Monthly Archives: March 2011

Via the Ethiopian Review:

by Alex Fidel

Jason Becker had a concert at Slim’s in San Francisco to remind the world that he’s not dead yet!

Jason Becker’s story starts out when he first picked up the guitar as a little kid. He would play Bob Dylan tunes, then Jeff Beck, and right around the age of 16, Paganini. This landed him a deal with Shrapnel Records, the famous shred guitar label, which was a partnership with Marty Friedman (ex-Megadeth) in a band they called Cacophony. Their first record, Speed Metal Symphony, was a neo-classical progressive metal breakthrough, and was released when Jason was 17. Soon after, Becker and Friedman recorded two separate solo albums, Perpetual Burn and Dragon’s Kiss (respectively). They did guest appearances on each others works, and then recorded a second Cacophony album, Go Off! They toured, and Cacophony disbanded. Marty Friedman went off to join Megadeth, and Becker joined David Lee Roth. Unfortunately, this was right around the time Jason started to feel a limp in his leg. He got it checked out during the first week of DLR rehearsals. The biopsy revealed that Jason had Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis- ALS or Lou Gehrig’s Disease. He would soon lose the movement of his entire body. He did manage to finish recording on David Lee Roth’s A Lil Ain’t Enough record, which went gold. Jason was not able to tour, so he went back to writing and recording mode.

He began to lose the movement in his legs, and was confined to a wheelchair. He played, recorded, and composed what he could on guitar until he couldn’t even lift it with his hands anymore. He then switched to a keyboard. When he lost use of both of his hands, he used the movement in his head to compose the rest. His friend and producer Mike Bemesderfer set up a motion sensor visor, in which Jason would move his head to move a mouse on the computer, and use his jaw to click. He did that until he finished composing the remainder of his album Perspective.

After that, doctors had told Jason he had 3 years to live. Three years later, Jason was still going strong. He could no longer move any part of his body, and had to have a breathing tube installed. His dad came up with a form of communication, an eye-geometry system for Jason to communicate with his eyes. There are two eye movements- one for a box, and one for a letter in each of the various boxes (VIDEO).

He soon began composing again, only this time he had to communicate his ideas directly using this eye communication method to a translator. This ended up being three tracks on his latest release, Collection, in which Steve Vai, Joe Satriani, Steve Hunter, and Marty Friedman, to name a few, played what Jason had composed, which were “River of Longing”, “River of Longing (Reprise)”, and “Electric Prayer For Peace”.

It was soon announced that Jason would be planning an event in San Francisco with some guitar giants, and that some filmmakers were starting to plan a documentary about Jason. This turned into Jason Becker’s Not Dead Yet Festival at Slim’s and Perpetual Burn: The Story of Jason Becker.

I got into SF right before 5PM, as that’s when the limited access meet & greet was supposed to start. As I was driving past Slim’s, there was Jason going along the sidewalk into the front entrance. That was unreal! I almost swerved into oncoming traffic, but I soon went looking for parking. I wasn’t the best driver in the Costco parking lot either, I was so excited. I then ran like hell, but we weren’t let in until 5:30. In the meantime, I got to say hi to Mike Varney (owner of Shrapnel Records) as he was helping Jason’s father park the handicap van in front. You want to talk about an awesome dude, Gary Becker is right there in the dictionary definition of ‘awesome dude.’ Then Dave Lopez (of the band Flipsyde) directed us to the back entrance, where we’d get a chance to talk to Jason and take a picture with him in a whole professional studio setup.

As soon as I got to the front of the line, a huge grin burst out across my face. I get to meet my all-time hero. I got to have a heart-to-heart moment with Jason, and someone from his family translated for me. I then took a picture and was off on my way. I got a free special edition Jason Becker tin filled with JB guitar picks, when all of a sudden Marty Friedman pops in. I had a feeling he was going to come, but it was unannounced. Either way, I didn’t know what he was going to be doing there.

I had to leave the club because they were setting up. I was waiting in line for will call, when I noticed this figure standing in front of me. He had long hair, was pretty hefty, and had a distinguishable goatee that continued down his neck. I thought this figure was Gene Hoglan, drummer from Death (Individual Thought Patterns and Symbolic)!  But he was wearing this Charlie Chaplin-esque Fedorah hat, and a black suit jacket. Not the type of threads you’d consider a metal legend to wear. He walked down the street and disappeared.

In line, the people from the Jason Becker documentary started to film people in line, and I got to say a few words for Jason, and I hope they were profound enough to be movie-worthy. I signed my release form, and the will call line opened, and I got my ticket. I was in the entrance line, when Jason Becker’s girlfriend walked by. She’s a super-gorgeous sex therapist, to give you an idea. Anyway, she says “nice sweatshirt,” since I was wearing my JB sweatshirt. A small event, but that definitely fit with the flow of the night, encountering all these great people from Jason’s life.

The line starts moving finally, and I look forward to not freezing my ass off and enjoying the show.

The first band to come on is a Van Halen tribute band called Hot For Teacher. The drummer looks braindead, and the singer is all fat, but somehow they put on an excellent show. I’m not much of an EVH fan, but I had a blast. I sang along to “Panama”, to give you an idea of how fun these guys were. The guitarist was using one of Jason’s guitars- the Peavey whose design was used in the new Jason Becker signature guitar made by Paradise Guitars. They closed the set with a cover of one of the David Lee Roth songs that Jason wrote, called “It’s Showtime!”

The second band to come on was called Flametal. The name comes from what they sound like- flamenco metal. They put on a killer performance. The first song they did, the drummer played on a box percussion instrument, and two beautiful flamenco dancers in nothing but flamenco skirts and flameno tops came out and gave a whole new dimension to the songs. Among their songs was an actual classic flamenco piece which originated in Spain.

Thought my Gene Hoglan anecdote was random? Think again! The next band to come up was Kehoe Nation, a sort of biker-type chicken-pickin’ country/hard rock band with the smallest hint of psychobilly with none other than Gene Hoglan of Death on drums. I was floored! I was standing two feet from him, and I didn’t even inquire to see if he was Gene Hoglan himself! They were a pretty energetic band and were really fun to watch. During a short period of silence, I yelled out “Rest in peace Chuck!” and Gene tipped his hat in recognition.

Jeff Watson played, and then Michael Lee Firkins took the stage. He’s a bit more blues oriented, but he played on Becker’s “End of the Beginning” tune since by then Jason couldn’t play guitar and could only compose what he had written prior to his illness (there are various demo recordings of Jason playing many of those licks himself when he was able to play). Firkins played two Hendrix tunes, “Purple Haze” and “Voodoo Child”. He played “Voodoo Child” almost entirely with a slide guitar tool (not an actual slide guitar, but the accessory you put on your finger), which gave it a very different feel and was a completely unique approach to Henrdix’s classic.

Greg Howe took the stage with his more straight-ahead rock style. The guy can shred, no doubt about it. His demeanor was very humble, which added a down-to-earth vibe to his tunes. He played one of his early songs as a tribute to Becker, since they all started out around the same time period.

Richie Kotzen had a brand of laid back rock with a pinch of Alice in Chains, and of course in a shred guitar manner. He did not use a pick, which was quite unique in a line-up of lightning fast players, although he did play quite fast.

Steve Lukather played a very beautiful song, which was sort of Vai-esque in that it was melodic soloing with a lot of feeling. It made me a bit drowsy, since it was getting late, but I enjoyed his skill and feel on the guitar nonetheless.

At this point, I do not know who was going to come on, since Marty Friedman showed up earlier, and I didn’t know what he was going to do there. Well, we were waiting for a while and then we hear the MC introduce Marty Friedman. He comes out, and gives a heartfelt speech for Jason, and then plays a beautiful solo with a pre-recorded background track. It was short, but very sweet. Marty Friedman is definitely a true talent.

It was about time for the Satchsquatch to come out and boogie for us. Joe Satriani tore up the stage, with his energetic stage presence, and his signature shaved head/sunglasses look. Him and Marty Friedman definitely gave me a second wind of energy, and to top it off, blues/rock guitar legend Steve Hunter came out and joined Satch for a few songs and guitar duels, which were all jawdroppingly amazing.

They then closed and the room cleared, and Jason was still there in the crowd meeting fans. I got a chance to talk to his father, Gary, and take another photo with Jason, this time taken by his mom, Pat (Jason blinked in this one, but it’s OK).

This concert left me with a whole new perspective on life, and I’m glad everyone supported Jason in the way they did. The show was completely sold out, and all proceeds from the show and the merch go towards Jason’s medical funds as well as a trust fund for his future medical security. You could see how excited Jason was by the look in his eyes, and by the small facial expressions he is still able to make.

If this story moves you, please donate to Jason through PayPal at pat.becker@intres.com or click here. You can also donate to ALS TDI. Visit Jason Becker’s official site, and be sure to purchase his albums!

This piece by Adam Garfinkle is the most comprehensive, cogent analysis of the Libyan situation I’ve come across. The last three paragraphs of the article are excerpted below as a tease, but read the whole thing.

It wasn’t mad to advocate the establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya two or three weeks ago. Some reasoned that the psychology of the thing might have been enough to push Qaddafi out when the battle was flowing against him. Some believed, against all evidence, that a no-fly zone could be militarily effective. Some have reasoned that Qaddafi would become more dangerous if he survived his domestic challenge even in the absence of a Western intervention, so we could not let him survive if the rebels could not finish him off. That was not evidence of madness either, but it was speculative enough, in my view, to counsel waiting a good long while before shooting. It also failed to reckon seriously the downside of the undertaking and to identify other policy options short of war.

What is crazy, however, is the consequences-be-damned argument for war on humanitarian grounds that the President has apparently embraced, and the utter vacuum of strategic thinking that seems to be its handmaiden. It would have been far better to leave this hornet’s nest alone, but now that we have poked it with hundreds of millions of dollars worth of ordnance, the worst possible posture to adopt is that of a Boy Scout helping an old lady across the street when only that of a warrior (hopefully French and/or British) will do.

I wish the President had never opened his big eloquent mouth about Libya, and I wish we had not started this war; but wishing won’t make it go away. I have no intention of waxing banal and invoking Vietnam, because Libya has nothing to do with Vietnam; there are no quagmires in a place that, from a military point of view, is an island in the sense that every target worth hitting can be hit from the sea. But I do suspect that this can only end badly, and that what is left to policy at this point is to figure out the least bad of all possible outcomes and struggle toward it. It’s times like these that make me thank Heaven that I am no longer working for the U.S. Government. My best wishes to those who are; they now need all the luck they can get.

by Alex Fidel

I remember Dr. Paul saying something like –paraphrasing– ‘we just marched in, well then we can just march out,’ when referring to Iraq in the 2008 Republican presidential primary debates. I think that same logic can be applied to Libya. Let’s get out before it turns into a bad sequel to Iraq, or as Gary Johnson would put it, “mired in the midst of a civil war to which there would be no end.”

by Alex Fidel

Radley Balko of Reason Magazine is always on top of reporting on police misconduct and corruption. This article stands out for me, since nowadays I have almost zero regard for police. Now, I do think there are good cops out there, but articles like these really grind my gears and increase my distaste for law enforcement.

Balko accounts for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP)’s many members, who are all current or former cops and other kinds of law enforcement officials, who in their profiles on LEAP’s website, account for many instances in their own experiences where they have witnessed corruption amongst their co-workers. Balko also lists some recent stories (the article is hefty with links):

The list of law enforcement officials corrupted by the drug war is a long one. Here are some stories from just the last few weeks:

• Two Philadelphia cops pleaded guilty to federal charges stemming from their plan to steal heroin from a suspected drug dealer.

• A former deputy with the Harris County, Texas, Sheriff’s Department pleaded guilty to extortion charges after stealing two kilograms of fake cocaine during a federal sting operation.

• A New York City detective was convicted in state court of conspiring to pay off police informants with illegal drugs.

• Six San Francisco narcotics cops were accused of performing illegal searches, then covering them up with perjured testimony.

• The head of the Mesquite, Texas, anti-narcotics unit was arrested and charged with theft of government money after reports that he was stealing cash seized during drug raids.

• The head of the Contra Costa County, California, Narcotics Enforcement Team was charged with leading a conspiracy in which he and other law enforcement officials stole illicit drugs from evidence lockers and sold them on the street.

• A second police officer agreed to testify for the prosecution in the state trial of a retired judge and former prosecutor in Wayne County, Michigan, who is charged with suborning and knowingly allowing perjury by cops in drug cases.

• A former Texas district attorney, Joe Frank Garza, pleaded guilty in state court to misappropriating $200,000 in drug forfeiture funds.

Man, and I thought the cop who blocked my turn area and then ran a stop sign right in front of me was bad.

Some of these stories involve public officials on the take; others are stories of cops, prosecutors, and judges who crossed a line in their zeal to fight the drug war. But I’m not sure there’s much difference. In fact, one reason drug cops may be so susceptible to corruption is that the legal tactics they use to enforce the drug laws are so ethically dubious.

I have to agree with Radley here. There is no ethical value in the use of force against someone doing no harm to anyone other than themselves (although I don’t think there is much self-inflicted harm from using marijuana anyway. Eating too many Doritos isn’t really that bad aside from gaining the “freshman 15,” but I digress), and tactics like civil asset forfeiture are definitely “ethically dubious.”

Speaking of which, I don’t think I’ve even touched on his mention of civil asset forfeiture, which is a total racket:

Morally, it is not much of a leap from legal asset forfeiture—in which cops take property from people who have never been charged with a crime, sell it, and use the proceeds for their department’s budget—to simply pocketing money from suspected drug dealers. Consider what was happening in Tenaha, Texas, until recently. Cops would pull over motorists, accuse them of drug activity with little or no evidence, and give them a choice: They could sign the cash, jewelry, and other property in their possession over to the police department and be on their way. Or they could fight the charges, risk a felony conviction, spend one or more nights in a jail cell, and possibly pay more in legal fees than their property was worth.

I hope no cops have a fancy for guitars… but I digress.

In a previous article from Radley Balko, he talked about the legal nature of asset forfeiture, and shows a few examples about how these cases get played out in court (and how ridiculous it is):

State officials can seize property without a warrant and need only show “probable cause” that the booty was connected to a drug crime in order to keep it, as opposed to the criminal standard of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The government need only demonstrate that the seized property is somehow related to a crime, generally either by showing that it was used in the commission of the act (as with a car driven to and from a drug transaction, or a house from which drugs are sold) or that it was purchased with the proceeds.

He cites one specific case. The kid’s last name is Smelley so I remembered it easily. He was carrying $17,500 in cash that he received from a settlement. He had been arrested for drug possession as a teenager, so they were able to get police dogs to sniff out his car, and the dogs gave indication “that narcotics might be present” (emphasis added), after which they were detained and his 17 grand seized. His legal battle was no better:

On February 4, 2009, Anthony Smelley got his first hearing before an Indiana judge. Smelley’s attorney, David Kenninger, filed a motion asking for summary judgment against the county, citing a letter from a Detroit law firm stating that the seized money indeed came from an accident settlement, not a drug transaction. Kenninger also argued that because there were no drugs in Smelley’s car, the state had failed to show the required “nexus” between the cash and illegal activity. Putnam County Circuit Court Judge Matthew Headley seemed to agree, hitting Christopher Gambill, who represented Putnam County, with some tough questions. That’s when Gambill made an argument that was remarkable even for a forfeiture case.

The legal woes of battling such cases is not the whole thing. There is still the racial discrimination that goes on:

Tiny Tenaha, Texas, population 1,046, made national news in 2008 after a series of reports alleged that the town’s police force was targeting black and Latino motorists along Highway 84, a busy regional artery that connects Houston to Louisiana’s casinos, ensuring a reliable harvest of cash-heavy motorists. The Chicago Tribune reported that in just the three years between 2006 and 2008, Tenaha police stopped 140 drivers and asked them to sign waivers agreeing to hand over their cash, cars, jewelry, and other property to avoid arrest and prosecution on drug charges. If the drivers agreed, police took their property and waved them down the highway. If they refused, even innocent motorists faced months of legal hassles and thousands of dollars in attorney fees, usually amounting to far more than the value of the amount seized.

It might be possible to avoid such altercations by knowing your rights. The people over at Flex Your Rights have two videos, Busted and 10 Rules For Dealing With Police, that show you how simple phrases like “sorry officer, I don’t consent to searches” or “officer, am I being detained or am I free to go?” can really help you in court, and might even prevent unreasonable searches and seizures from happening in the first place. Although, I think the only way to deal with this issue is to end the War on Drugs once and for all.

Gotta hand it to Carlos Slim. Unlike many crony capitalist overlords who gain exorbitant wealth by stifling the production of competing goods and services, and thereby the positive development of their countries, Slim actually resides in his own maldeveloped country of Mexico.

The golden rule is flawed because it permits coercion in like kind, though it does not invite it. Rejecting coercion is the highest evolution of our minds and spirits, and is the only just rule. A minarchy with a police power limited to prohibiting coercion is the road to individual freedom, in my view. Unfortunately such a state is probably unachievable, since America has proven incapable of adhering to its Constitution’s limiting principles.

*Update* A friend of mine made a compelling argument last night that may yet persuade me that I’m dead wrong about the golden rule being flawed. More to come on this pressing bit of mental masturbation.

George Monbiot:

A crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt down. The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting. Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation.

Some greens have wildly exaggerated the dangers of radioactive pollution. For a clearer view, look at the graphic published by xkcd.com. It shows that the average total dose from the Three Mile Island disaster for someone living within 10 miles of the plant was one 625th of the maximum yearly amount permitted for US radiation workers. This, in turn, is half of the lowest one-year dose clearly linked to an increased cancer risk, which, in its turn, is one 80th of an invariably fatal exposure. I’m not proposing complacency here. I am proposing perspective.

He provides excellent perspective, as does this article by a German physicist demanding that nuclear science be encouraged rather than demonized (emphasis added):

The great minds that accompanied me through my studies were Planck, Sommerfeld, Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg, and a host of others who, for us physicists, are still very much alive today. They are great thinkers who contributed to unravelling the puzzles of nature and the forces which keep the world together through the most minute structures. I devoured the stories of Otto Hahn and Lise Meitner, of Enrico Fermi and Edward Teller – to name a few – and on how they created completely new technologies from theoretical concepts, how the energy stored in the nucleus of an atom could be used for the good of man and how it became possible in a single process to tap into this source of affordable, clean and plentiful energy on a large scale as never seen by man. Electricity illuminates our world, drives our machines, allow us to communicate over great distances, thus making our lives easier and more comfortable. It is a source of energy that staves off poverty and enables prosperity.

Electricity: manufactured by splitting atomic nuclei with neutrons, gained through the direct conversion of mass into energy. It is the principle by which (via the reverse process of fusion) the stars twinkle in the night sky, a principle by which our sun enables life on our planet.

As a physicist it fills me with great joy and pride to see how man is able to rouse this force of nature at the most minute structural level, then amplify, control, and use it for our benefit. As a physicist I have the fundamental understanding of the processes – I can imagine them and describe them. As a physicist I have neither fear of an atomic power plant nor of radioactivity. Ultimately I know that it is a natural phenomenon that is always around us, one we can never escape – and one that we never need to escape. And I know the first as a symbol of man’s capability to steer the forces of nature. As a physicist I have no fear of what nature has to offer. Rather I have respect. And this respect beckons us to seize the chances like those offered by neutrons, which can split nuclei and thus convert matter into energy. Anything else would be ignorance and cowardice.

Read the whole thing, it’s excellent.

Volokh, via Instapundit, why the President was within his authority to enter Libya without consulting Congress:

President Obama is following a long line of precedents in which the executive lanched a foreign war without congressional authorization. The president disavowed these precedents during his campaign; he may or may not attempt to distinguish his campaign statement by invoking the UN security council resolution authorizing the attack, as Truman did for Korea. But this legal wrangling is all superstructure. Congress is disabled in numerous ways from making practical contributions to a war effort. It cannot prevent the president from starting a war, and it is nearly impossible to halt an ongoing war. Wars, then, simply become an opportunity for members of Congress to stake their reputations as hawks or doves for the sake of future elections.

I’m in the camp that says even if a disfavored and unwise executive action can be taken with a minimum of Constitutional process (i.e. unilateral decision by the President), where practicable the decision to take such actions should be made with as much Constitutional process as possible. Libya is such a case.

Stratfor’s take on Libya, via Tigerhawk:

Characteristic Obama doublespeak fisked.

“I also have stated that it is U.S. policy that Qadhafi needs to go,” [Editor: indicating that the U.S. will take all necessary measures, which likely includes troops on the round, to effect said U.S. policy] Obama said, noting that a United Nations resolution last week authorizing force against Libya is based on humanitarian concerns, not regime change. [Editor: So why is it U.S. policy that "Qadhafi needs to go" rather than merely regime change?] “When it comes to our military action…we are going to make sure that we stick to that mandate.” [Editor: Famous last words, because Obama assumes that "stick[ing]” to military action within the UN mandate will achieve the U.S. policy that Qadhafi “needs to go.” While that would be nice for the United States, and the mandate does authorize “all necessary measures,” the measures necessary to effect regime change likely will require boots on the ground, whereas humanitarian intervention can probably be achieved through air superiority and supplying necessary items such as food, water, and medicine. Expect a lot more doublespeak if and when American troops go into Libya for … regime change.]

Gary Johnson on Libya FOR THE WIN:

We’ve seen this movie before:  Spectacular photos of Tomahawk Cruise missiles being launched from American navy vessel, B-2 bombers piloted by amazing American crews making nonstop trips from Missouri to the Mediterranean…. And Americans of all political stripes asking: What’s the plan?

Make no mistake.  Muammar Gaddafi is a very bad guy.  He has been a bad guy for 40 years, and he has brazenly killed Americans on several occasions in attacks that fit any reasonable definition of terrorism.  The world would be better off without him.

But, at the same time that our courageous and incredibly skilled military is again being asked to destroy a military headquarters in Tripoli without damaging the civilian building next to it, the White House is saying “Gaddafi must go”, but these attacks are not about “regime change”.  They are saying the mission is to protect the Libyan people from Gaddafi’s madness, but that we aren’t going to send troops in to do the protecting.  And yes, they are once again assuring us that the U.S. commitment is limited and we are just doing our part as a coalition of the willing.

When are we going to learn?  Injecting American military right into the internal strife of other nations with no clear definition of a successful outcome doesn’t work.  Our service men and women who are putting themselves at risk, the taxpayers who are paying $600,000 for every Tomahawk missile launched, and yes, the people in Libya we are supposedly trying to help, all deserve to know what the plan is.  That really isn’t too much to ask.

Sometimes it appears our political leaders doubt that we can handle the truth.

If the objective in Libya is to replace Muammar Gaddafi – then why don’t we just say it, and do it?  Or at least have an honest debate about it.  If that is the idea, it is perhaps worth noting that the guy has hung on to power for decades and just bombing his missile defenses may not do the trick.  It is also worth pointing out that we went into Afghanistan to get rid of Osama bin Laden and his cronies, and almost ten years and hundreds of billions of dollars and too many American lives later, we are still there – and bin Laden isn’t.

If the plan were to somehow level the playing field in Libya so that Gaddafi’s opposition has a fighting chance of toppling him, it would have been a lot cheaper and easier to do that 3 weeks ago – before he was on the verge of crushing them.  And then there is the whole question of who will replace him, will they be any better for U.S. interests than Gaddafi, and how many of those people we are trying to protect will die in the process?

It has been observed that, by weakening his military capabilities, perhaps we will encourage dissension and defection among his own leadership and commanders. If that is the plan, it would be cheaper and a whole lot safer to just give each of them a check for a million dollars and a condo in Florida.

Or, if there is some hope that Colonel Gaddafi will back down, see the handwriting on the wall and turn over a new leaf, it really must be remembered that we have tried that a couple of times already.  The result:  He is still in power and killing people, and the Presidents who “backed him down” are not Presidents anymore.

For the cynical among us, let’s even try the theory that we care about what happens in Libya because it is the source of 1.3 million barrels of oil per day – and we need imports like that for more than half of our oil needs.  If we are worried about oil, we should be a lot more concerned about what is going on in Saudi Arabia and a bunch of other countries that are in fact much more important to our energy security.

Mr. President, or someone, PLEASE, tell us what the plan is.  Otherwise, just stop. At the end of the day, what is happening in Libya is a civil war against a clearly bad leader.  The world is full of clearly bad and evil leaders, and millions of people being victimized by them.  What makes Libya special?  Simply enforcing a no-fly zone will cost American taxpayers as much as $300 million a week, and that doesn’t include all those Tomahawk missiles and B-2 round trips.  More importantly, those are American crews risking their lives.  If there is some compelling reason to be doing what we are doing, tell us what it is.

If, on the other hand, we are once again playing cop to the world, we can’t afford it.

In Liberty,

Gary Johnson

You may have heard that an underground big wave surfer and Pipeline specialist passed away surfing Mavericks in northern California. He never stopped living his dream. Have you?

“[Y]ou took up all my time to answer with your long, rather unlettered question.” Said Chris Hitchens to Sean Hannity.

At VDARE:

Mandating frequent testing of K-12 students [editor: which is essentially what NCLB does (read Sailer's whole article)]to solve the problem of cognitive inequality always struck me as much like trying to solve the problem of height inequality by requiring that everybody play a lot of basketball. That wouldn’t make short people taller—it would just make their shortness more obvious.

For the win.

It would have been something to talk about if the Libya action’s name was Operation Peace and Democracy for Arab Countries Through War, Again. But this picture is pretty funny too. Via Twitter.

In an about face from candidate Obama, and in an incoherent expansion of President Obama’s preceding two years of seemingly Bush inspired foreign policy, President Obama committed American military resources to Libya in a manner marked by its lack of Constitutional process. There’s lots to read about Libya – here are my recommendations.

1. CATO: Weinberger / Powell Doctrine RIP

To review, the doctrine was first coined by Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of Defense, Caspar Weinberger, in a speech at the National Press Club in 1984. Weinberger was aided by a rising military officer, Colin Powell, who later adapted the concepts for his own purposes as National Security Adviser for Reagan and later as Chairman of the JCS under George H.W. Bush. The essential elements boil down to five key questions:

1. Is there a compelling national interest at stake?
2. Have the costs and consequences of intervention been considered?
3. Have we exhausted all available options for resolving the problem, i.e. is force a last resort?
4. Is there a clear and achievable military mission, and therefore a well-defined end state?
5. Is there strong public support – both domestic and international – for the operation?

The current operations over Libya fail on at least four counts…

2. The Lesson the U.S. is Teaching the World in Libya: If you don’t want to be Qaddafied GET NUKES! You don’t hear a lot of International support for a coalition to effect a no-fly zone turned missile and aerial attack in nuclear armed North Korea, which commits atrocities against its own people as a manner of course that would make Qaddafi blush. By contrast, Qaddafi gave his nukes up and received a missile barrage and bombing sorties for his efforts. (Worse, French sorties – oh the indignity !)

Every government on earth has different factions with different views of the best strategy to deal with the world, factions that constantly battle each other for supremacy. Whether or not Iran has an active nuclear weapons program (it’s still the official position of the U.S. intelligence community that it does not) we can be sure the Iranian faction that wants nuclear weapons has been tremendously strengthened by the attack on Libya. And the faction that believes Iran would be safer without nuclear weapons is much weaker, and in fact is probably being ridiculed for its embarrassing naiveté.

Something similar is going on inside the North Korean government. Anyone within the regime who’s been pressing for North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons is now in a much worse position.

Rest assured Ahmadinejad is discussing this very point with Iranian Green Revolution leaders Mir Houssein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi whom Ahmadinejad allegedly placed under house arrest earlier this month. Demonstrating that giving up nuclear weapons invites attacks on, rather than protecting, the legitimacy of a disfavored regime must be among the first unintended, severely detrimental consequences of Obama’s Libyan action.

For the record, I hold Obama principally responsible for the Libyan action, not the UN or Europe. I’d bet that the UN and or Europe couldn’t wouldn’t do it without the United States. I also note that Germany abstained from the UN Security counsel vote, indicating lukewarm interest in the action as well as trademark German efficiency. Why do it if someone else is willing to bear the burden and we’ll receive the same marginal benefit whether or not we participate? (See also the 52,000 American servicemen and women in Germany. In 2011.)

3. [Libya is] Just a Bad, Bad Idea. It’s a good article, though the various pundits that be on my twitter feed noted that it curiously omits mention of President Obama, as if the individual who chose this “bad, bad idea” can or should be separated from criticism of that idea. “[T]here are so many reasons [Libya] strikes me as a bad idea I really hardly know where to start.” Here’s a hint, start with the Commander in Chief of the United States. President Obama directed his permanent representative at the United Nations, Susan Rice, to vote for military action in Libya. He did so against the advice of his Secretary of Defense and at the behest of Rice, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and National Security Council adviser Samantha Powers – all of whom apparently strongly endorse liberal interventionism, which when practiced by Republicans is known as neoconservatism. Speaking of neoconservatives, Richard Spencer at Alt-Right properly derides neoconservative zeal for Obama’s Excellent Libyan Adventure. For the record, I’m calling the Libya action Operation Peace and Democracy Through War, Again, based upon another Alt-Right article by Richard Spencer Libya: Kosovo Redux.

(See here too for VDH asking the questions a capable neoconservative would attempt to answer before firing missiles and dropping bombs.)

4. Here’s Carney doing work, son. With no debate and no objective, Obama enters a war:

At once presumptuous and flippant, President Obama used a Saturday audio recording from Brazil to inform Americans he had authorized a third war — a war in which America’s role is unclear and the stated objectives are muddled.Setting aside the wisdom of the intervention, Obama’s entry into Libya’s civil war is troubling on at least five counts. First is the legal and constitutional question. Second is the manner of Obama’s announcement. Third is the complete disregard for public opinion and lack of debate. Fourth is the unclear role the United States will play in this coalition. Fifth is the lack of a clear endgame. Compounding all these problems is the lack of trust created by Obama’s record of deception.

Finally, here’s Jack Hunter FTW:

The Tradition of Liberty and the Republican Party, by Dave Nalle. Excerpt below:

From its very first platform, the Republican Party has ben dedicated to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the enlightenment belief that all men have an inalienable right to life, liberty and property. Although it has occasionally lost sight of those ideals, eventually core values reassert themselves and new leaders of vision set the party back on the right course.

The party was formed 1854 in an era when the existing parties had strayed too far from the original republican values on which the nation was formed. The new party embraced the ideals of the founding fathers with the goal of securing liberty for those held in slavery and obtaining equality for all member of society.

Through the years the Republican Party has taken the lead on the great moral issues of the times. In the Platform of 1860 the party made opposition to slavery a national issue for the first time and expressed clear support for the rights of workers and industry. In the Platform of 1876 the Republican Party became the first US political party to endorse equal rights and universal suffrage for women. In the Platform of 1892 the Republicans became the first US political party to endorse universal sufferage and access to the polls to Americans of all races. In the Platform of 1896 the Republican Party first declared its dedication to fiscally responsible government. In the Platform of 1900 the Republicans were the first US political party to take a clear stand in opposition to racial discrimination. During the early 1900s the Republican party also led the way in opposition to monopolies, in passing child labor laws, workplace safety regulation and establishing reasonable working hours. The Republican party was also the first party to propose national policies for resource management and conservation. And almost from the moment the 16th Amendment made an income tax legal, the Republican party worked to minimize the tax burden, hold down federal spending and institute fairer and more limited taxes. By the 1950s the Republican Party had taken the lead in applying federal pressure to implement desegregation and equality in the southern states.

by Alex Fidel

On this week’s episode of my show Freethought Radio we had Peter Schiff and Eugene Davidovich, who is the head of San Diego Americans for Safe Access. Click here to download the podcast via Mediafire.

The San Diego ASA is running a campaign to stop what would be a de facto ban on medical cannabis dispensaries in the city of San Diego. They believe the consequences of such a ban will put patients in danger by subjecting them to black market dealers instead of business establishments (legal medical cannabis dispensaries). Their campaign (Stop the Ban SD) is encouraging San Diego city residents to write letters to their city council members to urge them to vote no on the ban or offer up serious amendments. For people who live outside of the San Diego local area, they ask that letters be sent to local media outlets. The letters to the city council people should be from their constituents only.

If this issue concerns you, take part in the letter drive and visit stopthebansd.org for more info.

Also, If you live in San Diego county like I do, but live outside the city and cannot send a letter but would like to help with the cause, there is a candlelight vigil taking place in the Veterans Museum and Memorial Center Garden (2115 Park Blvd, San Diego) on Friday, March 25th from 6:30PM PST-7:30PM.

Or, why “social justice” is morally bankrupt. Excerpts below, but read it all. By Ben O’Neill:

Though succinct and simple, the video perfectly demonstrates the attitude towards rights that pervades modern political discussions, particularly among the advocates of “social justice.” For such people, the notion of “rights” is a mere term of entitlement, indicative of a claim for any possible desirable good, no matter how important or trivial, abstract or tangible, recent or ancient. It is merely an assertion of desire, and a declaration of intention to use the language of rights to acquire said desire.

In fact, since the program of social justice inevitably involves claims for government provision of goods, paid for through the efforts of others, the term actually refers to an intention to use force to acquire one’s desires. Not to earn desirable goods by rational thought and action, production and voluntary exchange, but to go in there and forcibly take goods from those who can supply them!

This is a hopelessly flawed view of rights. An actual right is a moral prerogative derived from the application of moral philosophy to the nature of man. The term is a term of philosophy designating an actual moral principle, a principle that should be derived objectively by an examination of the nature of morality and the nature of man. Rights are not mere subjective constructs, as they are so often treated. Rather, they are objective principles validated by moral philosophy (in particular, by political philosophy, which is the sub-branch of moral philosophy that deals with the morality of the use of force).

A person has a right to some particular thing — as opposed merely to a desire for that thing — if he has an actual moral prerogative allowing him to do or have that thing. This must necessarily be accompanied by others having some corresponding moral injunction against preventing the right holder from doing or having that thing. The right cannot exist in a vacuum, hermetically sealed off from others. Thus, to say that a person has property rights (a conspicuous omission from the video) is not a mere assertion of a desire for some useful thing. It is an assertion that it is morally right for a person to control his own property, and morally wrong for others to interfere with this control. Rights refer to what is actually right — i.e., what is morally right.

Genuine rights exist as eternal truths of moral philosophy. They are principles that hold true regardless of time or place and regardless of the state of present inventions. Hence, there can be no such thing as a right to shoes, ice cream, or rock-and-roll, things that were once absent entirely from human invention. To hold the contrary view is to reduce rights to a shopping list of the latest gadgets and knickknacks….

In a rational society, with a proper understanding of the nature of rights, an assertion of a moral prerogative for free education, healthcare, or the supply of ice cream would be regarded as an embarrassing reductio ad absurdum. Presentations where young people assert rights willy-nilly, without any apparent regard for where their desired goods would come from, might be regarded as an amusing example of the naiveté and misconceived ideals of youth. But in today’s mushy-headed culture, this is actually displayed by the advocates of “social justice” as an expression of their own ideals.

I watched this tonight. It’s good.

Glenn Reynolds’ law of subsidy, via Instapundit:

The government decides to try to increase the middle class by subsidizing things that middle class people have: If middle-class people go to college and own homes, then surely if more people go to college and own homes, we’ll have more middle-class people. But homeownership and college aren’t causes of middle-class status, they’re markers for possessing the kinds of traits — self-discipline, the ability to defer gratification, etc. — that let you enter, and stay, in the middle class. Subsidizing the markers doesn’t produce the traits; if anything, it undermines them.

Also, you should take the time to read Sean Malone’s latest at Logicology, wherein he explains to broken window fallacy advocate Larry Summers why there is no economic silver lining to the earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear, disaster(s) in Japan. Excerpt below (some emphasis added):

Seriously stop and ponder the implications of Summers’ statement – and those of the other writers mentioned. Ask yourself how the extreme destruction of property can result in a net economic gain to Japan or the world? …

As my friend, Dr. Steven Horwitz – who is Professor of Economics at St. Lawrence University – put it when I asked him for a quote (for an upcoming video project) on this matter:

“The argument that cleaning up from destruction can be a source of economic growth is one of the oldest fallacies in economics. The devastation in Japan is not an opportunity for growth, it’s a disaster that has impoverished millions and anyone who thinks there’s a silver lining because GDP will rise during the cleanup should offer up his own house for destruction in order to reduce the unemployment rate.”

The fallacy is so easy to grasp… so impossible to miss… that I suspect only an Ivy-league professor wouldn’t be able to see it, which explains the likes of Summers and Krugman – though it doesn’t explain why so many reporters seem to have failed to grasp the obvious here.
Fortunately, not all are quite so bad… As a point of pride, writing for my own brand-new, quite excellent employer, Ryan Young clearly explains what Summers is missing and fills in the gaps that I deliberately asked Professor Horwitz to leave out of his quote:

“Here’s why: if the tsunami had never happened, people would still have all the buildings and cars that they had in the first place. They would be able to spend their money on other, additional goods that they want.

And those new construction jobs the tsunami will create? Every last one of those workers could be making something else instead. They could be producing computers, televisions, almost anything.

People who were construction workers to begin with could be building new factories or new homes, in addition to the ones they already have. Instead, they will be working overtime just to get back what they already had. This is not stimulus, even if it does show up in GDP. It is better to build than to rebuild.”

The thing is, Keynesian, broken window fallacy reasoning is everywhere in government… It’s been what’s kept Japan from escaping its “lost decade”. It’s why we’re still in the shape we’re in 3 years after the stock market crash in 2007. It’s even why we have gotten increasingly painful boom & busts over the last 30 years.

“For the good of the economy”, Larry Summers argument should compel you to take your TVs, your computers, your cars and everything else you own and smash them to pieces, as that would stimulate “economic growth” and “jobs” for TV, computer and car manufacturers.

Maybe that sounds extreme to you, but what in the world do you think Cash for Clunkers (a Larry Summers inspired idea, no less) was all about?

Setting aside the grotesquery of this whole affair, talking about the construction boom to follow in Japan as if that remotely makes up for the pain and suffering that nation is feeling right now, the economic argument employed here is just. plain. wrong.

Excellent reading here by liberty pimp daddy Ken Schoolland. Intro below, but read the whole thing:

In fond remembrance of Frédéric Bastiat on the celebration of 200 years since his birth, allow me to open this topic in a manner that Bastiat might appreciate – with a parody. One of Bastiat’s most famous essays was of candlemakers who wanted to ban light and heat from the sun in order to protect local industry. Why not protect labor in a similar manner?

By commenter malcomkyle on a Hawai’i Reporter article about Hawai’i moving towards marijuana decriminalization. (I highlighted the quips I liked best):

If you support prohibition then you’re either a black market profiteer, a terrorist, a corrupt politician, a sadomoralist, a wing-nut socialist or a fake-conservative.

If you support prohibition then you’ve helped trigger the worst crime wave in history, raising gang warfare to a level not seen since the days of alcohol bootlegging.

If you support prohibition you’ve a helped create a black market with massive incentives to hook both adults and children alike.

If you support prohibition you’ve helped to make these dangerous substances available in schools and prisons.

If you support prohibition you’ve helped put previously unknown and contaminated drugs on the streets.

If you support prohibition you’ve helped to escalate Murder, Theft, Muggings and Burglaries.

If you support prohibition you’ve helped to divert scarce law-enforcement resources away from protecting your fellow citizens from the ever escalating violence against their person or property.

If you support prohibition you’ve helped to prevent the sick and dying from obtaining safe and effective medication.

If you support prohibition you’ve helped remove many important civil liberties from those citizens you falsely claim to represent.

If you support prohibition you’ve helped create the prison-for-profit synergy with drug lords.

If you support prohibition you’ve helped escalate the number of people on welfare.

If you support prohibition you’re responsible for the horrific racial disparities which have bred generations of incarcerated and disenfranchised minorities.

If you support prohibition you’ve helped evolve local gangs into transnational enterprises with intricate power structures that reach into every corner of society, controlling vast swaths of territory with significant social and military resources at their disposal.

If you support prohibition you’re promoting a policy which kills our children, endangers our troops, counteracts our foreign policy and reduces much of the developing world to anarchy.

If you support prohibition then prepare yourself for even more death, corruption, sickness, imprisonment, unemployment, and the complete loss of the rule of law.

Neurotics build castles in the sky, psychotics live in them; the concept of a “Drug-Free Society” is a neurotic fantasy and Prohibition’s ills are a product of this psychotic delusion.

Prohibition is nothing less than a grotesque dystopian nightmare; if you support it you must be either ignorant, stupid, brainwashed, corrupt or criminally insane.

Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China. As one official put it, “No one is scrutinizing Hu Jintao’s words in Tahrir Square.”

In other words, it’s easier to be President of China because you can more effectively collectivize and control individuals by directing and proscribing their actions.

Bill Kristol takes the piss out of Obama here:

If you’re president of China, people around the world who are fighting for freedom don’t really expect you to help. If you’re president of China, you don’t have to put up with annoying off-year congressional elections, and then negotiate your budget with a bunch of gun-and-religion-clinging congressmen and senators. If you’re president of China, you can fund your national public radio to your heart’s content. And if you’re president of China, when you host a conference on bullying in schools, people take you seriously.

Don’t forget, Obama won the Nobel peace prize, and the last recipient of the peace prize is languishing in a Chinese prison.

It’s so much easier to be President of China. That should be on a tee shirt.

by Alex Fidel

Last night’s interview with Ken Schoolland and Dave Shellenberger (back-to-back, not at the same time) from my show Freethought Radio can be downloaded here.

Ken and Dave are both really smart guys. As many of you may know, Ken wrote the book The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible: A Free Market Odyssey, and the preface of that book turned into the Philosophy of Liberty animation.

Tune in to the show (airs Wednesdays at 8PM PST only at KSUNradio.com) over the next few weeks, because our guests include Peter Schiff, Gary Johnson, John Dennis, and Nick Gillespie. Also in the works of getting Howard Kaylan, lead singer of The Turtles, Flo & Eddie, and Frank Zappa & The Mothers of Invention (1970-72 era)! Also planning to move the show down to Palomar Radio down in San Diego (which is 1320 AM, Cox Digital Cable Channel 957, and internet streaming) in the fall, so stay tuned for news by following our Facebook.

By Don Boudreaux:

Now you’ll likely respond that I’m reading your comment too literally; you mean – not run “America” – just run the government.  But if this is what you mean, why are you among today’s leading voices calling for ever-more government power to “run” the country?  Even if it were possible that incorruptible saints could somehow “run” a country better than do the spontaneous forces of the market and of civil society, the fact that highly flawed human beings such as Newt Gingrich (and too many others to name) routinely rise to positions of great authority in government should cause you to pause from your incessant campaign to transfer more and more decision-making power from individuals to government.

Read it.

Over a year ago I posted about a fascinating, profoundly inspiring, and tear jerking, documentary titled War Dogs of the Pacific – the K-9s that guided Marines into combat in the Pacific Theater of WWII. It is only appropriate then that I mark the following:

The body of a soldier who died along with his record breaking sniffer dog in Afghanistan last week has returned home to the UK.

Lance Corporal Liam Tasker, from Kirkcaldy in Fife, was shot dead while on patrol in Helmand province.

The ashes of the 26-year-old’s dog Theo were flown home on the same plane.

L/Cpl Tasker, who was called a “rising star” by Army chiefs, was shot by Taliban snipers and Theo died of a seizure shortly after his master.

Theo died of a broken heart. Dog sensed that his friend Liam died, and he died too.

The soldier and his 22-month-old dog had made 14 finds in five months while on the frontline.

The pair’s successes at uncovering so many explosions and weapons had resulted in their tour of Afghanistan being extended by a month.

Via.

Via Reason, here’s the transcript of Sen. Rand Paul’s speech on the Senate floor regarding the budget. It’s phenomenal.

But so many people have said ‘oh, we can’t talk about entitlement. You will be unelected, you will be unelectable if you talk about entitlement reform.’

The president still makes this mistake. He will not lead us. He will not talk and give a leadership role to entitlement reform. Someone must do it. We must stand up and be bold because the longer these problems fester, the longer we allow them to accumulate, the bigger the problems become. The more dramatic the answers must be.

If you look at Greece and these other nations that have faced debt crises, their problem came to a head all of a sudden and they changed the age on Social Security like that.

If we want to do it gradually and let people plan for their future, you need to start now before we enter into a crisis. My problem with the discussion and the debate at this point is that I don’t think either side recognizes the enormity of the problem or the imminence of the problem.

Even people who would be considered to be those of the mainstream – the former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says 50% of chance that there will be some kind of monetary problems, significant monetary problems, even to the point of crisis in the next few years.

Many people have said Japan is locked in crisis, that crisis is coming because of the debt that they’ve accumulated.

When that comes to America, do we want to have government by crisis?

This hits the nail on the head. Crisis breeds black swan solutions, the sort that permits much grafting by the political class. The Patriot Act passed after 9/11, Sarbanes-Oxley passed after the Enron scandal, Dodd-Frank passed after the recent fiscal collapse, etc. I basically assume that politicians crave for crisis, and as Rham Emmanuel famously quipped, savvy politicians never let a good one go to waste.

Already we can’t even pass a budget. We can’t pass appropriations bills. Our bills do not even go to the committees anymore. They just come to the floor and we put a patchwork quilt on them and there’s a chance this ends up being two more weeks. It is not the way you should run government.

If you want to have a significant plan for changing things, send things through the committee. If you want to have a realistic way of running government, have appropriations bills.

If you want to be someone who believes in good, responsible government, for goodness sakes, pass a budget. We didn’t pass a budget last year.

This chart shows how big the problem is. I wish I had a magnifying glass because that’s the only way you could see the other side’s proposal: $6 billion in cuts. It’s one day’s borrowing. It’s not even one day’s spending that they’re talking about. It’s insignificant, it’s inconsequential, and it will do nothing to delay or alter the looming debt crisis.

Look at the other proposal from our side.

It’s bigger – you can actually see it without a magnifying glass – but look how it is dwarfed by one year’s problem.

I recently proposed $500 billion in cuts and when I went home and spoke to the people of my state, spoke to those from the Tea Party, they said, $500 billion is not enough and they’re right.

$500 billion is a third of one year’s problem.

Up here that’s way too bold, but it’s not even enough.

But we have to counterbalance and understand the alternatives here.

If we do nothing, all of the programs that people are so fond of, extolling and saying will be gone.

So I implore the American public and those here to look at this problem and say to Congress, we’re not doing enough; you must cut more.

For its part, the left honestly believes that a federal government at least as large as it is now is justified and necessary and that the sort of taxation necessary and which should prudently be exacted to maintain the federal government at or close to its projected future (greater) levels will not injure the private sector beast of burden which serves it, and in fact such policies will grow said beast of burden. And if ifs were fifths I’d always be drunk.

The GOP, on the other hand, marches in step to inspiring small government, low taxes, fiscal responsibility, rhetoric, as well as it sounds the alarms of impending fiscal crisis. Yet its boldest cogent solution – Paul Ryan’s Roadmap, which is not endorsed by the House majority leader or the party at large because it’s spicy bold for the GOP – balances the budget by 2063. In the short term, Republicans propose a budget producing a 1.55 trillion dollar deficit, apparently to be the lesser of the two weevils on the matter (Democrats propose a slightly more preposterous 1.65 trillion dollar deficit), largely by cutting disfavored liberal programs as red meat for the base. Since raising taxes is out of the question for the GOP (“read my lips” lol), whether on principle or on belief that raising taxes will kill growth, the GOP proposes to pay for this massive deficit with warm fuzzy notions of “growing the economy out of the ditch, not driving it in deeper.”

That, of course, would require the implausible feat of fundamental reductions in the size, scope, and reach, of the federal government, such that the private sector, now unshackled, takes off running. Even the best case scenario of the American economy freed of government is not clear that growth sufficient to step beyond the gruesome shadow of our present fiscal calamity is possible. As discussed above, however, the GOP takes no leap towards a balanced budget (aside from Rand Paul’s lonely and spurned call for a $500 billion in cuts this year) and fails to identify the unnecessary laws, regulation, and bureaucracy which must be torched to actually get government out of marketplaces ranging from resource extraction to transportation.

In short, Democrats propose an impossible method to pay for their beloved enormous government, and the GOP pretends it does not love enormous government yet itself proposes an enormous government, the presence of which emasculates the GOP’s intended method of paying for it.

That’s not a Hobson’s choice, it’s a Gordian knot. Voting Gov. Gary Johnson into office would be a big step towards cutting it the disastrous bi-partisan consensus on big government.

I confess to have several bones in my body itching to send a cruise missile straight into Qaddafi’s skull. Matt Welch makes a convincing case that military intervention in Libya is a terrible idea, and even if it were an excellent idea, that America is dead broke is reason enough to keep our noses out of yet another nation’s affairs. Read the whole thing.

Here:

I can’t say I really mind Farrakhan. He is obnoxious in a lot of ways: the white-hating and Jew-baiting, the kissing up to Gaddafi, Mugabe, Castro, & Co. This kind of thing is so widespread among American blacks, though, it seems unfair to single out Farrakhan. It is similarly pointless to object that NOI encourages antipathy between blacks and whites, when everything else in our culture, from Affirmative Action to the endless picking at historical wounds in schools and movies and “diversity” seminars, does the same thing.

Most, though not Farrakhan, pay lip service to pure equality. But as Glenn Reynolds might say, in practice equality doesn’t leave enough room for grafting.

by Alex Fidel

“We should drug test every high school student.”

-Dick Morris

I may just be restating what Peter said, but I don’t think Dick Morris would support such a policy if he knew the real implications of it. Would he really support police pointing their guns at teenagers, forcing them to piss in a cup for a drug test as a condition of existing as a citizen in America? I’m sure he doesn’t think in those terms, since it is libertarians’ jargon that laws rest on the idea that if you break them, somewhere down the line a cop will be pointing a gun to your face, if you resist arrest enough.
…Which gets me to thinking if such a law were to be imposed, what happens if they resist drug testing? Are we going to arrest them? Shoot them? Kick them out of school even though they are forced to pay for it through taxes? What about the innocent kids who don’t do drugs, are we going to violate their privacy and dignity, and turn America into a country where everyone is guilty until proven innocent? All socialist countries have the guilty before proven innocent legal framework, Mr. Morris. So if you truly want to repeal Obama’s socialism (as the title of your book suggests), don’t be so quick to unknowingly replace it with a different form of socialism, even though your intentions disregard that. I don’t think he would actually support such a brutal police state, but such a policy that he advocates may have such unintended consequences. All the sort of rhetorical questions I ask above simply address the notion that government is force. I don’t think Dick Morris thinks in those terms, since that notion is typically libertarian jargon, so if he were to read this, I would hope my rhetorical questions would get him to think about the issue.

Nicholas Winton is a Brit who organized the rescue of 669 mostly Jewish children from German-occupied Czechoslovakia on the eve of the Second World War in an operation later known as the Czech Kindertransport. Winton found homes for them and arranged for their safe passage to Britain. Here’s his story. Read it:

In the fall of 1938, many Europeans were lulled into complacency by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who thought he had pacified Adolf Hitler by handing him a large chunk of Czechoslovakia at Munich in late September. Winston Churchill, who would succeed Chamberlain in 1940, was among the wise and prescient who believed otherwise. So was Nicholas Winton, then a 29-year-old London stockbroker.

Having made many business trips to Germany in previous years, Winton was well aware of Jews being arrested, harassed and beaten. The infamous Kristallnacht of November 9, 1938 — in which Nazi thugs destroyed Jewish synagogues, homes and businesses while murdering scores of Jews across Germany — laid to rest any doubts about Hitler’s deadly intentions. His increasingly aggressive anti-Semitism and Germany’s occupation of the Sudetenland in October 1938 spurred a tide of predominately Jewish refugees. Thousands fled to as-yet unoccupied Czechoslovakia, especially to Prague. Some had relatives and friends to move in with, but many settled into makeshift refugee camps in appalling conditions in the midst of winter.

Winton had planned a year-end ski trip to Switzerland with a friend, but was later convinced by him at the last moment to come to Prague instead because he had “something urgent to show him” — namely, the refugee problem. Near Prague, Winton visited the freezing camps. What he saw aroused deep feelings of compassion within him: orphans and children whose parents had already been arrested, and families desperate to somehow get at least their children out of harm’s way. Jewish parents who were lifetime residents and citizens in the country were also anxious to send their children to safety, hoping in vain that the storm would blow over. They, like Winton, sensed that the Nazis wouldn’t rest until they took the rest of the country, and perhaps all of Europe as well. The thought of what could happen to them if the Nazis devoured the rest of Czechoslovakia was enough to inspire this good man into action.

Libyan Militia, FTW

Whether or not the Second Amendment enshrines an individual or collective right to keep and bear arms, some Americans consider the concept of an armed militia antiquated and unnecessary. While a citizen militia might have stopped the Red Coats, they argue, if an armed citizen-militia were ever necessary in modern times (forgetting, of course, that states ranging from Alaska to Maryland called self-armed militias to duty as recently as WWII) such a militia’s efforts would be futile due to the overwhelming superiority of the federal military and state national guards (not to mention America’s frighteningly militarized police forces).

In short, keeping and bearing arms has precious little place in modern times, and even if it did, militia (much less individual) resistance to government force is futile. Ergo, obey.

Libya is bearing out just how wrong those arguments are. Libyans utterly lacking formal military training are putting up a valiant and effective resistance to Qaddafi’s far better equipped loyalists and mercenaries. The only impediment to Libyans hanging Qaddafi Mussolini style, and taking back the economic, civil, and political liberty Qaddafi’s reign stole, is a lack of weapons.

But for significant portions of Libya’s military defecting to freedom’s cause, and delivering to rebels military supplies, there would essentially be no arms for Libya’s uprising. Although still woefully under equipped, Libyans are bravely resisting forces loyal to Qaddafi in possession of planes, bombs, attack helicopters, and tanks, all to use against ordinary citizens. In fact, before loyalist troops defected and provided rebels with rifles, RPGs, ammunition, and two helicopters, Libyans resorted to WWI era swords to beat back Qaddafi’s forces. Said Libyan rebel Mutaz Mughrati:

We don’t need the army, just their weapons.

[Editor: Word to your mother, Mutaz, that's what the Second Amendment is all about]

Libyans own a mere 15.5 firearms per 100 people, while Americans own a fantastic 88.8 firearms per 100 people. (Stats here.) The correlation between actually bearing arms and enjoying relative freedom is telling. So are the facts that North Koreans own 0.6 guns per 100 people; Iranians 7.3 per 100 people; and Egyptians 3.5 per 100 people. It’s by their respective dicators’ design that the citizens of the world’s most brutal regimes are the least prepared to fight their state oppressors. And while Egyptians succeeded in protesting 82 year old, terminal cancer patient Hosni Mubarak out of office, that success reflects Mubarak’s unwillingness (or inability to convince the military) to wage war on Egyptian citizens united in nationwide revolt more than it speaks to the power of protest. George Orwell was correct when he observed that Ghandi was fortunate to rebel against 20th century Britain, not the Nazis.

What of free and prosperous countries whose citizens are largely unarmed? Indeed, today the great grandchildren of the Irish patriots whose arms and blood birthed their country own just 7 guns per 100 people. The phenomena, however of free, prosperous, and secure countries whose citizens are now essentially unarmed has not yet stood the test of time. The multitude of factors that gave rise to and now sustain many such countries, among them economic rights, trade, NATO, and pax Americana, are discussion fodder for another time, as are the multitude of internal and external threats to the same.

Irish Freedom Fighters

Moving in the opposite direction, Bahrainians own 24.8 guns per 100 people and Saudi Arabians 35 guns per 100 people. Such an increased capacity for citizen rebellion may explain those governments’ immediate and brutal crackdowns on protests there (and in Saudi Arabia, the subsequent suspension of what little there ever was of the right of assembly and protest).

Libya’s noble revolt has given me much food for thought and barstool conversations. It seems many people can hardly imagine that a western government would use military force against citizens, much less unwarranted military force. They forget Kent State, Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidians, and appear to accept as normal or necessary the para-military police forces – ATF, DEA, DHS, Border Patrol – prosecuting the war on drugs daily, as well as the existence of SWAT teams in every locality. Assuming a western military willing to use its might on its fellow citizens, and given that the average western military is far better equipped, organized, and disciplined than Qaddafi’s army (which the country of Chad decimated in the Toyota war), wouldn’t citizens’ armed resistance be futile no matter how many guns per 100 people?

Few revolutions come cloaked with the likelihood of success. It’s true that if the US military were as determined to clear Houston of American hostiles as the Marines were in clearing Fallujah of insurgents and terrorists, the US military could do the same to Houston. Doing so, however, would require President to order the military to use against American rebels the same, or greater, military might it used in Fallujah. In Fallujah Marines would often blast a tank round through a building before clearing it, and Marine snipers’ superior range was a powerful controlling force.

Consider that your average American rebel today would likely pack far more individual heat than an AK-47 (no offense intended towards that most serviceable of rifles). Even without RPGs or small artillery, though I’d bet on Americans being able to acquire them, the firepower possessed by your average 100 Americans is impressive, ranging from .50 caliber sniper rifles to virtually every tactical weapon on the market. Really, you name it, Americans have it, including compound bows that can take down elephants. If you want to forcefully subject a community of Americans opposed to your authority, you’d be wise to bring a tank. The largest standing army in the world is the American hunter.

What sort of state action would inspire Americans nationwide to openly revolt? What would a revolt in America look like? What would it take for American soldiers to fire on, bomb, or strafe, citizens engaged in a nationwide revolt?

I think a nationwide citizens’ revolt would be millions of individuals marching on Washington DC and state capitals to simply lock the doors (to keep the politicians from legislating) and ratify, pronto, significant Constitutional amendments. Sparking such a revolt would require something beyond the pale, a fundamental abridgment of the sovereignty of the United States. It would take a lot for a significant portion of Americans to contest the continuing legitimacy of the government. Look at how few of us vote regularly. Regrettably, and inexcusably, we’re well accustomed to the bumps along the road to our collective serfdom.

I don’t think the military would fire en mass on Americans legitimately revolting against the government. Arrest many of them? Sure. Abridge the First Amendment right of assembly? Temporarily. Would the political class use such a protest as a reason to eliminate the Second Amendment? Count on it. But fire upon and root out of city and countryside alike millions of Americans standing in individual opposition to a federal or state action? I can’t see it.

A thoroughly armed citizenry is capable of resisting the police power of a state. That evidence for the continuing relevance and necessity of the Second Amendment. The ongoing Libyan rebellion, as revolutions before it, is a stark reminder that when governments are willing to wage war on their citizens, so animating is the contest of freedom that many will risk death and die so others may live more freely.

Final note.

“It’s a militia of ordinary people versus a very ruthless regime,” said Idris Laga, a member of the [Libyan] rebel military council formed Monday. “Our people are very excited about fighting for their freedom, but we have to get organized first; everybody is acting on their own.”

Although I’ve stepped away from the ledge that was my fascination with San Diego’s cab names, I take many great memories. Most of all the three greatest cab names I never snapped a picture of – Knight Rider Cab, Destroyer Cab, and Tornado Cab. Then, the pantheon of noteworthy cab names. There’s Freedom Cab. American Freedom Cab. Mogogo Cab. Home Boy  Cab. Vantastic Cab. Cool Cab. Comfort Cab. Cozy Cab. Nice Cab. Just A Cab. Short Cut Cab (recent find). Camelot Cab. Bingo Cab. A seemingly limitless supply of cabs named after dusty villages in Ethiopia, Somalia, and Eritrea (e.g. Gudaya Cab, Cames Cab). A cab named after a big city in Ethiopia – Addis Cab. Can’t forget Winner Cab, Orion Cab, White Cab, Black White Cab, Camey Cab, Deluxe Cab, Deluxe-1 Cab, Flow Cab, Donbas Cab, ASAP Cab, Eritrean Cab, Stas Cab, S&W Cab, D&G Cab, H&Z Cab, KGB Cab (just joking, but it’d be awesome – and thanks for still reading!), Maipu Cab, Paradise Cab, Captain Cab, Airport Cab, Absolute Cab, ABC Cab, Desert Cab, Surf Ride Cab, Maimegdom Cab, Ark Cab, K-2 Cab, Ararat Cab, Nordic Cab, Nile Cab, Red Sea Cab, Cash Cab (not that cash cab), Red Top Cab, Amir Cab, In Touch Cab, Yellow Cab, Theus Cab, Sea Cab (among my favorites), Time Cab, Century Cab, Eye Cab, Aviator Cab, Doug Cab, Daniel Cab, and the list goes on. (DuelingBarstools featured Japanese cabs here, and remarked on recent taxi innovations here.)

So when it comes to cabs [pointing at self] this is the tee-shirt. Capiche? But proving that the best is yet to come, brace yourself for a most unique sort of “cab” by and for rugged individuals. Ladies and gentlemen, I introduce to you MY CAR.

Loyal DuelingBarstools reader Josh snapped this picture in Kona on the Big Island of Hawai’i. He commented:

I bet if you hailed this cab, he would pull up and tell you to get your own damn cab, this is my car bitch!

Wonder what he’d say if you told him to get out of the handicapped stall. He’d probably tell you to beat it, haole.

Er, copy / paste. Here:

[Libyan] Rebels called on Thursday for a no-fly zone, echoing a demand by Libya’s deputy U.N. envoy, who now opposes Gaddafi.

“Bring Bush! Make a no fly zone, bomb the planes,” shouted soldier-turned-rebel Nasr Ali, referring to a no-fly zone imposed on Iraq in 1991 by then U.S. President George Bush.

Emphasis added. I note that being careful of what you wish for is an adage that swings both ways.

by Alex Fidel

I wrote this article in response to Sonoma State University’s KSUN Radio being threatened by budget cuts. I doubt it’ll make a difference. My only hope is that union thugs don’t come after me

The truth is always hard to hear, but it needs to be served up.

Whenever we hear about spending cuts to balance expenditures with revenues, we always hear about cutting education and raising taxes. First off, raising taxes is the worst idea, because for one, the problem is with spending and not revenue, and second, it will scare off businesses to states like Nevada. With cutting education, we never address the true ticking fiscal time bomb- public employee pensions. We always cut services.

In a Reason Magazine article by Tim Cavanaugh, titled “Farewell, My Lovely: How public pensions killed progressive California,” he states that “medium term unfunded liabilities for government employee pensions are pegged by the Legislative Analyst’s Office at $136 billion–and that’s a lowball figure.” So, why don’t we start by slashing pensions? I mean, they are unfunded liabilities, meaning that the pensions are not fully funded- so the money isn’t even there! What are these unions protesting for? Wouldn’t it be better if we cut pensions until they were 100% funded instead of this boondoggle that isn’t even fully funded? Or how about just switching to a flexible defined benefit, defined contribution mechanism so that workers can choose how much they pay in? Seems reasonable to me. And it’s definitely reasonable to the union workers. You see the ones in Wisconsin saying they are willing to pay in, so it should be easy street to fix this problem, right?

Well, no. The problem isn’t with the rank-and-file public workers. It’s with the thuggish union leadership. It’s really easy to paint people like me or Gov. Chris Christie as hating union workers. But we don’t. We’re angry at the union leadership who over-promised these people exorbitant pensions and benefits, so much so that they aren’t even fully funded, thus creating an unfunded liability problem.

Cavanaugh continues, “When they retire, all of those employees are contractually entitled to generous pension benefits–so generous that, collectively, they can’t be paid even by a pension system that ladles out more than $20 billion a year and is one of the largest investment pools on Wall Street.”

If we really cared about the public sector union workers, wouldn’t we want them to get all of their pension as promised without having to borrow money or bankrupt the state? What about future workers who won’t be able to receive these types of benefits because we won’t be able to afford them? Isn’t it better to have a smaller pension that is fully funded and sustainable, rather than an over-promised and underfunded one?

I’m not optimistic that the union leadership won’t have it that way.

At least in private sector unions, when overzealous union leaders promise more than can be afforded, just that company goes out of business. When public sector unions promise more than can be afforded, it is at the expense of the whole state, especially the taxpayers. Also, private sector unions’ rationale is for workers to get a decent share of the company’s profits, which they achieve through savings, investment, and staying on top of competition, but public sector agencies do not produce profits or wealth. They simply take wealth from the taxpayers.

So how does this play into education? Well we could cut services, or we can cut the real drains on the budget. Well for one, we should eliminate needless bureaucracy in the education system, both federal and state. Abolish the Dept. of Education. It makes no sense for the federal government to take money from the states and then launder it back to them, not to mention the lack of competition that it creates. Pin the salary of public sector workers to comparable jobs in the private sector, that way, public unions will think twice about whose campaign they contribute to; picking someone that will let the private sector flourish so that wages can rise naturally. Change the pension system so that it is 100% funded, which would mean a reduction in benefits, but makes it more sustainable for future workers and for the health of the state, and maybe even have workers contribute some of their pay to these funds (that way, they can be sure that the money is actually there).

If the schools were ran like a business, services would not be cut. Successful businesses succeed by offering the best product/service at the lowest cost. There is talk about KSUN Radio being in danger. Why do we have to sacrifice a service that the customers of SSU demand? That’s bad business. Then again, these schools are not run like businesses.

I’m all for workers having benefits. That’s how employers compete for the best workers, otherwise they could take another job. But the benefits should be sustainable, affordable, and fully funded. Promising more than can even be payed for is truly fraud, and in that sense, I do not think the right to contract will be truly violated when it is in the case of fraud in regards to renegotiating these contracts, but I’m not a lawyer so who knows.

So we can still have KSUN. We don’t need to cut educational services. If SSU were ran like a business, they would cut funding for things that make no difference in the quality of service. Public union workers need to stand up to their egregious union bosses and demand financial sustainability. Don’t stand for their fraudulent promises that cannot be met (at least not without borrowing money or moving the state towards bankruptcy), because ultimately, services will be cut when the cost of production goes up for an institution that isn’t ran like a business (best product, lowest cost). That’s not to say that teachers will be working for slave wages, they will just have sustainable ones. And from what I hear from the crowds in Wisconsin, the rank-and-file are willing to do that. Unfortunately, the union leadership only cares about power and money, and won’t budge, even if it means teachers having no pay and benefits as opposed to having them slightly reduced.

**Side note: It seems that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker isn’t touching fire & police pensions. Maybe it’s because they donated to his campaign, and the teacher’s union did not. We need more politicians like former NM Gov. Gary Johnson and NJ Gov. Chris Christie (see featured pic)- who can’t be bought because they’re not career politicians (they both tied for 3rd place at the CPAC straw poll).