Thursday, February 19, 2004

Keep the F*** Out of My Car

I like New Mexico, I really do.  They have a wonderful trout fishery in the San Juan River and I’ve landed trout over twenty-two inches in length on bugs as small as a size 22 Chocolate Midge. Run your cursor over the photo at that link and see exactly how small that fly is.  But this post isn’t about wonderful January afternoons with a fly rod in my hand.  This post is about this travesty. What travesty is that, you ask?  The travesty of New Mexico’s professional jobholders attempting to enact a law that would require every single vehicle on New Mexico’s roads to have an ignition interlock device, or, in plain English, a breathalyzer installed.

If such an intrusive law is actually enacted, there will soon be no such thing as an illegal search whether you are in your car or your home.  As much as it pains me, if this travesty becomes law, I will no longer visit the San Juan River outside of Farmington, NM.

This story is linked through Drudge, but I have not been able to access the story through the link provided.  I linked this story through Google News’ news search engine.

Update:  Is He Serious? Glenn Reynolds posts a link to this story and notes,

”...Eugene Volokh, who is surprised that people are more exercised over one than the other."

Here’s Eugene Volokh’s entire post.

If I may, I would like to address Eugene’s observation, above.  Rational analysis of why more people are exercised over this than fingerprint gun interlocks should lead one to the conclusion that almost every Tom, Dick and Harry owns a vehicle.  Not everyone owns a handgun, and, in fact, I would posit that a large percentage of New Mexico residents would prefer that individuals not be able to own a handgun.  Got it?

Posted by John Venlet on 02/19 at 01:23 PM
(1) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

And None To Soon

“AP Newsbreak: Bill Moyers to Leave PBS."

Via Drudge.

Posted by John Venlet on 02/19 at 01:18 PM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Eyes Wide Open Apologist

Read this,

"My reference to ‘the great scandal’ of Lenin was not meant as a criticism of Lenin. I do not regard Lenin as a mass murderer, any more than I regard Cromwell, William of Orange, Robespierre, Napoleon, Lincoln, Roosevelt or Churchill as mass murderers.

or this,

"As Stalin said in 1931:

‘We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or they crush us.’

Everything that was defensible in Stalinism, and everything I would defend about the Soviet Union, is in these three sentences. Everything else was negotiable, was debatable, could have been done otherwise, can be criticised, denounced, condemned. And I have done so often enough, but not enough to satisfy you and your ilk. Nothing that I say ever would be, and please God it never will."

Ken MacLeod, self proclaimed ”...member, albeit a bad one, of Trotskyist sects and of the Communist Party. I’m still a socialist, albeit a bad one."

Try as I might, I cannot, and will never, understand individuals who think along these lines.

Posted by John Venlet on 02/19 at 08:07 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Social Security or a Sinking Ship?

"Social Security is a program of dubious constitutionality (which even the government admits) which is nothing more than an intergenerational wealth transfer. It is in no sense a savings or investment or insurance program. It is explicitly not an insurance program, contrary to propaganda, a fact established by the government’s own lawyers when the matter came before the Supreme Court. It is not investment because (1) current revenues mostly go toward current payments and (2) whatever surplus exists is “invested” in non-marketable government bonds (which incidentally reduce the apparent size of the budget deficit.) The government spends all the money it takes in from payroll taxes, but government spending is fundamentally unlike business spending because the government generates almost no sales revenue. When the government spends money it doesn’t do so for the purpose of making a profit and providing a return for investors — it’s consumptive spending, not productive spending."

From Cap’n Arbyte’s look at the Cato Institute’s proposal for Social Security reform.  The post includes links to the pdf file of Cato’s proposal, among others.

Posted by John Venlet on 02/19 at 07:56 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

"Life lesson: If you just want to take it easy, don't join the freakin' army...."

A story about a U.S. soldier who had “a romantic vision" of life in the Army.  Romance is for love, bub.

Via Jon Henke at Questions and Observations.

Posted by John Venlet on 02/19 at 07:41 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

The Situation in San Francisco

I think this comment, “Anarchy? Pfft. Get real." inspired by Bill O’Reilly ranting, sums it up quite well.  Complete with photo.

Posted by John Venlet on 02/19 at 07:16 AM
(1) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Love and Freedom, Understood

Greg Swann. Just read it.

Posted by John Venlet on 02/19 at 07:02 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Dissolution Blues

Here’s the headline, “Maine Town’s Push to Dissolve Itself for Tax Breaks Could Signal Trend." One can only hope, hey?  Of course the head wonkety wonk, Gov. John Baldacci, is opposed.

"Gov. John Baldacci, who opposes allowing Atkinson to dissolve, contends that deorganization would only shift the tax burden, adding about $400,000 to the unorganized territory’s school budget alone.

Via Mises Economics Blog.

Posted by John Venlet on 02/19 at 06:43 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

30 Years Ago

On February 13, 1974 Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn was expelled from the Soviet Union and on February 14, 1974 the Soviet Union formally charged him with treason. Which is somewhat bassackwards since he was now a free man, but the charge was mere propaganda.

On February 19, 1974, Solzhenitsyn’s family was released from Soviet bondage and joined him in Switzerland.

Posted by John Venlet on 02/19 at 06:00 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Wednesday, February 18, 2004

"Ethics Missionaries"

Interesting article in The Chronicle entitled “Before Teaching Ethics, Stop Kidding Yourself." Written by Gordon Marino, who is a professor of philosophy and director of the Hong Kierkegaard Library at Saint Olaf College.  The piece explores the profusion of ethics workshops and professional ethicists, i.e. ”...bioethics, medical ethics, legal ethics, computer ethics, and so forth." From the article.

"Ethics missionaries are driven by the assumption that improving our moral lives is a matter of developing our conceptual understanding and analytical acumen. The fantasy seems to be that if up-and-coming accountants just knew a little more about ethics, then they would know better than to falsify their reports so as to drive up the value of company stock. But sheer ignorance is seldom the moral problem. More knowledge is not what is needed. Take it from Kierkegaard: The moral challenge is simply to abide by the knowledge that we already have."

Via Arts & Letters Daily.

Posted by John Venlet on 02/18 at 10:56 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

It's Just a Piece of Paper

This whole marriage thing is getting out of hand, which would be fine if it was the state’s hands the marriage thing was getting out of.  I mean, seriously, does the piece of paper individuals are prancing around with in San Francisco, with looks of ecstasy in their eyes, “legitimize” the happiness and commitment two individuals pledge between each other?  All hail the state, which, in its infinite goodness, has recognized our union.  Amen and amen.

The only real issue here is in regards to property rights.  Do I, as an individual, have a right to designate another individual, as the beneficiary of my property which the state or a financial institution holds in my name?  The state holds my property, monies taken, unjustly, in the form of taxes because the state does not think I can manage my financial affairs judiciously enough to benefit myself until the time I am unable to provide for myself through my labors.  If I and my spouse don’t have a piece of paper from the state which acknowledges our union, upon my death, my spouse would be denied access to monies owed me by the state.  Is that just?  In the private sector, I can designate monies accumulated to whomever I desire.  The state has no control, which is as it should be.

Health insurance coverage, though for many people is supplied through private business arrangements, is, in actuality, simply an arm of the state.  Health insurance carriers, for the most part, will not cover any partner I may choose to cohabitate with unless I have that piece of paper from the state.  Shouldn’t health insurers only basis for extending coverage to an individual be, can the individual afford the premium based on the risk factors the insurer establishes?  There is no reason for the insurer to bend their business practices to the vagaries of the state.

It is interesting to read various individuals’ responses to what is currently happening in San Francisco.  John Derbyshire quotes Samuel Johnson on martyrdom.  Arnold, supports the rule of law, and Micha Ghertner at Catallarchy offers real insight into this.  Andrew Sullivan views the happenings in San Francisco as “classic civil disobedience." Which I would agree with, which in turns means Andrew should think this is classic civil disobedience.

Thinking about this while walking last night, I kept returning to this email that Sullivan posted from a reader.

"I’d been mulling over this option and although Valentine’s Day isn’t the most opportune time to suggest it, I took advantage of a long car ride this morning to run something past my wife. “If they passed the FMA or if Colorado (where we were married) or Virginia (where we now live) passed some same sex marriage ban, would you consider opting out of our marriage in favor of a civil union.” Before I could explain my rationale she answered, “Oh, absolutely.” Reminded for the 10,000th time why I married her."

So, this morning, I took the marriage license, which legitmizes, in the eyes of the state, my union with the lovely Melis out of the fireproof box.  I sat down with Melis and said, “Let’s burn this.” When she asked “Why?,” I said to her it means nothing to us, it is simply a chain which has been attached to us by the state to legitimize their theft of our dollars for our supposed benefit in our old age.  The only benefit of that piece of paper is to enable Melis or I to petition the state for our property, which the state holds, unjustly, to conform us to the state’s idea of how we should live.  She agreed.  Burn your marriage license.

Marriage is not contained in a piece of paper.

Posted by John Venlet on 02/18 at 07:42 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

A Very Good Idea or a Very Bad Idea?

Godless, at Gene Expression, looks at talk that is floating around in regards to “The War Corps." The idea is that The War Corps would be an all volunteer force, not to protect the interests of the U.S., but to “kill tyrants.” The idea has been mulled over by Wolfowitz, and Godless’ post has a link to Wolfowitz’s mulling.  Godless thinks this is a “very bad idea.”

If the state wasn’t involved in such an entities funding, it could be a very good idea.  I see similarities to the early Greeks and Romans.

Posted by John Venlet on 02/18 at 07:05 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Refusing to Answer

Here’s the basic question that SOTUS will be considering.

"The question before the Court is this: Did Dudley’s refusal to show ID give Deputy Dove the probable cause needed to arrest him? Or is is the Constitutional right of every American to just say ‘no’ when asked to produce ‘the papers’?"

Here’s a link to the Matt Welch post at Hit & Run which brought this to my attention.  Welch’s post has links to the video of the arrest, the “Hiibel-friendly” (Dudley) website, and a link to information on the defense in this case.

Posted by John Venlet on 02/18 at 06:42 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Tuesday, February 17, 2004

Bad Precedent

Here’s the headline blazed across the front page of The Grand Rapids Press. “What are limits to dad’s duty? Daughter’s child-support claim reaches back two decades." The short version.  Man, now 41, rolls in hay with college sweetie in 1982.  Sweetie moves to Florida and has child, unbeknownest to man.  In 1998, roll in hay child’s guardian-grandparents, who have had custody since the love child was five years old, sue the man and a blood test confirms parentage.  The man pays child support for 3 1/2 years, when love child graduates from highschool.  Love child turns 18 and sues Dad, she doesn’t even know, for support back to the day of her birth.  Michigan courts rule for love child to the tune of approximately $100K.

I think this is a crock and a total abrogation of support laws.  This isn’t about support, it’s about greedy revenge.  Read the article and decide for yourselves.

Posted by John Venlet on 02/17 at 03:04 PM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

What About the Evolutionary Angle?

Dennis Prager has a column posted at Townhall.com titled “Why young women are exposing themselves: Part one." Within the the column, Prager lists five reasons he thinks are the answers to the question posed in the title.  “Equality,” “death of femininity,” “gender role reversal (i.e. stay at home dads working moms),” and “lack of sexual reticence.” Prager also throws a nod to peer pressure, or what I call the lemming defense, and the women purchase what the stores are selling copout.

I’m wondering if evolutionary factors come into play, or, display?

Posted by John Venlet on 02/17 at 01:58 PM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Page 6 of 13 pages « First  <  4 5 6 7 8 >  Last »