate is a free market one. Equally, I have called for radical changes to e.g. the Child Protective Services that would effectively hand power back to parents and away from State agencies. Quite frankly, I have mixed feelings about advocating reform rather than the flat-out elimination of such agencies even if the reforms I call for would be the de facto death of the agency. But, back to feminism.

There is an aspect of feminism that has been largely ignored in individualist writings: the creation of a positive culture through non-legal means. I don't denigrate the power of culture - religion, morality, ethnicity, etc. -- to define and redefine the world. Indeed, if I wish to dispense with government, culture becomes all the more important. Perhaps it is time to start throwing a bit of passion behind the"how do we get there from here" question. My answer is basically: non-violent resistance and education. The construction of alternate paradigms and institutions. A celebration of what is now most reviled within mainstream feminism: the free market.

In any case...just a clarification.

Best to all. Please visit McBlog

A headline in the Pakistan"Daily Times" reads "CNN ends up with `much egg on its face'." Yesterday, I mentioned that -- after providing blanket coverage of the imminent capture of al-Qaida's #2 man al-Zawahiri (which has not occurred and is unlikely to do so) -- CNN abruptly dropped the story and barely mentioned it for hours. The background on what happened is an instructive glimpse into the media's mindset and the influence it exerts. Aaron Brown -- CNN's lead anchor and host of NewsNight With Aaron Brown -- was in Pakistan to cover US Secretary of State Colin Powell's"anniversary" visit when the opportunity to interview President Pervez Musharraf arose. Musharraf told Brown about a military operation in South Waziristan, stating that the resistance being offered suggested militants might be defending a high-value target. He said it was"very likely" the possible target had been surrounded. Sensing they had a global exclusive -- the biggest story since the capture of Saddam Hussein -- CNN ran with it, sensationalizing both the form and substance. Suddenly, al-Zawarhiri by name was surrounded and about to be captured any moment, thus raising worldwide expectations and tensions. As events unfolded and non-US media began to comment, it became clear that nothing about the battle was"imminent" and fierce conflict might rage for days or weeks. And, so, in live satellite broadcasts, Brown began to backpedal, lowering time expectations. It became unclear that al-Zawahiri was still among the beseiged or ever had been there. And, so, top news executives at CNN exerted fast control. No retractions. Just bury the story as though it had not been reported. It was a blunder of Biblical proportions that made the world a little more nervous and news a lot less trustworthy.

Meanwhile, only foreign media seem to be raising any question about whether the beseiged are really al-Qaida. Perhaps they are. But the area being destroyed by the Pakistan military is populated by warlike tribes and leaders who have never recognized Musharraf's authority, and who may well have had a hand in the two recent attempts on his life. When Diem destroyed all his political opponents in Vietnam, he did so under the guise that they were Communists which was patently untrue. US officials readily believed Diem because they wished to see"progress" and, frankly, they didn't know any better. According to CNN and the Pakistan military, the so-called al-Qaida captured so far" could be Arabs, Uzbeks, Chechens or members of local tribes." If they don't know their nationalities or affiliations, how do they know the captured are al-Qaida?

For more commentary, please see McBlog.

Yesterday I mentioned a"glut" of silence from the White House regarding Spain's announced intention to withdraw its troop from Iraq by the end of June if military operations there were not placed under UN command. The silence has ended.

Predictably, the Bush administration proclaims that"Spain would be sending out a `terrible message' if it let terrorists influence its policies." First, terrorists have profoundly influenced policies in Spain, in America and worldwide. The question is merely,"in what way will that influence be manifested?" The Bush people prefer the reactive path they've taken to the path chosen by Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. Second, by an overwhelming majority, the Spanish people want their soldiers out of Iraq; they never wanted to become part of the occupation in the first place. Why should Zapatero be so influenced by terrorists that he dismisses the clear and collective voice of the Spaniards who just elected him? Some leaders take the idea of representing"the people" seriously. Third, the implication is that Zapatero should show machismo and say"Damn the will of the people! Let's kick some sandy Butt!" This may well reflect Bush's own attitude. For the rest of the world, however, machismo resides in standing up to the current foreign policy juggernaut of the United States. Zapatero is actually displaying maraca-sized balls. Fourth, Zapatero is a raging socialist, who heads a nation that has some familiarity with colonialism. To him - and it is a fair analysis -- the occupation of Iraq is nothing more than 21st century colonialism driven by oil and Haliburtonian cronyism. He thinks it is morally wrong. Why should he grant terrorists so much influence that he does what is wrong instead of what is right?

I could run on...but the most interesting aspect of The White House's announcement was the hint that it might propose a fresh resolution on Iraq to the United Nations, thus answering one of Zapatero's major demands. (Hmmm...would the US be sending out a `terrible message' if it let a dissenting foreign leader influence its policies?) Officially, the Bush people are maintaining their SOP bluster with General Sanchez -- the top US general in Iraq - declaring that the lack of the 1,300 Spanish troops would not hurt the coalition. He's right: if you consider the coalition to be solely defined as the physical occupying forces in Iraq, then the absence of Spaniards will not be noticed. If you consider the coalition to consist even partially of international support and goodwill, then Spain's withdrawal could be devastating. Why else is Bush rushing to prop up support from others within the coalition. The New York Times reports,"With the prime minister of the Netherlands beside him, President Bush said today that it was essential that Dutch troops remain in Iraq, both to ensure peace there and to press the campaign against terrorism....Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende was cautious in his remarks, about troop commitments and other issues."

An open question:"how angry is the UN at the US?" The answer is important because the level of hostility will impact how co-operative and generous the UN is during negotiations on a new resolution. (And, whatever The White House says, negotiations are underway right now. Bush will not go to the UN without reason to believe he will not be coldly rejected and internationally/domestically embarrassed.) Around the globe, public regard for the US seems to be at low tide. But I do not know if this is an indication of how the UN would respond to Bush. The UN is a political body of non-elected elitists.. Even Tony Blair - who has the corrective feedback mechanism of popular elections - has flaunted the will of those he"represents." It is not clear that the UN will reflect global opinion as opposed to its own perceived interests. The UN has been pushing Bush hard on a number of non-Iraq issues, such as US support for its campaigns on AIDS and"women's reproductive health." Some interesting backroom deals may be on the horizon.

For more commentary, please see McBlog.

Trade deficits, Social Security's looming bankruptcy, federal budgets...it is natural for people to focus on the"big (federal) picture" and not on the multitudinous ways in which local, county, and state bureaucracies are going to nickel and dime you into destitution in the coming months. They have to. City Halls are facing the same sort of fiscal crunch as every other level of government and they have only you to fleece on a most personal level to make up any shortfall. And I'm not talking about the higher"sin" taxes that are being slapped on everything from cigarettes to hunting licenses. Look for the more subtle"taxes." The methods local officials can and will devise to part you with from every thin dime are almost limitlessly inventive. In Indiana, for example, one town is beginning to bill non-residents for police time consumed in traffic accident on highways within a dozen+ miles of the town. Philadelphia has also applied its Yankee know-how. Among other measures, the city is proposing to charge people"to rent DVDs at the library and apply for city jobs." Next year, it may well cost $35 to fill out an employment form. (What the heck...anything that discourages people from becoming podlike civil servants has an upside.) Author's message: don't be so distracted by the federal mega-grabs that you become oblivious to the small-time nickel-and-diming that bleeds your wallet every bit as much.

For more commentary, please visit McBlog.

Is there is going to be a draft? The question is in the air; Time Magazine prominently discussed the issue in its turn-of-the-year (Dec. 29 '03) issue. There is evidence that plans are being slowly and quietly laid to impose one. By now, most people have heard that the government advertised late last year for volunteers to serve as Board Members on local SSSs. (A Selective Service System Local Board is a group of five citizen volunteers who, upon imposition a draft, decide who in their community will receive deferments, postponements, or exemption from military service.} The Bush administration denied that any significance attached to the advertisement but, when media began to comment, the ad abruptly disappeared from the government website. Meanwhile, the SSS has requested $28 million in their 2004 budget, which is $5 million more than their last published budget request. Although this is not indicative of a draft, it does mean that SSS will be expanding and - presumably - its need for manpower will expand accordingly. Also indicative: According to GovExec.com,"The Army's plan to temporarily increase its force levels by 30,000 soldiers could become permanent if a handful of senators can garner support for new draft legislation likely to be included in the fiscal 2005 defense authorization bill." A back-door draft measure?

So far, the military has avoided using a draft by satisfying its manpower demands through "stop loss" orders. Since last November, the US Army has extended its stop loss orders to cover active-duty soldiers deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, preventing some 7000 soldiers from either retiring or being discharged." In an article entitled "Draft Creep" - by which term he refers to stop loss orders -- David Wiggins comments,"Draft creep is a sneaky draft. There is no congressional debate, and no new law is passed for the President to sign. Nonetheless, people are being forced into military service against their will. In other words, they are being drafted, conscripted, or whatever you care to call it. The government chooses to call it"Stop Loss," and it applies to members of the armed forces. After all, what better way is there to initiate a sneaky draft than to start with the group of people least likely to object to a draft, and at the same time, with the least legal rights to fight one?" But stop loss orders are a short term fix, at best. Already the murmuring of discontent within military ranks (not to mention their families) is rising. Enlistment in those agencies is also falling due to such draconian measures.

On the state level, there have been unmistakable moves in that direction. For example, in Alaska, Selective Service registration is now a requirement to get a Permanent Fund check - the annual"oil dividend" check that amounted to over $1,000 last year. Almost every eligible Alaskan registers for the check."The state plans to forward information from the dividend applications to the federal government, which will automatically register the eligible Alaska males who haven't already signed up. Under federal law, men are supposed to register with the Selective Service within 30 days of turning 18. Failure to register is technically punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of as much as $250,000. But a lot of people don't do it."

No one expects such a dramatic and controversial move as the imposition of a draft prior to the November elections. Until November, everything Bush does will be about re-election. Even the release of those explosive military records is an attempt to defuse the controversy surrounding his possible-AWOL and to do so in February rather than in October. The Bush administration wants to explode any political bombshells right here and right now while there are several months of recovery time possible. The clumsiness with which the administration is proceeding may negate the strategy, of course, but I'm betting (and so are they) that people will soon be bored with hearing about Bush's military dental records. Nothing short of a sleazy sex-scandal or the spousal murder of a pregnant wife can sustain public interest for a period extending into months. But, if Bush is re-elected, then I expect a draft to be imposed in early '05.

If Kerry is elected, then probably not. I say"probably" because Kerry is not in principle but merely pragmatically opposed to a draft.

For more commentary, please see McBlog.