“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.

I’m sure some of you are familiar with the RLC. Well, I decided to start up the RLCCA SD. Basically the duty includes showing up to Republican Party meetings and affecting change. If you are a registered Republican in San Diego County, you can vote on measures, bylaws, and whatever those stuffy establishment types do at those meetings.

The Republican Party of San Diego County meets at the Town & Country Resort in San Diego on the second Monday of every month at 7 PM. For January, that would be the 10th. I’m going to be there.

A lot of Libertarian Party people would consider this taboo. But think of it this way- do you make a bigger statement by talking to a small group of libertarians who already agree with you or by talking to party-line Republicans and social conservatives who never really hear clear and concise arguments for liberty? I would think the latter. Besides, I would get a kick out of making party-line Republicans feel uncomfortable. And who knows, you might even be able to change some minds.

Please follow the RLCCA SD Facebook page, and if you can, show up to the meeting on the 10th. You don’t even have to be a Republican, but if you want to vote on things, you have to be registered Republican in San Diego county.

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.

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.

From the city of Exeter, great moments in community outreach: “police were under fire today after admitting they had been sneaking into people’s homes through open doors and windows and gathering up their valuables into ’swag’ bags.” The idea was to prod careless owners into improving their security efforts, but “not all residents were happy and a criminal lawyer suggested that the police may have been guilty of trespass.” [The Guardian] Earlier, and nearly as outrageous: Sept. 2 (cops in London borough “remove valuables from unlocked cars to teach the owners about safety”).

So, in short, British cops apparently have no qualms with entering British subjects’ home and seizing their property. According to a British criminal lawyer a trespassing charge is the only legal remedy. Perhaps you’re thinking it sounds like burglary, not mere trespassing. Likely not. Common law burglary requires larcenious intent, and it appears the british cops intended not to permanently deprive the British subjects in question of their property (rather, just to teach them a lesson). Plus, burglary has to occur in the nighttime.

By contrast, the 4th Amendment reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

In America the British cops’ actions would be a slam dunk unlawful search and seizure under the 4th Amendment, which guarantees American citizens the natural right to be free of such in our homes. Now, I’m often a critic of the way federal courts have interpreted the 4th Amendment, or rather how the Courts have contrived numerous exceptions to its protections. By the way, what’s most galling about judicial exceptions to the 4th Amendment is that courts created many of them in response to uphold police actions concerning the spectacularly failed war on drugs. But I digress.

A barstool duel on the matter with a fairly illiberal liberal individual might go something like this.  He/she might ask why you take umbrage at the idea that a government actor can enter your home unannounced to teach you a valuable lesson. That will segue into a much, much broader discussion of the State’s role in society. And he/she probably needs that discussion much more than you need to expound on the merits of the 4th Amendment. First, assert that individual liberty includes the right not to have nanny-state government actors fuck with you in your home. That’s pretty reasonable, f-word aside, and very few people will disagree with you. Even if he/she broadly agrees with you, he/she will counter that there’s a public interest in teaching people to lock their homes, as doing so presumably will deter thefts. Now, assert that few, if any, public interests trumps the individual’s privacy interest or his/her interest in being secure in his/her home/castle. As a matter of principal, it is the individual, not the State, who is inherently responsible for his/her home, effects, and person. For instance, not even the State’s strong interest in cheaply and efficiently housing soldiers trumps the individual’s right not to be forced to house soldiers in his home. By contrast, if the State, not the individual, is inherently responsible for the individual then there is no reason why police can’t visit your bathroom unannounced while you’re defecating to ensure you’re not using too much toilet paper, or brushing your teeth, or whatever. He’ll/she’ll say that’s absurd. Ask her to spot the principal difference between cops teaching you an in-home lesson about theft and an in-home lesson about ass-wiping. The only difference is that one personally offends him/her, and one doesn’t. Granted, this is kindergarten level dueling. But it is your charge to utterly dispel the ugly notion, everywhere you find it, that the state is inherently noble and ultimately responsible for the individual.

Pila began with this seemingly benign quote:

I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world because they’d never expect it. — Jack Handey

Mike replied:

They call that place Canada.

Niall liked that:

@Michael: brilliant. just brilliant.

Over at The Root, where Slate magazine sequesters black journalists [emphasis added], Michael Arceneaux decides it’s time to excommunicate certain undesirables from the African-American brotherhood.  Because “while we love our own,” he writes, “we sure do dream of erasing a few of them from the history books.”

Talk about the royal “We.”  What’s galling are the reasons the Root includes Justice Thomas on an unwanted list inclusive of murderous despots, thugs, and infamous corrupticrats:

[Thomas] looks to the Constitution as “colorblind,” says he’s a man who just happens to be black and opposes government programs intended to help minorities.

A colorblind Constitution. The horror. What sort of illiberal individual could entertain such a notion? And where did Thomas get the idea that government social programs’ eligibility criterions should satisfy the equal protection components of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.  No true Scotsman black man could hold such views.

If Justice Thomas has ever patronized himself by saying “I just happen to be black” I can’t find it on the Internet. Take away the racial prism that Root views through and Justice Thomas is a black man who reaches legal conclusions based purely upon his logical faculty and reason. In a word, Clarence Thomas is an individual. A reading from Ayn Rand comparing the merits of individualism with race-driven ideology is appropriate here:

“Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.”

In a sad twist, Root judges Justice Thomas by his “own character and actions,” but seeks to excommunicate Thomas from his “collective of ancestors” for failing to agree with the moral, social, and political stances held by the majority of the living members of his race. Look out Prof. Hutchinson, you might be next.

UPDATED: 2/23/2010 @ 11:45 a.m.

Frankly I’m surprised that Kanye West didn’t make Root’s list, considering that Barack Obama – while the sitting president of the United States – called West “a jackass” with a most sincere tone of voice.

UPDATED: 2/23/2010 @ 1:00 p.m.

Cavan got me going in the comments, so here’s our dialogue:

Cavan:

Well spoken. I find the very idea of “removing” some aspect of black history a bit perplexing. If they can do that can we just selectively remove Hitler from “white people” history? Clarence Thomas is as much a part of black history as Martin and Malcolm. That is, assuming that “black history” means the history of black people, and that membership in this group is determined by only skin color? Except in the case of Clarence Thomas where apparently membership is determined by his views? “Black History” is about race, if you chose to identify yourself by race instead of by intellect… I say you’re stuck with the identity you chose.

And Ayn Rand can insult the human race for its base collectivism all she wants… but she might as well complain about our weak bones or the fact we only have two hands. Humans are very visual creatures, and race–being a visual characteristic–will always be used to make the mental shortcuts known as stereotypes. Honestly I’ve never wondered why we don’t define race by voice patterns or smell–but logical me wonders it now.

Unfortunately its also a very dominant issue. It’s like the Sriacha Sauce of modern issues. No matter what you had before, if you put Sriacha on it–it now tastes Sriacha. No matter what the issue was before, once race gets introduced its about race.

Ryan:

I’ve achieved Sriracha sauce enlightenment. I put gobs of it on stir fry at Pho King Express (the one next to Stout) last friday and it enhanced, rather than overpowered, my meal. I believe all human beings are capable of a similar enlightenment whereby we interact with each other based upon character, content, and creed rather than primitive racial animus and collectivism.

I’ve been doing volunteer mediations in the local (female) juvenile hall and witness first hand some very basic forms of racial collectivism amongst the inmates there. The inmates are teenagers, come from the most broken of homes, and more broadly ‘communities’ that rely primarily upon race to draw social, cultural, and ideological lines. Moreover their prison environment is conducive to forging protective and information alliances. In light of those factors, the fact that race governs a good portion of the inmates relationships, actions, and responses is quite understandable. I do not fault those children.

But I fault the Root’s black intelligentsia because although they possess every resource to rise above the ugly, racial collectivism that centuries of racism forced them to retain, their ‘unwanted list’ clearly displays their refusal to do so. I further fault our society for tolerating (so long as it is non-white) explicit, racial-ideological collectivism. Finally, Salon “sequestering,” as Moynihan put it, their black commentators into a separate but public (equal?) forum (the Root) where they can serve as the de facto intelligentsia of African-Americans is insulting – a stunning example of the soft bigotry of low expectations.

[UPDATED 4/1/2010 @ 3:00 pm] – I’ve added some of the subsequent commentary below:

Joel Dreyfus [Managing Editor of the Root]:

Have you guys ever heard of humor..irony.. tongue in cheek? Are we collectivist, separate-but-equal, unintellectual agenda black folks barred from using such devices? The list was meant to be funny. And even the description of Thomas was ironic!!! I know, sometimes it doesn’t translate in print, but you guys need to, as my younger staffers would say, chill.

We’re not sequestered; we target a specific audience that feels underserved and whose views, perspectives and opinions are generally ignored by the mainstream media and the mainstream Web. We make a point of presenting a range of black opinions: conservative, liberal, middle of the road, and even, occasionally, humorous.

One of the wonders of the Internet is you can narrowcast to whom you want and if there is a market response to your content it means you are successful. And you don’t have to read us if you don’t want to.

I find it amusing that you and other sites have faulted Slate for “segregating” The Root. Just a little research would have shown that we were created just two years ago, more than a decade after Slate. We are in the same group for corporate convenience.

I find most news/intellectual/discussion sites on the web racially segregated in a much more blatant fashion – by omission. The Daily Beast recently posted a list of the most important journalists of the Left and Right. Such lists are more gimmicky than substantive but it reflected a common viewpoint that makes New Media not very different from Old Media: not a single African-American journalist made the list.
Quite possibly, you have been the exception and you have published the thinking of a diverse group of African-American, Hispanic and Asian thinkers.

We’re comfortable in our skin and we have created a place where our audience is taken seriously and can engage in a spirited debate that reflects a broad spectrum of views. And occasionally, we even make them laugh.

Joel Dreyfuss, Managing Editor, The Root

Ryan:

Mr. Dreyfuss, I appreciate your thoughtful response. You lamented the fact that not a single African-American journalist made the Daily Beast’s list. I simply do not care what race, quantum, or color, any of those distinguished journalists are. My sole concern is whether their work product merits inclusion on the list. Now, I’m quite sure you too care deeply about merit. Our difference is that you take race into some account, and I do not. Nor do I consider the race or races of the authors of the articles I link to, comment on, or criticize.
Although you intended the ‘unwanted list’ to convey humor and/or irony, I submit that expressing desire to oust an individual (J. Thomas) from the African race for failing to conform his socio-political views to those the Root believes are appropriate for African-Americans is a peculiar strain of racial collectivism. Standing on the ideological shoulders of better individuals than myself, I contend we should judge others based solely upon their choices, ideas, and actions as individuals, and treat every individual equally, especially as a matter of law and government. Contrary to your young staffers’ recommendation I will not chill my advocacy in that regard. Finally, I think Flavor-Flav is pretty awesome, and it wasn’t cool for the Root put him on its unwanted blacks list. I appreciate you taking the time to share your viewpoints on my fledgling blog.

Pila:

Mr. Dreyfuss,

“The list was meant to be funny.”

I will agree that the list is a joke, but not in the way that you suppose it is.

The list can be broken down into three categories:
1.) Easy Targets
2.) Conservatives
3.) Murderers

If the list really were meant “to be funny,” it would make the most sense to compose it of all Easy Targets, as Conservatives and Mass Murderers are generally not know for their hilarity.

The inclusiveness of the list is as telling as the fact that Clarence Thomas got more words written about him than anyone else.

The article is blatant, and your response is disingenuous.

Pila Sunderland,

Mike:

Clarence “Uncle Tom” Thomas was the only conservative black man George Bush Sr. could find to fill the “black seat” vacated by Thurgood Marshall (a seat Thomas has proved woefully inadequte to fill). He was a perfect choice to advance the conservative agenda – a black man willing to defer at every turn to Scalia.

Ryan:

You call Thomas an Uncle Tom for precisely the same reasons I criticized the Root article for creating an unwanted list in the first place. You consider Thomas first as a member of a racial group before you acknowledge his individuality. As a result you feel (implicitly or explicitly) his ancestry should take precedence over his individual logic and ration, and when Thomas steps out of the African-American mold you demean his individual capacity to do so by labeling him as merely an Uncle Tom.

Good read here about the upcoming America’s Cup duel between BMW Oracle and the Alinghi 5. I particularly enjoyed this bit:

The crew has also become accustomed to Alinghi’s speed. Mr. Butterworth described a recent day when a sailor who had never been on the boat came along [on the Alinghi 5].

“He’s sitting on the back and we’re doing 36 knots,” he recalled. The man uttered a curse, Mr. Butterworth added, “and he says, ‘Is this right?’

“We said yeah, this is normal now.”

Love of the sea truly is a strange and unaccountable emotion. Sailboat porn below.

See also, “A Tale of Two Revolutions: The War of Ideas & the Tragedy of the Unconstrained Vision.”

Who ya got? Thanks to Tehotu for the video!