Monthly Archives: December 2010

Dear Readers,

I went though DuelingBarstools’ 2010 blog posts and selected my favorites. They’re linked below. I’d be curious to know what you liked the best.

Happy New Year and Good Luck.

p.s. My favorite piece of original writing was Talking Points With Merit: Law and Order Edition (“Justice is complete where no one is coerced and pure equal treatment is the rule for all state action.”)

–

She Speaks For Herself (What fascism looks like)

Protest Day For Geert Wilders (In defense of free speech)

Gary Johnson Anecdote (Because the Dude abides)

Perhaps When Pigs Fly (Mocking the GOP’s fecklessness)

When Common Sense Hits Home (In which I take to task the most visible portion of the Tea Party for failing to consistently apply its purported philosophy to its partisan and ideological beliefs)

Mama Grizzly Bear Alert (In which logic KTFO HeyTammyBruce )

Tea Party Sentiment Reflects Gary Johnson’s Approach to Government (In which I identify the strong correlation between what the Tea Party says and what Gary Johnson has a track record of doing)

A Friday’s Ramblings: Religion, Voluntaryism, and Neoconservatism (A bumbling, stumbling, wide ranging rant that I enjoyed writing)

Law Review: Who is Hawaiian, What Begets Federal Recognition, and How Much Blood Matters (Link to my first published law review article)

Islamic Art: Then v. Now (Pointing out that for much of Islam’s history Muslims didn’t have a problem with pictures of Mohammed)

23 Taxi Innovations (My favorite cab post of the year, and I love cab posts)

Show Allah What You’re Made Of (In which a brave woman who was probably raised Muslim tells Islamic fundamentalists to fuck off)

A Case For Mixed Martial Arts (Fact: MMA is safer for athletes than American Football)

A Surprising Example of Two Basic Truths (Illustrating that many state and federal regulations are unnecessary, and inefficient business structures cannot compete with efficient businesses unless they enjoy a significant competitive advantage – low hanging fruit, I know)

Collectivism (Dueling with the managing editor of The Root)

Open Letter to GOP (Written in the wake of Scott Brown’s Senate win in Massachusetts earlier this year)

See you around the bar.

Came across this article remembering the 100 million 20th century victims of Communism:

“I was deported to Siberia when I was fourteen and 1.7 million other Polish people shared the same fate,” said former Polish Soldier Romuald E. Lipinski. “The majority of the 1.7 million perished in Siberian mines and labor camps. People were dying like flys.”

Lithuanian Ambassador Audrius Bruzga delivered a somber speech about Communist aggression that resembled a eulogy. Bruzga stated his purpose saying, “To first and foremost remember those who were slain by totalitarian regimes in many countries including my country of Lithuania. For over 50 years we were a captive nation that endured Soviet oppression that consisted of mass deportation and labor camps. Now as a free nation we have a duty to honor those who lost their lives to Communism and to send a message that communism must be condemned.”

Communism’s horrors are the predictable end of what I wrote about the other day- the dangerous notion that one “can or should collectivize and control individuals by directing and proscribing their actions.”

Here’s Steve Sailer discussing the merits of learning of children learning Mandarin versus learning Spanish, etc. It made me think about something a friend of mine said last night:

The only people in the world who don’t want to learn English are Mexicans in America.Wtf?

Excellent interview / article with Gary Johnson here. Excerpts below:

Government spending must be halted, even in politically hazardous areas such as defense and Social Security, or it will destroy the country and the American way of life, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson tells Newsmax.TV. The possible presidential candidate also advocates a system of work visas to deal with the illegal immigration problem.

“I think that the biggest threat to national security is the fact that we spend more money than what we take in,” said Johnson, a Republican who was New Mexico’s governor for two terms.

“I think the biggest threat to our way of life is the fact that we have spent more money than we can afford, putting us in a state of bankruptcy, and unless we address this situation now, I think that we’re going to be left with no country at all,” he said during the exclusive interview.

Republican Gary Johnson says legalizing marijuana would reduce deadly border violence by 75 percent. He advocates swift approval of legal work visas. Johnson also proposes immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. Both the states and the federal government ended up in dire financial straits the same way — through “political promises that were made that should have never been made,” said Johnson, who tagged Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and defense as the “big four” government promises.

To deal with Medicaid and Medicare, he advocated a system of block grants that would leave “the delivery of healthcare to the poor and those over 65 to the states.”

Although Social Security needs to be reformed, he said it is not nearly the problem Medicare is. Nonetheless, he said the retirement age needs to be raised and benefits should be reduced.

“With regard to defense, I don’t think we can continue to spend more money than all the other countries in the world combined when we’re only 5 percent of the world’s population,” he said. “This is a new world reality that is going to require the United States to stop being the world’s sheriff. We can’t continue to nation build when we have our own nation to build.”

Noting that the United States now borrows 43 cents of every dollar spent, he advocated withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan.

“We should be out of Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow,” he said. “I think that the issues that we will face by getting out of those two countries will be the same tomorrow as they would be 25 years from now.”

To me that’s the strongest reason to get out now. I watched Hannity last night, George W. Bush was on making the case for why it’s important to stay in Afghanistan etc. He’s right in many ways, but Johnson’s right too in that the shit we’re there now trying to stop is going to hit the proverbial fan when we leave, whether that’s now or later. So GTFO now.

A year ago, Johnson started Our America Initiative, which he described as a political advocacy group that would put a voice to the national outrage over the deficit spending and to look at solutions. He said he also is trying to broaden the Republican base so Americans might give the GOP another chance at governing.

“I don’t know why citizens might do that, though, given the fact that, in the mid-’90s, they gave Republicans that chance. And I think Republicans blew it by passing a prescription healthcare benefit and running up record deficits when they controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency.”

On the subject of illegal immigration, Johnson advocates a system that would make it as easy as possible to get a work visa but cautioned that it would not be a green card or citizenship. It would entail a background check and require paying applicable taxes.

“With regard to the 11 million illegal immigrants that are in this country right now I would set up a grace period by which they can get a legal work visa, again not a green card, not citizenship, but a legal work visa,” he said. “And then once you’ve set this up, once you allow that grace period to pass, then make it a one strike you’re out: If you’re in this country illegally you’re going to be arrested, you’re going to be deported, and you’re not going to come back.”

Johnson, a former businessman and avid outdoorsman who has been mentioned as a possible presidential candidate, refused to give a yes or no when asked whether he will run. The legal status of the Our America Initiative “does not allow me to comment about running for political office,” he said.

On other issues, Johnson said:

• The tax system is unfair and doesn’t promote growth, innovation, or entrepreneurship.
• The corporate income tax should be eliminated.
• The “devil is always in the details” when it comes to a flat tax, which could turn into a tax increase.
• If marijuana were legalized, border violence would be reduced 75 percent.
• He supports a woman’s right to choose abortion until the time of viability.
• He favors gay civil unions.
• Obamacare should be repealed, along with prescription healthcare benefit passed when Republicans controlled Congress and the White House.

Reason points to and LOLs at an Old Gray Mare editorial whining about Randy Barnett’s proposed Constitutional Amendment that would permit States to overturn a federal action if two thirds of state legislatures consent to do so. Here’s the OGM aka cranky mule on Federalism:

These flaws make the proposed amendment self-defeating, but they are far less significant than the mistaken vision of federalism on which it rests. Its foundation is that the United States defined in the Constitution are a set of decentralized sovereignties where personal responsibility, private property and a laissez-faire economy should reign. In this vision, the federal government is an intrusive parent.

I totally agree. A plain reading of the Constitution makes clear states are decentralized sovereigns, and the federal government has little to no authority to abrogate individual freedom by according personal responsibility to others through the force of the state, infringing on private property, or establish de facto or de jure a planned economy. All of which happens, regrettably, all of the fucking time. If I hadn’t already suffered through law school, where professors preach a version of “federalism” that Cass Sunstein wrote and the OGM heartily endorse, I’d be curious to hear what the OGM’s editorial board thinks is a proper vision of federalism. Reason also points to a Cato article taking the OGM to task. Read it.

Via Steve Sailer, from a friend of his in Turkey:

“Life is innocent and just” said Nietzsche — to invert the ridiculous, phony pessimism of Liberalism which can’t get over thinking that “life is unfair” and that the bloody Gov’ment should do something about it… as if It ever could.

Pain is an extreme form of sensitivity. And Fear — the anticipation of Pain -- is Nature’s way of whispering in your ear “Look out, buddy; I’m here. I’m not to be disrespected. Ever.“

Yup.

Like I’ve said before (and Occimattic before me), life is obviously not fair since the same God that made Bradd Pitt made Danny Devito. The best we can do is treat each other equally and eliminate coercion so that each individual can best rise or fall on his/her respective merits. And we must demand pure equal treatment from government because it has the monopoly on force.

Latest press release from the OUR America Initiative. Gary Johnson is en route to New Hampshire. Alert the masses, that we may live more freely amongst ourselves before we die.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:  Sue Winchester

801.303.7924

media@ouramericainitiative.com

NEWS RELEASE

Gary Johnson, Honorary Chairman of OUR America Initiative, to visit New Hampshire for a fifth time; says 2011 Congress must get spending under control

Former Governor of New Mexico to speak at various political events; focus on lowering taxes and restraining federal spending

December 27, 2010, Santa Fe, NM —Gary Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico and Honorary Chairman of the OUR America Initiative, announced today he will visit New Hampshire for a fifth time in early January, speaking at public events and meeting with various political organizations, where he will call for fiscal restraint as Congress prepares to convene for the new year.

Governor Johnson, a hard line budget watcher, and self-proclaimed ‘most fiscally conservative Governor’ in the country, believes the U.S. government must focus on aggressively cutting spending – as soon as possible. “This is a crucial time in American politics, as we look to a newly elected Congress in 2011 to stop the insanity of federal spending,” Governor Johnson stated.  “Republicans in Congress must be vigilant as never before when it comes to the nation’s pocketbook – we need to get our spending under control.  From putting an end to the exorbitant costs of the war in Afghanistan, to ensuring that the Bush Tax-Cuts become permanent for all Americans, now is the time to make the difficult financial decisions to put our country back on track. I truly believe that our national debt is currently our greatest threat to national security.”

During the January trip, Governor Johnson will meet with various political and liberty organizations in New England, where he will continue to focus on key issues such as: lowering taxes, cutting deficits, calling for the end of the war in Afghanistan, reasonable immigration reform, the failure of the war on drugs, and other timely public policy issues.

As Governor of New Mexico, from 1994 to 2002, Johnson was known for his common-sense business approach to governing. He eliminated New Mexico’s budget deficit, cut the rate of growth in state government in half and privatized half of the state prisons. During his term, New Mexico experienced the longest period without a tax increase in the state’s history. Additionally, Governor Johnson vetoed 750 bills (which was more than all the combined vetoes of the other 49 governors in the country at the time) and exercised thousands of line item vetoes.

Since launching OUR America in 2009, Governor Johnson, a well-respected advocate of responsible government spending and limited government intervention, has traveled to 32 states around the country, engaging the public in open dialogue regarding pertinent issues of the day, including: lowering taxes, reducing deficits and creating jobs. Governor Johnson also supports marijuana legalization, immigration work visas and ending the war in Afghanistan, a conflict he has repeatedly stated the United States can no longer afford.

Governor Johnson will be in the state from January 3^rd through January 8^th, visiting the following areas: Portsmouth, Seacoast, Concord, Keene, Lebanon, Manchester, Golden Triangle and Nashua. Please contact Sue Winchester at media@ouramericainitiative.com or 801.303.7924 to schedule an interview with Gary Johnson.

# # #

The OUR America Initiative is a national issue based advocacy committee. Key issues include: Solving the Economic Crisis and Creating Jobs; Lowering the Federal Deficit; Civil Liberties; Fighting the War on Drugs; Immigration Policy; and Taxes.  Additional information can be found at www.ouramericainitiative.com. Twitter: http://twitter.com/GovGaryJohnson.

Excellent read here on the dangers of sovereign debt:

Still, accumulating excessive debt is far too easy. Spending naturally rises faster than revenue. But once the fatal spiral begins, how can a state escape disaster? There are only eight options: (1) higher taxes; (2) less spending; (3) more growth; (4) more lenient interest rates; (5) worse inflation; (6) war; (7) external aid; or (8) default. All eight options have been used in the past, but only one of them is both plausible and desirable today: growth. A growing economy (which raises tax revenue) permits the absorption of debt and restores sustainable public finances. Then borrowing can resume—if it will encourage further growth. Responsible governments do not finance their everyday expenses by borrowing, and they keep their investments at a level they can repay.

History offers one final lesson. The power of sovereign states can foster a sense of impunity that encourages excessive debt. In the past, sovereign states have sometimes rid themselves of creditors by simply driving them out (as they did repeatedly with Europe’s Jews), by tormenting them, or by simply refusing to pay. When modern states borrow from a range of anonymous investors on global markets, sovereign immunity protects their assets against seizure—China cannot seize the White House as collateral for U.S. Treasury debt. But creditors can still negotiate, even with sovereign debtors. When a state loses the market’s confidence, the threat of a financial cutoff is a jolt back to reality. Just ask Greece, as its leaders scramble to reduce its public deficit as quickly as possible. The West needs to wake up now, shake off the yoke of public debt, and take the path of liberty. That path is long and difficult. It means balancing budgets and stabilizing the financial sector. But the great reward will be a return to confidence and growth—for those who put in the effort, and for those with the audacity to see it through.

Debt’s important to think about, particularly when the deficit last year was actually 2.1 trillion, rather than the 1.3 trillion figure commonly reported.

Interesting and informative article here on what the tradition of freedom owes Athens. It’s fascinating read that touches on a wide number of subjects. Here’s an excerpt from about mid-way through:

Socrates represented a reality that Athens, after the Peloponnesian debacle, did not want to see or remember. The return to democracy following the brief period of dictatorship was accompanied by an amnesty law, which quickly became an amnesia law. To bring up past quarrels was forbidden. Mentioning the disorder that had divided the city, or even the military defeat itself, became taboo. Thus Socrates’s outspokenness, which made Athens famous, proved profoundly troubling to the war-sick Athenians themselves. But by making free speech a capital crime, Athens acted against its own past. The city, already worn out, eliminated itself, its own genius, along with Socrates.

The philosopher could have fled, but he was 70; he had no interest in leaving the city. He rejected his loyal friends’ proposals for escape. He wanted to drink the hemlock. His name had been linked unshakably with the great Athenian intellectual revolution, and he would not allow it to be forgotten. And he succeeded: from his death sprang a new blossoming of philosophy. In a strange resurrection, a number of logoi sokratikoi emerged—improvisational theatrical performances in which eccentric characters, all calling themselves “Socrates,” waited on street corners to question passersby about their convictions. With his death, Socrates sealed his destiny. His questioning resonates infinitely, to the dismay of those who hold power and claim absolute knowledge.

Athens taught us that free will and critical thinking go together. The necessity of submitting celestial voices and their dictates to the painstaking criticisms of reason is a matter not of pride but of modesty: it is not because I think myself good or intelligent, but because I know I am fallible and capable of deceiving myself, that I am bound to investigate oracles, just as Socrates did with the Delphic message. The evil spirit—perhaps myself—“often disguises itself as an angel of light,” Immanuel Kant later observed. To think is to defend one’s freedom against one’s imagination and to guard against a deceiving God, for “we were all children before becoming men,” as Descartes said, and spent many years governed by our passions, not our reason.

To believe that it is enough to believe is a pathology that threatens every religion, even a secular and materialist one. To listen to voices without ever questioning them is superstition. To fail to examine the authenticity of one’s commitments is arrogance. The combination of superstition and arrogance yields fanaticism: God is in me, and I am in God; there is no point in thinking, since my brain already occupies a little part of paradise. Free thought, by contrast, requires us to look reality, including unfortunate reality, in the eye. In response to the claims of a prayer that commands, implores, and requires, Aristotle proposes a cool attention that points out and observes. Non-pathological religions distinguish the temporal and the spiritual: king and priest in the Bible, caliph and preacher among the Muslims, the way of the world and the way of faith in the Christian tradition. “I believe in order to understand,” say Augustine and Anselm, the first intellectuals of post-Roman civilization.

To discover one’s freedom is to recognize a capacity for self-intoxication and self-deception, and thus to condemn oneself to doubt. This experience of freedom is primary for a current of modern philosophy, just as it was for the thinkers of antiquity. Descartes, in this sense Socrates’s son, called it “a freedom, by which we can refrain from admitting to a place in our belief aught that is not manifestly certain and undoubted, and thus guard against ever being deceived.”

Excellent read here via a Ron Paul email listserve I subscribe to:

At the culminating point of the movie A Few Good Men, Colonel Jessup, played magnificently by Jack Nicholson, angrily tells the truth and shockingly incriminates himself. The interrogating lawyer LT Daniel Kaffee (Tom Cruise), in his moment of victory, refuses to gloat. Instead, he abruptly ends his interrogation and demands that rule of law prevail, saying, “The defendant has rights!”

The famous courtroom scenes from this movie are well-known and oft-quoted by many Americans. A Few Good Men is formulaic, but it is the formula we particularly love – proud patriots who believe in right and wrong, in black and white, in law over lawlessness, Davids who fight a powerful Goliath. Against all odds, eventually our heroes win when the powerful and vindicating truth is revealed for all to see.

In another time, this would be the story of Bradley Manning.

A Few Good Men dramatically exposes the deformation and distortion of right and wrong that is the very demand of state utilitarianism, which is to say, an action is right if is promotes the state’s happiness, and an action is wrong if it tends to make the state unhappy. Colonel Jessup called for the harsh physical punishment of a “substandard Marine” and thus Corporal Santiago was killed by his comrades. The state, represented by Jessup, explains, “…Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives….”

Charged but not convicted of any crime, American PFC Brad Manning is being held largely incommunicado at Quantico, without bedding or permission to exercise in his cell. He is purposely deprived of human contact. His current treatment – based on unproven charges – is far harsher than the treatment and sentences of four famous and convicted US federal-level spies.

Former FBI agent Robert Hanssen was arrested in early 2001, and charged with selling secrets to the Soviets during the preceding two decades. Upon arrest, Hanssen confessed and was able to hire as an attorney the extremely competent Plato Cacheris, who negotiated a plea bargain. After an entire career spent profiting from the sale of classified information to the Soviets and later the Russian Federation, he is held at Supermax in isolation. Well, not exactly like Brad Manning – Hanssen has bedding, books, and exercise.

The case of career CIA employee and horrific spy/profiteer, Aldrich Ames, is also instructive. After his arrest and lawyer-facilitated plea bargain, Ames was not held forever in isolation at a Supermax-style facility. Instead, he resides at Allenwood Federal Prison with the general population, and is able to receive visitors and to correspond with people outside the prison on issues of current interest.

Two other famous convicted federal-level spies of the same era include Army Warrant Officer James Hall and Army Colonel George Trofimoff. These military officers who sold secrets were not tortured, nor were they deprived of their constitutional rights to a fair defense. Even though they are convicted military spies, they are serving less intensive punishments than either Ames or Hanssen, and were treated far better than PFC Manning.

Manning is not accused of selling secrets, or profiting from their release. Washington has made charges; it suspects Manning is partly responsible for publicly embarrassing the federal security apparatus. But as the Pentagon and the State Department both admit, even if Manning was the source of some government documents, the revelations did not seriously impact government operations.

What has changed? Is Brad Manning thought by government to be a different kind of criminal? Has what he is alleged to have done more evil, more dangerous, more damaging than previous crimes, or even the crimes he may have exposed? Or is it Americans themselves who have changed, with a new 21^st century sangfroid?

The Constitution languishes and the state has surged since 9/11. Americans, by and large, still accept the strawmen arguments for giving up their liberty. The modern American is afflicted, not blessed, with an overgrown and paranoid state, as this timeline of the evolution of solitary confinement in the land of the free and the home of the brave illustrates. Administrative lockdown – torture really – is the new black in the fashion of American governance, and many Americans politely applaud it.

Bradley Manning’s incarceration has been clearly designed to punish, to threaten, and to pressure him, and to frighten thousands of others who have access to records of government criminality and idiocy, and may be having pangs of conscience. To date, Manning has not confessed or plead guilty to any crime, despite months of pressure by his military-appointed defense team (only recently replaced by civilian attorney David Coombs). He is deprived of pillow and sheets as an apparent means of coercing some testimony that would help the government create a separate case against the Australian Julian Assange and Wikileaks.

Keeping secrets – shutting down critics and eliminating public dissent – is the lifeblood of the state, and a reliable marker of totalitarianism. The mistreatment of Brad Manning while in military custody continues. As with others before him, Manning may be permanently physically and psychologically damaged before it’s over. This calculated destruction of a real human being is no accident. It is a widely practiced technique of despotic government at any level – whether in a disturbed family, in a prison or mental hospital, or by a government ostensibly put in place through a democratic process. Despotic government is sustained by silence, by blindness, by fear. It is destroyed by shared truth, by open eyes, and by a few courageous souls to lead the way.

Thus, Brad Manning is made out to be a different kind of criminal, one far more deadly to the state than international spies, profiteers, murderers and cheats. He angered the state when he exposed a few of its many crimes. Instead of thanking Brad Manning for revealing weaknesses in their secret-keeping mechanisms – the state became enraged and violent, and now demands his moral and spiritual destruction. Inseparable from Washington’s call for Brad Manning’s continued torture and deprivation of rights is Washington’s public political cheerleading for the detention and death of Australian Julian Assange.

The state believes that Brad Manning’s death, though tragic, will save lives of those the state deems valuable. Washington believes that Julian Assange’s death, while unfortunate, is necessary to maintain good order and discipline among the ruled.

The state indeed is at fault, but at least the US government assaults on Brad Manning, and on Julian Assange, are battles for nothing less than its own survival. If we do not believe in the state, we cannot be ruled by it. This is the fundamental lesson of the rise and fall of empires, from Rome to the Soviet Union.

In A Few Good Men, Lt Kaffee battled state-utilitarianism, in the face of near certain public humiliation, the almost certain end of his career, and the extreme likelihood of professional and personal failure. When he rose to the challenge, and took a great risk to do the right thing, the audience felt a rush of pride, cheering his achievement, and sharing a real sense of what we like to think it means to be an American. Brad Manning is both the hero in our modern story, as well as the defendant. If we as Americans cannot cheer him, because we are numb, fearful, afraid, and have forgotten our principles, at the very least we must be able to stand up and loudly proclaim, “The defendant has rights!”

LRC columnist Karen Kwiatkowski, Ph.D. [send her mail], a retired USAF lieutenant colonel, blogs occasionally at Liberty and Power and The Beacon. To receive automatic announcements of new articles, click here or join her Facebook page.

A while ago I started following @HeyTammyBruce on Twitter. I found a few of her tweets funny, and in general found her political views interesting. From what I could tell she seems to support equal treatment for homosexuals, and I can’t recall her endorsing the war on drugs. Her views on Obamacare, Obama, liberals, democrats, progressives, spending, debt, and taxes, are consistently TeaGOP stances. She’s also a big fan of Sarah Palin. Many of her tweets are Sarah Palin retweets, addressed to Sarah Palin, or otherwise endorsing Sarah Palin.

DuelingBarstool’s readers know that I genuinely like and respect Sarah Palin. She’s tough as nails, and embodies many of the qualities that made America prosperous and great. I particularly appreciate that she’s an entrepreneur, both in business and politics. I believe she gets a raw deal from the legacy media and the left in general. I also think she’s unqualified to be President or serve in the Senate. I think she’s suited to the House of Representatives, and would do well there. She’s also a very effective advocate in her current station.

The primary reason I wouldn’t support Sarah Palin for President or Senate is that I’ve seen no evidence that she took the time for self-study or gave critical thought to foreign policy or Constitutional issues until she was McCain’s pick. So when I read what Palin thinks about foreign policy I take it about as seriously as I do when Obama says anything about topics that I don’t believe he seriously thought about until he was responsible for them, such as crafting military strategy. I’m confident Obama and Palin have capable advisors, and I may at times agree with their views. But on a number of issues I don’t think either of them arrived at their conclusions through self-study and critical analysis. Or that they’ve independently considered counter arguments to the partisan or ideological positions they espouse.

It’s true that no individual could be personally knowledgeable about everything a President is responsible for. Perhaps no one is qualified to be President. But HeyTammyBruce appears to endorse Sarah Palin for president. So I posed a question to her on Twitter in regard to whether she knew if Palin had given critical thought to foreign policy before being McCain’s vice presidential pick. Here’s the exchange.

Me:

do you have any evidence that Palin critically studied and formed cogent opinions re foreign policy before VP run?

HeyTammyBruce’s responses:

[Palin] commanded 49^th missile defense battalion of AK national guard, protects entire nation from ballistic missile attacks …

As Gov AK, Palin was briefed on highly classified military issues, homeland security, and counterterrorism …

Palin also commanded AK state defense force (ASDF), incorporated homeland security’s counterterrorism plans. …

That’s a tiny bit on the unique position of AK gov. A bit more involved, I’d say, a ‘community organizer’ from Chicago …

In other words, Palin was entrusted with our national security and foreign affairs before Obama decided to become golfer in chief.

I responded:

I didn’t vote Barry for prez for precisely that reason …

To which HeyTammyBruce responded:

Good for you. AK Govs are in particularly unique national security position. Palin had experience before VP pick and lots after as well.

Me:

Those roles and positions do not prove prior critical analysis or cogent logic anymore than [Barack Obama’s] job makes him now an expert.

Plus she quit being gov to … be popular? I wish she’d run for Congress, personally.

HeyTammyBruce:

“You have to learn things through Twitter and you question someone else’s capabilities? ROFL! Here’s another lesson: ur blocked.”

Me (post block, I think):

You offered weak circumstantial evidence and failed to answer my question. Now you resort to ad hominem attack. Poor showing.

That HeyTammyBruce sure has thin Palin-skin. To recap, my question was whether HeyTammyBruce has evidence of Sarah Palin seriously studying and analyzing foreign policy prior to being thrust to the national stage as McCain’s pick. Her answer is apparently yes, offering as evidence the fact that Palin was entrusted with several important national security responsibilities during her half term as governor of Alaska.

By HeyTammyBruce’s logic, I would be a ROFL-dolt for asking an Obama supporter on Twitter whether he/she has evidence of Obama devoting self-study and critical thought to any particular realm of presidential responsibility that to my knowledge he appears not to have committed any. Obviously Obama has critically studied and formed cogent opinions on every realm of presidential responsibility because he has been entrusted with them for nearly two years.

Got that? Put charitably (it is Christmas, after all), she gave me the right answer to a question I didn’t ask – ie: “Does Palin have any experience relevant to foreign policy?” The follow up question would be whether in consideration of being responsible for those roles if elected governor, did she devote time self-study and critical thought on those issues.

HeyTammyBruce: I asked you a serious question on an important topic regarding an a person you wholeheartedly support. If you’d asked me the same question about Gary Johnson, whom I endorse for president, I’d point you to a number of articles where he discusses in frank terms his personal political evolution, from supporting McGovern as a young man (“because of the [Vietnam] war”) to supporting the war in Afghanistan in 2001, but not the Iraq war in 2003, and what and why he’d do about it now if he were commander in chief. Moreover, his foreign policy views largely diverge from both major political parties. Gary Johnson swims against mainstream political thought, suggesting extensive self-study and analysis, as well as a strong sense of conviction in his conclusions.

(In case you’re counting characters, from “I’d point …” to “conclusions.” would be four tweets (481 characters with spaces). HeyTammyBruce took the time to send me seven tweets.)

I’d also tell HeyTammyBruce that I’ve heard Gary Johnson say in person that he makes a point to read the editorial pages of both the NYT and WSJ so he gets both sides. I’d relay the recent interview quoting Gary Johnson as saying that when his wife to be asked him what book she could read to understand his political worldview, he told her Atlas Shrugged. Because he believes in individual freedom. That’s where his political compass points. As a rule, the man’s political views are the result of self-study, critical analysis, vigorous debate, and open minded exposure to contrary points of view. Consider, for instance, his well-known stance against the war on drugs. Gary Johnson was writing persuasive essays on why America should end the disastrous war on drugs back when GWB was the owner of a baseball team. Whatever you think about Gary Johnson’s political worldview, you may rest assured he came to it after much study and critical analysis.

Unfortunately that quality is exceedingly rare amongst politicians. (Sidenote: I can tell you for sure and for certain that Col. Allen West has formed his opinions through self-study, critical analysis, vigorous debate, and open-minded exposure to contrary points of view, not to mention first hand experience in war and the management of war. As such, I respect his opinions, including where I disagree with him. Also, I’d like to be a fly on the wall every time he gives a piece of his mind to the Congressional Black Caucus.)

I simply asked whether HeyTammyBruce had evidence of Sarah Palin possessing that important quality. I thought she’d know, since she’s an outspoken Palin fan. It’s a simple question, and her failure to answer it speaks volumes.

by Alex Fidel

The FCC will vote on a measure to implement neutrality regulations, effectively bypassing Congress. Reason has reported extensively on this issue:

The Federal Communication Commission will vote today on a Net Neutrality system that it may not have the right to enforce. Champions of the new regs say the point is to make sure the Internet keeps functioning like it has.

Are such rules necessary? And do we want the same folks who fine wardrobe malfunctions and fleeting expletives on broadast TV defining how the most-transformative communications technology in our lifetimes calling any of these shots?

Knowing the FCC and the people in charge, this will probably pass and we will lose the last bastion of freedom left in the world today.

UPDATE: Senator Jim DeMint vows to reverse the FCC’s new regulations. Fingers crossed and knock on wood.

by Alex Fidel

I’m writing up in the sky again to rant about the TSA.

This time, I went through the metal detector, got my stuff, and walked off. At first, I was relieved and certainly not as pissed off as when I went through the body scanners all those times. But then I thought about the arbitrary nature of putting people randomly through either one. If we were all equally likely to be terrorists, why not search us the same? The whole arbitrary nature reeks of facism (I think I use the term aptly, unlike certain conspiracy theorist individuals whom you all know I dislike).

But anyway, here are some oxymorons: “Liberty Tax” (name of an actual income tax preparations company) and “libertarian socialist.”

Law is to preserve justice. Justice is complete where no one is coerced and pure equal treatment is the rule for all state action. Government is law and a monopoly over force. But rather than effect justice, government does little but coerce individuals to benefit controlling interests. Freedom is the law, but force is the rule. Controlling interests apply pressure virtually everywhere. Some to enforce the past, in spite of the ceaseless march of life. Others to effect a promised but yet to materialize future undesired by most, requiring inherently coercive and previously failed principles without adequately explaining why this time will be different.

The appeal of the past is that you were more free than the future appears to permit. Hence conservatism. The desire to plan the future derives from dissatisfaction with the present, itself a product of the past. The basic problem with planners is that they believe they can or should collectivize and control individuals by directing and proscribing their actions. In spite of history’s clear instruction that the wheels of time cannot be stopped, and that the promise of individual freedom and prosperity through government action is false, comparatively few consider the clear alternative – respecting as law the individual freedom every human innately possesses. Libertarians, I salute you.

I imagine a state whose only function is holding accountable those who use force against any person, property, and commons – equally. So let us discuss what is force. Actions producing involuntary responses are criminal applications of force. Such actors are liable for time and recompense, whether they coerced by might or fraud. The law prohibits coercion, which is justice. And that is all.

by Alex Fidel

Today marks 9 years since Chuck Schuldiner, the driving force behind his bands Death and Control Denied, passed away from a brain stem tumor. Death started out in 1983 as Mantas, arguably the first death metal band. They later evolved from a bare-bones simplicity into incorporating deep melodies, progressive complexity, and powerful lyrics. No Death album is truly the same, as the lineup has changed from album to album. Many Death veterans include Paul Masvidal and Sean Reinert, guitarist/vocalist and drummer of Cynic (respectively), guitar virtuoso James Murphy, and Howard Stern Show host and drummer Richard Christy. Chuck had the kind of integrity that you Dueling Barstools readers find familiar in someone like Gary Johnson; very real, down-to-earth, and an affinity for integrity, despite the cutthroat nature of the music industry.

After completing the first Control Denied album in 1999 (after putting Death on hold in 1998), Chuck began to feel a sharp pain in his neck. It turned out to be a rare form of brain stem cancer. He underwent surgery and radiation therapy, and eventually regained health and began writing and recording for the second Control Denied album. He recorded all of his guitar parts, as well as Richard Christy’s drum parts, before he began to get sick again. This time he did not beat the cancer.

A legal battle ensued between the Schuldiner family and the record label. This lasted up until about a year ago, when it was announced that Relapse Records was to pick up the completion of the second Control Denied album, as well as reissue classic Death and Control Denied material and merchandise. So far, Control Denied’s The Fragile Art of Existence has been reissued in deluxe 2CD/3CD editions, and the entire Death catalog is available on iTunes for the first time.

Please take the time to check out Death and Control Denied. If you’re into more brutal metal, I suggest you check out Death’s Scream Bloody Gore, Leprosy, and Spiritual Healing. If you are into more melodic/complex metal, check out Death’s Human, Individual Thought Patterns, Symbolic, The Sound of Perseverance, and Control Denied’s The Fragile Art of Existence.

Check out Death on:

Facebook
iTunes

Check out Control Denied on:

Facebook
iTunes
Fragile Art… on Relapse Records

Also check out the Death/Control Denied/Chuck Schuldiner official website.

R.I.P. Chuck

*contrary to popular belief, death metal musicians do not hate animals

by Alex Fidel

Found this video on C-SPAN of the New Mexico’s Governor debate from 1998. Should give all you Dueling Barstools readers a preview of what Johnson vs. Obama might look like.

Pawlenty just laid down the “which former or current Republican governor has the best record” gauntlet. Gary Johnson is ready to rumble. In my dreams Bruce Buffer introduces Gary Johnson to the stage, whereupon Gary KTFO’s Pawlenty:

[Pawlenty said] “I’ll put my record against the record of any governor in the country, both offensively and defensively. We’ve stopped a lot of dumb stuff that the Democrats wanted to do, but we also got a lot done.”

Another possible 2012 candidate, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson will take him up on that.

“I’m making the outrageous claim that I’m the most fiscally conservative governor,” said Johnson. “Not one single tax went up over an 8-year period”

Johnson likes to note that he wielded his veto pen during his term more than the other 49 governors combined, but conceded that Pawlenty probably got more passed with the Minnesota Legislature.

“In my particular case, working with the legislature always amount to spending more money. I probably wasn’t as cooperative in that regard,” said Johnson. “I just didn’t want to spend any money.”

Gary Johnson’s modus operandi is a common sense, business approach to Constitutionally limited, fiscally accountable government. Word to your mother Gary Johnson.

by Alex Fidel

This just in – intelligent people drink more alcohol. I knew it! (Hindsight bias alert.) Here’s the study’s hypothesis, which the article’s analysis bears out:

Drinking alcohol is evolutionarily novel, so the Hypothesis would predict that more intelligent people drink more alcohol than less intelligent people.

Read the whole thing. It’s solid.

A friend of mine shared his thoughts on the “boozers are smarter theory”:

Smart people have to deal with idiocy every day and recognize it, forcing them to drink. Dumb people don’t see the idiocy and don’t have the desire to pull their hair out, or bang their heads against the wall. Such as socialists, and people who collect beanie babies. Ergo, as Little Billy Shakespeare said “if ignorance is bliss tis folly to be wise.”

Another friend chimed in with this bit of verse (source unknown):

Fill with mingled cream and amber, I will drain that glass again.

Such hilarious visions clamber through the chambers of my brain.

Quaintest thoughts, queerest fancies, come to life and fade away.

What care I how time advances? I am drinking ale today.”

by Alex Fidel

Judge Napolitano recently announced that Jon Schaffer, guitarist of metal legends Iced Earth, will be on Freedom Watch on Dec. 10th.

/m/

UPDATE: Unfortunately, Schaffer is a 9/11 Truther… but I’m not gonna hate. Iced Earth still is pretty good.

by Alex Fidel

Yesterday on the radio show we were talking about how the government’s new power to shut down WikiLeaks without due process could expand to them being able to do the same to New York Times, Fox News, and yes, even Dueling Barstools. Otherwise known as mission creep- when something goes beyond its original intentions.

Well guardian.co.uk reports that Senator Lieberman is thinking about punishing New York Times for publishing cables shared by WikiLeaks:

Joe Lieberman, the chair of the Senate homeland security committee, told Fox News: “To me the New York Times has committed at least an act of, at best, bad citizenship, but whether they have committed a crime is a matter of discussion for the justice department.”

Lieberman also said that the department of justice should indict Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, under the 1917 Espionage Act and try to extradite him from the UK. Asked why this had not happened, Lieberman admitted there was probably an argument going on over how to charge Assange.

Not only is the power expanding, unlike certain people said wouldn’t happen because ‘WikiLeaks isn’t a news organization,’ but they are using the 1917 Espionage Act, a highly unconstitutional act put into place under the Woodrow Wilson administration. If you know anything about Wilson, he was a progressive and hated the Constitution. The Espionage Act locked up many Americans simply for speaking out against World War I.

Julian Assange is being treated like a terrorist, and it does not look like he will get proper due process, and Senator Lieberman can’t even think of how to charge him.

Say goodbye to the first amendment.

• What did the Chinese Sailor say to the Pirate? Touch my junk and I’ll have you arrested.

• The Supreme Court recently ruled that there cannot be a Nativity Scene in the United States Capital this Christmas season.  They simply have not been able to find Three Wise Men in the Nation’s Capitol. There was no problem, however, finding enough asses to fill the  stable.

The following graph, however, is no joke:

It’s a good time for this video, again:

by Alex Fidel

Download a podcast of the episode here in case you missed it. Once again we had another weekly installment of our new segment, Dueling Barstools.com On Air, where Ryan and I talked about WikiLeaks, the Teapot Party, private property, and the Fed. And of course excellent music throughout.

Sometimes we try too hard to get to the greener grass. In the process we end up in trouble.

And when you find yourself in trouble and you’re stuck in a situation you can’t get out of, there is one thing you should remember:  Not everyone who shows up is there to help you.

Look, I don’t really know how to tell you this. Actually, I do. You have to watch this. That is all. Via Roissy:

by Alex Fidel

AOL reports that Playboy Playmate of the September 1995 issue Donna D’Errico was recently singled out for a full body scan:

“I said I was traveling with my son, motioning to him, and the agent said he was to come along with me as well,” D’Errico said. “I immediately asked why we were having to go through an extra search, and no one else was being made to do so, indicating the long line of other passengers in front of and behind where we had been in line. In a very sarcastic tone, and still holding me by the elbow, the agent responded, ‘Because you caught my eye, and they’ — pointing to the other passengers — ‘didn’t.’”

Need I say more? Abolish the TSA already.

Great article by Glenn Reynolds here:

President Obama’s term so far has been compared to many fictional and non-fictional characters: Chauncey Gardener of “Being There” is frequently invoked, along with the self-invented charmer Don Draper from “Mad Men,” and of course there are the usual tiresome comparisons with Hitler that most presidents face these days.But I have a different character in mind. The more I watch this administration at work, the more I think we’re seeing the first Nigel Tufnel presidency.

Nigel Tufnel, many will remember, was the fictitious heavy metal guitarist in the fictional “rockumentary” “This Is Spinal Tap.” In a classic scene, he displays his guitar collection and his special amplifier that — unlike all other amplifiers in existence — has knobs that go all the way up to 11, instead of just 10.

And that’s what Obama has done: In his first two years as president, he’s taken us to 11 in so many ways.

Read the whole thing.

I find freedom fundamentally more compelling than statism, considering states’ bloody record. States rely on force or debt. Both are untenable. Based upon the promise of brief periods and instances of human history where relative freedom reigned, and which were marked by prosperity for more, I choose freedom. That we may live freely amongst ourselves, and see what that’s like. For a long while. Can I get a witness?

America should walk softly, going where she is wanted and where she must. America will not be bullied. She  arms herself – and is willing to shoot.

I like this picture, and think it’s related.

by Alex Fidel

Willie Nelson has started a new political movement, called Teapot Parties, as celebstoner.com reports:

All 50 states have started Willie Nelson-inspired Teapot Parties since the singer called for a new political party that “leans a little to the left” after his marijuana arrest  in Texas on Nov. 26. “Tax it, regulate it and legalize it,” the singer says. “And stop the border wars over drugs.”

There’s also a poll on the page as well, with Gov. Gary Johnson as a contender for the “next top CelebStoner.” Vote in the poll!

Via fellow Stout patron Dave Lasorte:

BY A CHEMISTRY STUDENT

The following is an actual question given on a University of Arizona chemistry mid term, and an actual answer turned in by a student. The answer by one student was so ‘profound’ that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well.

Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?

Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle’s Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving, which is unlikely.. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let’s look at the different religions that exist in the world today.
Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle’s Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.
This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
So which is it?
If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, ‘It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,’ and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct………leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting ‘Oh my God.’

Expanding anti-drug education in public schools to further assist the war on drugs, as Krauthammer suggested today on Fox, is increasing production of a product no one really buys, as reported increases in teen drug use evince. Nearly everyone tries drugs of some sort, and increasingly marijuana – which is at least a wash and in my view a net gain for society. Honest and real education about drugs is better than anti-drug campaigns and necessary to properly address what is in fact a health, not criminal, issue. Furthermore, government anti-drug campaigns fail the common sense, business approach to fiscally limited government analysis Gary Johnson advocates for, and I support. Moral crusaders championing failed, and expensive, anti-drug education are yet another reason to support a school choice system, which would permit more parents to choose to the type of drug education their children receive.

The Rise of Freedom Tower is magnificent. But in the days of the Doolittle Raid it would have never taken over a decade to rebuild on ground zero. Doolittle era Americans may not have had as much education, but they had a whole lot more horse sense.

Now, a Zinger from Gary Johnson on Internet Freedom:

“I would strongly suggest that if the market demands Internet services, speed and access, the market will provide them without any help from the government. And for those of us who believe in free speech, it defies all logic and history to believe that a government with its foot in the door will not inevitably end up attempting to regulate and referee content and speech, not to mention commerce… An Internet free of regulation and taxation has produced innovation and enhancements to quality of life almost unparalleled in human history. The only thing government can do to “help” is keep its hands and its taxes off this last bastion of freedom.”

Via the NRA magazine I receive in my mail every month, here’s an illustrative, albeit strawman, article in the Saskatoon StarPhoenix:

There is no point at this late stage rehashing the debate over the long-gun registry. Except for a few dithering New Democrats, the positions are clearly defined. We have heard from the politicians. We have heard from farmers and duck hunters and from law enforcement authorities. We have heard from the Starbucks crowd and the gopher derby crowd. They all are saying pretty much exactly what they said 15 years ago when the registry was created.

The only group we have not heard from, oddly enough, is the one group the registry is meant to control, namely criminals. The whole idea was to reduce violent crime, although the registry probably has done more to reduce hunting. Since it came into effect, the sale of hunting licences in Saskatchewan, for example, has dropped by about 25 per cent, while violent crime has declined not at all. If hunters were a species, they would qualify as endangered. Meanwhile, the criminal species is flourishing.

This might explain why we’ve heard no complaints from the criminal element about the long-gun registry. It doesn’t seem to bother them. Or if it does bother them, they’re not making a big deal of it. We can’t be sure what they think because no one has asked.

For the criminal perspective on the registry, I tracked down Larry Lowlife, a serial violent offender who is between convictions and briefly out of jail. Here is the transcript of our interview:

SP: Before we talk about the long-gun registry, can you establish your credentials as a violent career criminal?

LL: Sure. (Produces a sawed-off shotgun from under his coat.) Stick ‘em up

SP: (Nervous laugh) I’m convinced. Do you mind if I ask if your firearm is registered?

LL: Not to me, but it probably was registered by the previous owner. I stole it during a residential break-in.

SP: You stole it? Was the gun not secured under lock and key, as required by law?

LL: Sure, it was in a locked cabinet. The house was locked, too. Anything worth stealing is locked up. That’s one of the first things we learn in crime school.

SP: I notice you have sawed off the barrel. Did you know that’s illegal?

LL: That’s why it was under my coat.

SP: Have you been following the national debate over the long-gun registry?

LL: Not really. It has nothing to do with me.

SP: But you could be convicted for having an unregistered firearm.

LL: Not if I agree to plead out on the armed robberies.

SP: What armed robberies?

LL: The ones where I use this gun.

SP: Are you saying the registry does not deter crime?

LL: I think I answered that earlier when I said, ‘Stick ‘em up.’

SP: Were you aware that the registry has cost taxpayers more than $2 billion?

LL: Two billion dollars? And they call me a criminal?

SP: So you think that’s too expensive?

LL: Not at all. I wish it cost more.

SP: More?

LL: Well, we criminals don’t pay taxes anyway, so the registry costs me, personally, nothing. I’m just glad that $2 billion isn’t available to hire more cops to arrest guys like me.

SP: But a lot of police support the registry. They supposedly access it thousands of times every day.

LL: Good for them. When they come to arrest me, they’ll check the registry and think I’m unarmed.

SP: Has the registry made it more difficult to obtain a gun for criminal purposes?

LL: Finding an illegal gun is easy. The tricky part is getting rid of it later.

SP: What message do you have for MPs who will vote this week to save or dismantle the long-gun registry?

LL: I’d tell them to put up their hands and give me their wallets and jewelry.

I’m no expert on body language, but I can read a room. In this room, there’s only one statesman. He’s the one offering eye contact. The one calmly and deliberately extending his hand, mindful of the pictures sure to be taken. He’s taking care to use upright, firm, and warm, body language – that befitting the leader of a country, rather than body language better suited to greeting friends for a basketball game. By contrast, Obama is basically saying “Yo what’s up Hu?” while checking out his kicks. File this in “Smart Diplomacy” exhibit MMMXMVIII.

Here:

This excerpt from a piece by the New York Times’ Matt Bai caught my eye: (emphasis added)

The body of Mr. Obama’s writing and experiences before he became a presidential candidate would suggest that he is instinctively pragmatic, typical of an emerging generation that sees all political dogma — be it ’60s liberalism or ’80s conservatism — as anachronistic. Privately, Mr. Obama has described himself, at times, as essentially a Blue Dog Democrat, referring to the shrinking caucus of fiscally conservative members of the party.

The reason the president describes himself this way in private is because if he said it publicly, people would laugh at him — much in the way most will when they read this excerpt.

If you can charge Julian Assange with a crime then you can charge news outlets who published the leaked documents. It might even be easier, since they’re American, not foreign, entities. If what Assange did is illegal, charge all who also committed it. If you can’t charge Assange with epionage, or whatever legitimate crime fits, then his act is free speech. Pigs will fly, however, when the Obama administration charges the New York times with a crime, much less one implicating speech.

Until the Justice department charges Assange and those complicit in his crime, including major media outlets who’ve published the leaked documents, with a crime, quit your angst towards Assange, and stop promoting measures to further chill free speech. Direct those feelings towards the Obama administration. Tell them to shit or get off the pot on whether to prosecute domestic media outlets for publishing the Wikileaks documents. That decision is a hundred percent within the Justice Department’s control.

by Alex Fidel

Download the full episode here.

We introduced our new segment, DuelingBarstools.com On-Air, as well as payed tribute to Leslie Nielsen, and played Frank Zappa’s Apostrophe (‘) album from front to back in honor of FZ’s would-be 70th birthday (Dweezil Zappa is playing Apostrophe from front to back in his current Zappa Plays Zappa tour).

DuelingBarstools.com On-Air will be a weekly segment appearing on the show, which airs every Tuesday at 8PM-10PM PST, only at www.ksunradio.com

We went on for an hour this episode, but we’re going to cut the time down to about 20 minutes going forward.

Add the Freethought Facebook page, too.

“Freedom is not empowerment. Empowerment is what the Serbs have in Bosnia. Anybody can grab a gun and be empowered. It’s not entitlement. An entitlement is what people on welfare get, and how free are they? It’s not an endlessly expanding list of rights — the “right” to education, the “right” to health care, the “right” to food and housing. That’s not freedom, that’s dependency. Those aren’t rights, those are rations of slavery — hay and a barn for human cattle. There’s only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.”– P. J. O’Rourke, in AGE AND GUILE BEAT YOUTH, INNOCENCE, AND A BAD HAIRCUT (Atlantic Monthly Press 1995).