Monday, June 25, 2007

Some Individuals Just Don't Get that Bong Hits 4 Jesus is Free Speech

Though I am uncertain where the term “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” was first initiated, I am certain that a banner carrying such a message is a free speech right.

The majority of members of the Supreme Court evidently do not agree with me, or the student, Joseph Frederick, who brought the case into their exalted chambers, but then the justices who make up the court are undoubtedly somewhat out of touch with high school vernacular.  Case in point.

"It was reasonable for (the principal) to conclude that the banner promoted illegal drug use-- and that failing to act would send a powerful message to the students in her charge,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court’s majority.

Excuse me, Mr. Chief Justice John Roberts, high school students quite frequently encourage each other to go fuck themselves.  Is it then reasonable to assume they will then go and do this?  Well, one or two might, but in the main, high school students realize when a message as “sophomoric” as “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” is displayed, it is displayed simply to rattle a few cages and garner a few laughs.

Unfortunately, the ruling in this case, displays the same sophomoric logic as the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” banner and garners no laughs what-so-ever.

‘Bong Hits 4 Jesus’ case limits student rights

Posted by John Venlet on 06/25 at 01:26 PM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Lysander Spooner's Letter to Thomas F. Baynard

Since the founding of these United States, individuals have attempted to live freely.  The success of their endeavor to live freely, encroached upon from the start, continues to be impinged upon by the state.

Lysander Spooner addressed this impingement in many of his writings, and Lysander Spooner’s letter to Thomas F. Baynard provides us with just one example of his thinking regarding freedom from which we can learn.  A short excerpt.

Yet under the pretense that this instrument gives them the right of an arbitrary and irresponsible dominion over the whole people of the United States, Congress has now gone on, for ninety years and more, filling great volumes with laws of their own device, which the people at large have never read, nor even seen nor ever will read or see; and of whose legal meanings it is morally impossible that they should ever know anything. Congress has never dared to require the people even to read these laws. Had it done so, the oppression would have been an intolerable one; and the people, rather than endure it, would have either rebelled, and overthrown the government, or would have fled the country. Yet these laws, which Congress has not dared to require the people even to read, it has compelled them, at the point of the bayonet, to obey.

Via Roderick T. Long’s website, which provides links to other writings of interest to those who value living freely.

Posted by John Venlet on 06/25 at 06:01 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

More Free Speech at Risk

In a post on June 11, 2007, titled Free Speech at Risk, I noted an up coming Supreme Court case, Good News Employee Association vs. Hicks, wherein the court will supposedly rule on individuals’ freedom to say words and phrases such as “family values,” “natural family,” and “marriage.” This case originates out of the Socialist Republic of California.

On the other side of the country, in the up and coming Socialist Republic of New York, the following words and phrases, dealing with real estate marketing, are considered verboten.  “Family friendly,” “nanny’s room,” “near churches,” and “bacherlor pad,” among others.

Though the New York examples, above, are not, at this time anyway, going to be ruled on by the Supreme Court, none-the-less these two instances of repressing speech are closely related.

This constant limiting of speech via the threat of lawsuits due to hurt feelings, political correctness, or what have you, are simply a slow, strangulating death of freedom.

Questions Your Broker Can’t Answer.

Posted by John Venlet on 06/25 at 04:56 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Sunday, June 24, 2007

It's None of New Zealand's Business

Some of the names individuals come up with for their children, these days, are seemingly pulled from thin air.  And the spellings of some of these names are a combination of phonetics, ebonics, pidgin or some other long forgotten language.

I’m not advocating for common monikers, but simply wondering at the sensibility of individuals who tag a child with a name that leaves me shaking my head.

I mention this because of a New Zealand couple who wanted to name their child “4real.”

The couple state the following regarding the selection of this moniker for their child.

Pat and Sheena Wheaton said they decided to name their new baby “4real” shortly after having an ultrasound and being struck by the reality of his impending arrival.

Right.  Some other monikers couples have chosen when “struck by the reality” of an impending child have been “Oops,” “Damn,” “It’snotmine,” “UsaidUpulledout,” and “Whatdowedonow.”

Anyway, the Wheatons, who did choose the name “4real” for their child, have been informed that their chosen moniker is “against the rules” per New Zealand’s Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages.

As ridiculous as the Wheaton’s choice for a child’s name may be, it’s none of the state’s damn business.

N.Z. couple can’t name their son ‘4real’

Posted by John Venlet on 06/24 at 10:45 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Profiting from His Own Legislation

The State of Virginia’s most recent attempt to fill the state’s coffers with funds, fleeced from the pockets of individuals, will not be gathered in the form of taxes, cough, cough, but so called “civil remedial fees,” as reported in this Washington Post article titled Hefty Fees In Store for Misbehaving Va. Drivers.

This legislation, which was co-sponsored by David B. Albo (R-Fairfax) and Thomas D. Rust (R-Fairfax), is beyond odious, and the “civil remedial fees,” simply a hilarious cover name for taxes.

But what I’m wondering about, beyond the ridiculousness of comments such as the following,

But, Albo said: “it’s basically a voluntary tax. If you don’t commit a crime on the streets, or run up a huge amount of points, you don’t pay anything. We believe its main effect will be to get people to stop driving like maniacs."

is how much Albo will personally profit from this legislation, which has been gleefully called the “Lawyer Full Employment Act” by an anonymous attorney.  You see David B. Albo is the co-founder of Albo & Oblon L.L.P., and one of the firm’s specialties is criminal/traffic law.

Traffic court judges fear they will see a huge increase in trials, with defendants unwilling to plead guilty because they know they will face additional fees.

Albo & Oblon L.L.P. may be in for a very profitable year.

Heads up on Albo’s law firm specialization via The Corner.

Posted by John Venlet on 06/24 at 08:05 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Moral Senselessness

In a post titled My moral midgetry, Daniel Drezner points us to a Moral Sense Test, which is sponsored by the Cognitive Evolution Laboratory, Harvard University.

Drezner has this to say about the results from his taking of the test.

In the scenarios I was given, I awarded an average of $129 in fines. The average response of all test takers was approximately $72,000.

So, clearly, I’m a heartless bastard. [And you also like to make fun of short people!!--ed.] Or, I’m more willing to blame fortuna than people when bad but (largely) accidental things happen.

I took the test a moment this morning, and I awarded zero (0) in fines, and I’m having a difficult time reconciling that individuals taking this little morality test are supposedly awarding an average of $72,000, plus, in fines, which seems senseless to me, or a display of moral senselessness on the part of the test takees.

If Drezner’s a heartless bastard, his words not mine, I must be dead.

Posted by John Venlet on 06/24 at 06:41 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Saturday, June 23, 2007

Knocked Sensible

On June 13, 2007, in a post I titled Lights, Action, Camera - You’re Under Arrest, I noted the case of Brian D. Kelly, who was arrested and charged with felony wiretapping for video taping a police office who had pulled over a motorist.

Via a post by Billy Beck, titled Tape The Police, I note today that all charges against Mr. Kelly have been dropped, which is only sensible and just.

But, in an article noting Mr. Kelly’s legal travails as being over, titled Wiretap charge dropped in police video case, we read the following comment uttered by Cumberland County District Attorney David Freed.

"When police are audio- and video-recording traffic stops with notice to the subjects, similar actions by citizens, even if done in secret, will not result in criminal charges,” Freed said yesterday. “I intend to communicate this decision to all police agencies within the county so that officers on the street are better-prepared to handle a similar situation should it arise again."

A cursory review of the above comments by Freed may incline one to give Freed high marks for possessing the sensiblity to drop the charges, and establish a precedent for no further follies of this type in the future.

But, Billy Beck astutely points out the weak kneedness of Freed’s pronouncement in the following comment.

“Better-prepared"? It is an elementary set of principles that should have precluded this. It is because of cops’ claim on a monopoly of force that they must be summarily subject to ordinary observation any and every single time any citizen takes it in mind to do it.

Keep those cameras rolling.

Posted by John Venlet on 06/23 at 06:31 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Friday, June 22, 2007

Aviation History Takes Wing

Though I don’t have a pilot’s license, none-the-less I am fond of aviation.  My eyes enjoy the sight of a plane in the skies, whether a low flying pass, or simply a speck in the sky with contrails.

Here’s a great story about a P38 which had been intombed in the ice, 270 plus feet of ice mind you, for 50 plus years in Greenland.  It took flight again today.  Very cool!

Plane Freed From a Glacier Sets Out for Britain Again

Posted by John Venlet on 06/22 at 04:13 PM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Lobbying for Repression

The so called Center for American Progress and Free Press has published a report titled The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio. The full report, which can be read here, in pdf format, is 40 pages long, and rather tedious reading, though it does have lovely graphs and appendices.

The report laments the number of conservative talk shows and the amount of air time they receive in comparison to so called “progressive radio.” To wit,

Our analysis in the spring of 2007 of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners reveals that 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming is conservative, and 9 percent is progressive.

Each weekday, 2,570 hours and 15 minutes of conservative talk are broadcast on these stations compared to 254 hours of progressive talk—10 times as much conservative talk as progressive talk.

A separate analysis of all of the news/talk stations in the top 10 radio markets reveals that 76 percent of the programming in these markets is conservative and 24 percent is progressive, although programming is more balanced in markets such as New York and Chicago.

Naturally, the center, which bills itself as “progressive” and in favor of a “free press,” believes that this disparity should be made more equal, not through freedom of the airwaves, but by legislation of the airwaves.

Yeah, make a new law, that’ll fix those damn successful conservative talk show operators.  How does that promote “free press?”

Interestingly enough, Matt Drudge provides a link to an audio clip wherein Senator James Inhofe claims he overhead Clinton and Pelosi colluding to limit conservative talk radio through legislation, also.

This article, noting the center’s report, has an interesting comment thread to read regarding this, also.

Legislation does not promote freedom, it impedes it.

Posted by John Venlet on 06/22 at 06:08 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Early Morning Notice

Out for the next couple days.  Back Friday.

Posted by John Venlet on 06/20 at 02:17 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Utilizing Physics to Bitch About Gas Prices and File Lawsuits

The price of gasoline, which goes up and down, based on the laws of supply and demand, is also affected by the laws of physics, at least according to an AP article titled ‘Hot fuel’ said to cheat drivers, which is made available to us via DailyBulletin.com.

Here’s a bit of what the article relates.

It’s not just increased demand that sends summertime gasoline prices soaring. It’s also the increased temperature.

As the temperature rises, liquid gasoline expands and the amount of energy in each gallon drops. Since gas is priced at a 60-degree standard and gas pumps don’t adjust for any temperature changes, motorists often get less bang for their buck in warmer weather.

Consumer watchdog groups warn that the temperature hike could end up costing consumers between 3 and 9 cents a gallon at the pump.

Okay, I understand the physics laws surrounding increased temperatures, and the resulting less energetic gasoline, and that I may be better pumping gas into my vehicle when it’s 60 degrees or colder due to gasoline’s expansion tendencies, but beyond that, the reasoning for the lawsuits, and congressional hearings, seem rather spurious.

Here’s what one lawsuit, filed in Georgia, stipulates.

The latest lawsuit, filed last week in federal district court in Georgia, claims that distributors have been “unjustly enriched” by tens of millions of dollars. They did so by paying taxes on the fuel based on the colder industry standard but pocketing the taxes collected from customers when the temperature soars, it alleged.

So, if I’ve read the above correctly, I’m supposed to be convinced that gasoline distributors are stealing tax monies from the government, when individuals pump gas in hot weather, because the taxes distributors pay when purchasing gas at an industry standard temperature are somehow less than indivduals pay in hot weather.  Quite convoluted reasoning if you ask me, or am I missing something here?

Posted by John Venlet on 06/19 at 03:48 PM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Grand Rapids, Michigan, Smoking Nannyism

The city of Grand Rapids, Michigan has joined the nannying ranks who desire to drive smoking to an underground activity, proposing a $50.00 fine for individuals who violate the city’s workplace smoking ban.

The city’s assistant city manager, Greg Sundstrom, states the following as justification for the $50.00 fine.

Assistant City Manager Greg Sundstrom said a proposed $50 fine for violating the city’s new workplace smoking ban meets his “Three Bears” test.

“It’s not too big, not too small,” Sundstrom said of the fine that city commissioners approved 5-2 today. “Our goal was not to be punitive; we wanted to change behavior."

Now that’s a real adult test of the appropriateness of legislation which impinges upon the rights of individuals and businesses, the “Three Bears” nursery story, which in times of old was read by nannies to little children after being tucked into bed.

And since when is a $50.00 fine not punitive?

Commission approves fines for smoking at work

Posted by John Venlet on 06/19 at 03:25 PM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

A New "New Deal" as Rotten as the Old "New Deal"

H. L. Mencken had this to say about the original “New Deal."

The New Deal began, like the Salvation Army, by promising to save humanity. It ended, again like the Salvation Army, by running flop-houses and disturbing the peace.

I reference the above quote to Kenneth F. Scheve and Matthew J. Slaughter who have penned a piece for Foreign Affairs titled A New Deal for Globalization, which is summarized as follows.

Summary:  Globalization has brought huge overall benefits, but earnings for most U.S. workers—even those with college degrees—have been falling recently; inequality is greater now than at any other time in the last 70 years. Whatever the cause, the result has been a surge in protectionism. To save globalization, policymakers must spread its gains more widely. The best way to do that is by redistributing income.

Scheve’s and Slaughter’s essay utilizes 4,275 words to explain and justify their proposal for a new Rooseveltian salvation, but the above summary provides all one needs to understand that a measure such as this is not salvation, but rather a continued condemnation of individuals at the hands of the state.

Via Arts & Letters Daily.

Posted by John Venlet on 06/19 at 01:51 PM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Stand by the Conviction of Your Words

Representative Tom Price (R-GA) has an op-ed piece in the Washington Times titled When government flounders.

The piece is peppered with words and phrases which could lead one to believe that the man truly thinks that personal responsibility, individual actions and freedom are the cornerstones of American success.

Throughout our history, America has been guided to prosperity and strength by virtues of individual responsibility, optimism and accomplishment.

Or this.

There is an alternative to this Washington-knows-best philosophy. There are those who are committed to stopping the growth of bureaucracy and restoring faith in ourselves. The current leadership void allows for the opportunity to successfully work toward a government that puts people first and restores the trust of the American people. We need to assert our proud heritage and reaffirm American self-reliance. Our culture and our ideals will lead us forward not politicians in Washington.

Unfortunately, I think Mr. Price’s written words, as encouraging as they may be, are sorely lacking in conviction, and as soon as tomorrow’s edition of the Times hits the streets, they will be forgotten.

Posted by John Venlet on 06/19 at 04:25 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Small Victory Against the State

The United Socialist Republic of California quite frequently attempts to overreach its bounds.  Many Californians simply roll over and allow this to happen, even encouraging the state’s continued abuse of freedom, so it’s good to see the state slapped back by the Supreme Court.

A passenger as well as a driver has the right to challenge the legality of a police officer’s decision to stop a car, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously today…

The California Supreme Court found that, consitutionally speaking, only the driver had been “seized” by the stop, and that therefore Mr. Brendlin had no basis for challenging the search that turned up the drugs. The State of California made that argument again when the case was heard before the United States Supreme Court on April 23.

But Mr. Brendlin’s lawyer, Elizabeth M. Campbell, argued that when an officer makes a traffic stop, “he seizes not only the driver of the car, but also the car, and every person and every thing in that car.”

The justices agreed. “When police make a traffic stop, a passenger in the car, like the driver, is seized for Fourth Amendment purposes and so may challenge the stop’s constitutionality,” Justice David H. Souter wrote for the high court.

From the New York Times which titled this news story Supreme Court Upholds Rights for Car Passengers

Posted by John Venlet on 06/19 at 04:08 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Page 2 of 5 pages  <  1 2 3 4 >  Last »