Tuesday, March 28, 2006

The End Does Not Justify The Means, Nor Do His Words Support It - A Fatal Flaw

On Sunday, March 26, The Wall Street Journal published a piece by Charles Murray who is a W. H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.  Mr. Murray has recently published a new book titled “In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State” and the WSJ graciously provided their pages as a marketing opportunity for Mr. Murray to move a few more copies of his book.

When reading the title to Mr. Murray’s book, one could be tempted to think that Mr. Murray is advocating a worthy goal, removal of the State’s hands from our various pockets and elimination of the State’s misguided attempts at wealth re-distribution via social security, medicare and welfare programs.  A portion of Mr. Murray’s words, as published in the WSJ, could also be interpreted as supporting removal of the State’s pernicious meddling in matters which should be left to the natural actions of the market, or, returned to the hands of individuals.

Mr. Murray’s proposal, though, does not, as he states at the end of this piece in the WSJ, ”...put responsibility for our lives back in our hands—ours as individuals, ours as families, and ours as communities.”  Mr. Murray’s proposal simply appears to put responsibility back into individuals’ hands, but the actual methodology suggested by Mr. Murray proves, without a doubt, that the responsibility will not be delegated to the individual, where it belongs, but will remain with the State, as the following excerpt from Mr. Murray’s “The Plan,” demonstrates:

“Instead of sending taxes to Washington, straining them through bureaucracies and converting what remains into a muddle of services, subsidies, in-kind support and cash hedged with restrictions and exceptions, just collect the taxes, divide them up, and send the money back in cash grants to all American adults.”

Back to the drawing board, Mr. Murray, your plan is fatally flawed.

The article in the WSJ is titled “A Plan to Replace the Welfare State.”

Posted by John Venlet on 03/28 at 09:00 AM
(1) CommentsPermalink

Friday, March 24, 2006

Drunk With Power

The State of Texas has begun arresting individuals for being drunk, in bars.  According to Carolyn Beck, a spokesperson for the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, the decision to conduct sting operations right in the bar, or what I would term trolling for drunks, is based on the commissions “feelings,” as evidenced by this quote:

“We feel that the only way we’re going to get at the drunk driving problem and the problem of people hurting each other while drunk is by crackdowns like this…”

No word on when the commission will begin “feeling” that two drinks is the maximum number of drinks an individual may be served during a 24 hour period.

Finding drunks in a bar—what are the chances?

Posted by John Venlet on 03/24 at 07:56 AM
(0) CommentsPermalink

Thursday, March 23, 2006

Good, But Not Good Enough

Kathleen Sebelius’, Governor of the State of Kansas, supposed infinite wisdom has been found lacking by the professional job holders, lackeys all, who surround her with their plaintive calls for this and that for the “good of the people.”

It will now be legal in Kansas, well, as long as you obtain a piece of paper with the appropriate lackeys’ lackey’s signature, to carry a concealed weapon.  Sebelius had vetoed the bill, which had been passed by both the House and the Senate, but both the House and the Senate overrode, for the first time in 12 years I might add, Sebelius’ veto.

This is good, as I reference in the title to this post, but not good enough.  The better examples of how it should be are the states of Alaska and Vermont which do not require a note from the State acknowledging you as a citizen worthy enough to carry a concealed weapon.

Now if only the federal government would keep their sticky little fingers out of this right.

Kansas Becomes 39th Conceal Carry State

Here’s a link to the bill itself, Senate Bill No. 418.  The senate bill link is in pdf format.

Posted by John Venlet on 03/23 at 03:11 PM
(0) CommentsPermalink

Monday, March 13, 2006

V is for Vacuousness, too

V for Vendatta will be splashing across the big screens, beginning March 17th, and the commentary I’ve read to date, here, here, and here, all seem to prattle on about revolutions and terrorists.  The various writers associated with these commentaries also do their best to continue the obfuscation of the actual meaning of anarchy, preferring to utilize the word as a scare tactic/smear rather than as a nod to self determination.  I wonder if any of the writers have actually read “V for Vendatta?”

Granted, the protagnist, V, is at times a rather violent fellow, but the nuanced message relayed by Alan Moore and David Lloyd’s graphic novel is seemingly lost in an orgy of violence/chaos in the minds of the writers, linked above, who do not seem to grasp that freedom begins with the individual, and dies by the State.

UPDATE:  Richard Roeper isn’t falling for the spin on “V for Vendatta.”  Here’s the title to Roeper’s piece on the subject at hand:

“Don’t fall for false mask being put on ‘Vendetta’”

Posted by John Venlet on 03/13 at 05:53 PM
(5) CommentsPermalink

Firing It Up With A Quote

“Free inquiry is blocked by the idiotic certainties of ignorant men.”

H. L. Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy, The South, The Sahara of Bozart, pg. 216

Posted by John Venlet on 03/13 at 05:41 PM
(0) CommentsPermalink