Oh, is *this* where you're confused:

"The government could really do something. That's in the interest of the country — stop him, just stop him," said Hassan Iaeti, who traveled hours from the far south of the country to attend.

He said he believed Wilders is abusing the right of freedom of speech, which he said has limits.

"You can criticize Muslims themselves, but not their religion and not our prophet — that's our belief." (from Dutch protest against Islam critic's Koran film (AP)

No. You've got it wrong.

You can criticize me or my beliefs all you want. You just don't get to touch me, threaten me or shut me up; that's where you cross the line. Understand?

In the meantime, your religion *doesn't*--and your Prophet *don't*--get a "no criticism allowed" status. Period.

And, what??? If the government doesn't stop him for you, you will? That does seem to be your message.

Nice. You just want the government to do your thugwork for you.

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." H.L. Mencken.

Canadian housing crash?

Is Canada heading for a housing crash (Canwest News Service) ?

Well, maybe not for the exactly same reasons or to the same degree because Canadian lending practices are somewhat different, but probably anyways. Simply put, a lot of Canadians depend on a healthy American economy for their jobs. As well, demographics alone will likely account for devaluation of stand-alone houses in Canada (supply relative to demand) over the next couple of decades as the "boomers" pass through and on, unless significant immigration keeps the population growing, and things might vary widely from province to province.

Immigration levels contribute heavily to the projected population growth at the national level, as the fertility rate is assumed to remain below the replacement level in all scenarios, a situation observed since the 1970s...According to these new projections, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia are the only provinces in which more than one scenario projects that average annual growth would exceed the growth rate for Canada as a whole.

Expect a serious financial poop-storm in any case; our next door neighbour, the USA, is going through a serious rough spot, and I can't see *any* structural reasons (and certainly no political reasons) that the recent "recession" won't get much worse for them and us.

Understand this: bad political decisions (by this, I mean specifically government interventions, especially attempts to "make things better") will cause us far more damaging and far more-long-lasting financial pain than any purely business reasons. Mark my words.

Two comments on the...

..."Purported bin Laden message" (quotes from the article at CNN)...

1)

[bin Laden] dismissed claims of free speech in his statement, citing European countries' laws against denying the existence of the Holocaust.

So...all you shallow-thinking, short-sighted supporters of "anti hate speech" laws can thank yourself for handing bin Laden that one on a platter.

If you support restrictions on expression because you find some stuff distasteful, then you have nothin' to say when someone restricts you because they find something else distateful. It *is* that simple.

2)

"The laws of men which clash with the legislation of Allah the Most High are null and void, aren't sacred and don't matter to us," he said.

Actually, Mr. bin Laden: The "legislation of Allah" you refer to is null and void, isn't sacred, and doesn't matter to me.

I have my own standards.

Allah might own your life, Mr. bin Laden, and it's your life so give it to anyone you want--but my life is *mine* just as yours is yours, and my life is not yours to own or to hand over to some deity of your choice as you might wish.

Don't tread on me.

Seventeen-year-old accused of assault, fathering child

...with his girlfriend according to the article; they've evidently been sleeping together since they were both 14. That's "quasar stupid", but not as dumb as making it a court case.

Anyways, so I'm reading a comment on FARK in response to a suggestion that, as a convicted sex offender, the young dad wouldn't fare too well in prison, to which the poster, NightOwl2255 replied:

A dude that had sex with his girlfriend, even at 15, would not get a second look in prison. Even prisoners have more sense then the judicial system.

About this situation, NightOwl is right.

There's no shortage of "official" work for professional (as in government paid) busybodies and meddlers--and this is just one more in a never-ending stream of examples.

Seems to me this guy's got it right...

...(from a strictly Constitutionalist perspective)

Found on FARK: Zafler, quoting COMALite J

Most of the earlier drafts of the Second Amendment that were brought before Congress read: “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.” That bolded phrase remained through several revisions, and was finally removed only because it was deemed to be redundant. Everyone at the time knew what a militia was, and who composed a militia. It is most definitely not the National Guard, which wasn’t even founded until over a century after the Bill of Rights.

The term “well regulated” in early 1800s American English also does not mean what you think it does. It means “well-equipped.”

Even discounting that, the first clause of the Second Amendment is a dependent clause, and cannot stand alone as a sentence. The second clause is an independent clause, and can stand alone as a sentence. Basic English grammar, both then and now, states that in a compound sentence consisting of a dependent and an independent clause, the dependent clause is only a modifier or explanatory clause, with the independent clause being the operative clause. The well-regulated militia part is thus merely saying why the Right exists, and is not a limitation on it.

Even the term “arms” had a specific meaning: weapons that could be carried and wielded by hand, and ammunition thereof (so much for the idea that we can ban ammo even if we can’t Constitutionally ban guns), were the responsibility of the militia members. They had to obtain their own. The Government was to supply ordnance (cannon and other artillery, etc.). So much for the “but where do we draw the line? Can people keep and bear Abrams tanks? Missiles? Nukes?” type argument.

If the Second Amendment were written using modern grammar and idiom, but kept the same exact meaning it had when written, it would read:

“Because a well-armed and equipped populace is necessary to the security of a free state, the Right of the People to keep and bear hand-wieldable weaponry and any ammunition needed for same, shall not be infringed.”

A well put, clear and fairly succinct (and correct) interpretation.

Oh, and I don't have a personal problem with privately owned Abrams tanks or field pieces either.

History repeats itself...

...unless and until you stop the process.

This:

A night on drugs cheaper than going to the pub (British tax story)

reminds me of back in the 60s and 70s the Vancouver area police and courts were gung-ho busting as many grass smokers as they could find (a friend of mine got 2 years for 2 joints)...yep, the only stuff they left on the street was heroin, speed and acid.

Smart move.

Deja vu.

reference: Frédéric Bastiat (1848),
What is Seen and What is not Seen.

The problem isn't that...

...New York Governor (and anti-prostitution crimefighter) Elliot Spitzer or Tehran (Iran) Police Chief (and "morality imposition officer") Reza Zarei were frolicking with hookers themselves.

And the fact they're both hypocrites is properly only really relevant if you have to deal with them face to face.

The problem is that they, or anyone else, would see themselves fit to actually do the jobs they were doing, which was: pushing consenting adults around.

It won't particularly bother me if and when either of these two "law officers" suffer at the hands of punitive governments. They both have every right to choose that, but only for themselves. After all, they're only getting what they've begged for.

Rich Nicoley, over at honestylog.com, put it beautifully:

It...goes without saying that if a man raises vicious dogs that attack innocent people, destroy their property and fruits of their production, and wreak havoc on the lives of their families, that we should be tickled pink and overjoyed when the same dogs turn on their owner.

H/T to Billy Beck at Two-Four for the Honestly reference.

A "thought police" organization that...

...shouldn't even exist in a free country gets to hide its dirty laundry in a secret trial (HT to Small Dead Animals which referred to Ezra Levant's article).

[I]t should come as no surprise that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal hearing on March 25th -- where human rights commission staff themselves are to be cross-examined on their dubious tactics of anonymous infiltration of websites, entrapment and even the bizarre practice of commission staff themselves planting bigoted remarks on websites -- is going to be closed to the public.

Gee...what could thought police do that they'd ever want to hide?

And, actually, why should they be able to hide *anything* they do? Don't they claim to be working for us???

The American health care system...

...is such that sometimes folks can't get medical care if they don't have enough money.

The Canadian improvement: design a system where folks can't get care even if they have the money (CBC News).

Ehhhhhhhhxcellent.

Identity Politics...

...uber alles in Norway.

Imagine you're one of the 13 men on this all-male board of a large company and are told five of you must go to be replaced by women.

From the article:

The law says a non-executive director has to be experienced, and experience is difficult to find in women in my sector. People have had to sack board members they've worked with and trusted for 20 or 30 years, and replace them with someone unknown. That's hard. (Rolf Dammann, the co-owner of a Norwegian bank)

That's not hard. It's just stupid.

Alberta Election Results...

Frédéric Bastiat noted that:

The State is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.

Ayn Rand said:

A mixed economy is rule by pressure groups. It is an amoral, institutionalized civil war of special interests and lobbies, all fighting to seize a momentary control of the legislative machinery, to extort some special privilege at one another's expense by an act of government—i.e., by force.

They're both right.

The news stories note that about 60% of Alberta voters didn't show up at the polls. I'm working to bring that to 100%.

It's high time we stopped pushing each other around with votes.

Another in a spate of recent articles...

...where feminists (this time, older feminists, like from my generation) are choked that voters are choosing Obama over Clinton (Drift away from Clinton frustrates many women/LA Times).

Dammit, even I always understood that voting for a woman because she is a woman is no more sensible (and, really, no different) than voting for a man because he is a man. Why, that'd be as brainless as voting for someone just because they're black. That shouldn't be news to anybody claiming to own a brain.

From the article:

...[Billie Jean] King, the pioneering women's professional tennis player, was dismayed about Clinton's vulnerable candidacy. "I see my whole life going down the drain...A cute young guy comes in and sweeps away all the hard work that the older woman has done."

Evidently, to these people, feminism was nothing more than old-school gender based favouritism turned around in favour of women; in other words, just more cheap, shallow sexism.

Wowie, that kind of "revolutionary" deep thinking can rocket ya all the way from Ian Smith to Robert Mugabe. Whoop-de-doo.

The article noted that Saturday Night Live's Tina Fey got it fairly accurately:

We have our first serious female presidential candidate in Hillary Clinton," said Fey. "And yet women have come so far as feminists that they don't feel obligated to vote for a candidate just because she is a woman. Women today feel perfectly free to make whatever choice Oprah tells them to.

I swear, I can smell the progress from here.

Mike Smith of Dave Clark 5 dies...

...after a few really rough years following an accident--and two weeks before he and the rest of the band were to be inducted into the Rock Hall of Fame.

Mike Smith of Dave Clark 5 dies at 64 (MSNBC)

Sure, the DC5's stuff sounded like just more top quality London beat from the original British Invasion (1964-1965) but Mike Smith was no ordinary quality rock vocalist.

Go ahead, find one or two of the band's classic tunes (maybe Bits & Pieces, Glad All Over or Any Way You Want It, or Do You Love Me or Can't You See That She's Mine...). Turn it up and sing over top of it, and just try to do what he did as well as he did.

A big loss.

DC5 at WIKIPEDIA

Not that I give a shit about...

...baseball or whether or not players use steroids (I'd have no problem with stock, fuel and super-modified teams and sports) but I don't know if I can find the words to adequately understand how revolted it makes me to read an article like Mike Celizik's Clemens should have just said yes (NBC Sports/MSNBC).

Celizik's point is that--guilty or not--Rogers Clemens should have just admitted to Congress he used performance enhancing drugs. MSNBC wrapped the article this way:

Roger Clemens would be a lot better off right now if he would have acknowledged use of performance-enhancing drugs — whether he used them or not — instead of being defiant, writes NBCSports.com contributor Mike Celizic.

Whatever the truth of the matter, Celizik writes:

We’ve reached the point where everyone in baseball is presumed guilty when in actuality no more than 50 or 60 percent — OK, 70 percent tops — of the guys who played before 2004 actually dabbled in performance-enhancers.

Under such circumstances, the only thing a player accused of taking a shot or a pill or a salve is to admit it, whether he actually did it or not. It doesn’t matter if he never ingested anything stronger than distilled water and can prove it. If the accusation comes, he can save himself a world of grief — and maybe his job and future Hall of Fame chances — by just saying yes.

In other words, confess...like the victims of the Gulag, the Gestapo, the Inquisition--you know the list--just confess and move on; the lumpen will love you for it.

But please, for a moment, consider a couple of things:

1. What business is it of the freakin' guvvermint whether or not a baseball player pumped up on whateverthehell? Really. It's a proper concern only to the folks who buy and sell baseball. Everybody else gets an opinion at most and can otherwise properly just piss off.

It's. A. Game.

Nothing more and nothing else. Except, of course, it's also the government pissing away even more money on bureaucratic make-work--and "holier-than-thou" drug-war bullshit make-work at that.

2. What the hell does "defiant" have to do with anything? If Clemens is telling the truth, he ought to be defiant. Anyways, in the article, when Celizik writes:

That doesn’t wash with the public. We’ll accept many flaws in our heroes, but they can’t be washed down with truculence. Give us some remorse, give us an admission of “bad judgment,” grovel a little and we’ll forgive just about anything, including things you may not even have done. Forget what Nancy Reagan said a generation ago. In matters like these, just say yes.

he's just noting that pride, like moral certainty, is kinda outta style these days.

Concealed Carry in Utah schools..

LINK (CNN)

Nick, who asked not to be fully identified so his fellow students wouldn't know he carried a gun, says he has had a concealed weapons permit for more than three years. But it was Seung-Hui Cho's murderous campus rampage that made him take a gun to class.

"Last year, after Virginia Tech, I thought 'I'm not going to be a victim,' " Nick said...

"My first thought was 'how tragic.' But then I couldn't help but think it could've been different if they'd allowed the students the right to protect themselves." Nick says his gun doesn't make him feel immune from attack. "But I feel that I will be able to protect myself, and I'm confident in my training and my ability," he said.

His confidence is not shared by fellow student Griselda Espinoza, who recently transferred to the university. Some 28,000 students attend the school, as of the latest enrollment figures.

"I feel less safe knowing that a stranger sitting beside me in class may have a gun in his or her backpack," she said.

"The only people that should carry guns are trained officials."

Y'know, Griselda...if you feel more safe when ordinary citizens are disarmed, you're a fool.

I'll even grant...

...it was almost a hokey song choice, especially to close out the evening.

But the kid plain nailed it.

David Archuleta: "Imagine" on American Idol.

Is it just me...

or do les citizens de France really have an almost unequalled penchant for trying to regulate *everything* (from language purity to, now, beer websites) through an endless supply of new legislation?

Merde.

No wonder, then, the great Bastiat.

Just so we're clear...

...it would not be safe to be this kind of policeman in any neighbourhood where I lived.

The Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice runs the fearsome religious police, which is charged with enforcing Saudi Arabia's strict Islamic lifestyle. Its members patrol public places to make sure women are covered and not wearing make up, the sexes don't mingle, shops close five times a day for Muslim prayers and men go to the mosque and worship.

The police, informally known as the muttawa (literally "enforcer"), don't wear uniforms, but are recognizable by their long beards and their robes, shorter than the ones normally worn by Saudi men. They also shun the black cord that sits atop the headdress worn by most Saudi men. (msnbc)

And if such policemen would be safe in your neighbourhood, you're a chickenshit, plain and simple, and you're fully deserving of any oppression you get.

Make no mistake about it; the only proper response to this type of sanctimonious, meddling bullying is to get them first.

And a good time to repeat one of my favorite quotes, from Samizdata:

"Cowardice does not make you safe. It makes you a safe target."
D. Amon

Anybody who tells you that...

...socialized medicine and the attached idea that you have a right to medical care akin to, say, your "right" to freedom of expression doesn't explicitly make slaves of the care providers is lying.

And this story is the proof.

Nurses who quit face criminal charges

Prosecutors say the nurses' resignations - without notice - on April 7, 2006, jeopardized the lives of children at Avalon Gardens in Smithtown, where some of the patients are on ventilators and required constant monitoring.

None of the patients suffered ill effects, but an indictment alleges the nurses knew their sudden resignations would make it difficult to find replacements. Their trial is scheduled to begin Jan. 28.

It's Gettin' Better All The Ti-i-ime....

Back in March of 2007 I had a big laugh here on the blog, noting that Ontario energy rates were going up because Ontario energy customers had believed the government when they were told they'd save money if they used less energy. Turns out that was a crock because Ontario's energy customers (read: "suckers") used so much less energy to save money that the gummint had to (here comes the laugh....) raise rates to make up for the shortfall--so the result was that Ontario energy users were now paying more for less. Wunnerful! Hilarious!

Today, I'm treated to this: The Ontario Energy Board is allowing Enbridge, an Ontario energy utility, to

charge its Ontario customers a new fee to help pay the costs of an out-of-court settlement [because in] 2004, the Supreme Court ruled against the natural gas company -- for charging unfair fees. (emphasis mine)

OMFGROFL...

Boy, those gummint guys sure do know how to make capitalism run better.

Anybody who knows me well..

...knows that I consider Daryl Hall to be one the great R&B vocalists of all time.

Well, today I get an email invite to Daryl's "Live From Daryl's House"



Go visit Daryl's House; there's a huge amount of fabulous music there. Great new and remarkably casual versions of old classics, new tunes and special guests...all done up right in front of yer face. Top notch audio and video quality.

What a treat.

I know sexism and racism when I see it...

...and this puerile screed by Frida Ghitis is full of both.

The dirty little secret of this campaign season that supposedly marks that death of prejudice is that sexism is alive and well at the voting booth. The secret is quietly revealed in the exit polls that pundits dissect after every primary and caucus, expressing awe at the brave march of white voters across racial lines.

Why are white men giving their vote to Obama over Hillary Clinton?

Were I American and a voter, I'd be thrilled to have a female candidate worth voting for--but der Rodham ain't one of those.

Anyways, I read your article, Frida--and you can fuck right off. This:

It does not take a political savant to understand why Obama, a candidate who has inspired much of America, is capturing almost all the black vote. Women, too, have dreamed of the day when one of their own would have a real chance to become president. Until now, the thought was reserved for science fiction or for ill-fated television dramas.

Women are voting for Clinton and blacks are voting for Obama because we all look for people like us, who think like we do, understand our experience and, once in office, would be more likely to make decisions with which we agree.

manages to insult white men, all blacks and all women (except Hillary supporters) in one fell swoop. What you're saying is that neither men, nor blacks nor women are able to see past basic similarities of race and gender when in the voting booth.

Like I said, I know racism and sexism when I see it. And--specifically given the comments about white men--I know anti-white misandry, too.

Addendum: But Frida can relax. She's not a white male, so there's *no* chance she's gonna lose her job over this. She won't even have to sit down with some male, black or white "leaders" for dialogue and (gag me with a spoon) healing.

Maybe "Open Season for Man-Blaming" is finally ending...

This article written by Dr. Helen Smith regarding many men's current attitudes towards women and marriage (in response to Kay Hymowitz' presumptuous but unfortunately typical male-blaming article "Child-Man in the Promised Land") and most of the comments that follow are a welcome change to the usual current popular fare.

In short, my opinion is that Dr. Smith gets it. Male reproductive rights essentially don't exist, and current child support/matrimonial laws are only the tip of an iceberg of unfortunate but still fashionable insulting, exploitation and oppression of men. Consequently, I don't think many men will be surprised by most of the comments, or by the points Dr. Smith is making. I know many men will be astonished (and very pleased), however, that these types of article are finally being written.

An aside: don't read this as a general slam of Ms. Hymowitz (who can be perceptive on a range of subjects even when I disagree) or of women in general. It's neither.

That's where you're wrong...

"I was under the impression that we have the right of free speech," said Xanne Joi of Code Pink. "To me, I thought free speech meant you get to say what you want without recrimination."

Detailed story link (NBC).

No. Actually, free speech means you get to say what you want, and everyone listening gets to think and say what they want in return. Oh, and here's the part you misunderstood: within the bounds of the law (or the libertarian "no instigation of aggression" rule) they also get to respond any way they want--including removing their support of you.

More from the article:

Ann Cooper with the Berkeley Unified School District wants both sides to play nice.

"Senators sitting 3,000 miles away are trying to take food away from the children of Berkeley," said Cooper. "Why? Because the Marines and the city aren't playing nice -- and that's just not OK."

Typical. The kind of mindless moral equivalency that comes when there's not a thought about who started it.

I laughed...

American Armoured Wankball.

Evidently started on FARK, but now a fairly widespread soccer fan description of North American Football (with the pointy "ball").

Sometimes politics is hilarious...

Now we're treated to the spectacle of the New York state chapter of the National Organization for Women getting all upset at Ted Kennedy because he supports a black man for President. To quote 'em:

"He’s picked the new guy over us. He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president..."

Not that they'd be the kind of progressive women who can't handle the idea of a black President.

Anyways, lemme get this straight. A bunch of folks who prattle on about how it's sexist if ya treat someone different because they're female is insisting Ted ought to back Hillary because she's female??? Sounds kinda sexist to me.

But, then again, I think this joke is funny:

"I'm a feminist."

"You're a feminist? How cute."

...so maybe I just don't understand.

The blame game starts...

Capitalists are capitalism's most dangerous enemy (Newsweek), and

Our leaders have squandered our wealth (Lou Dobbs)

From Dobbs:

We all have to acknowledge that our problems were in part brought on by the failure of our government to regulate the institutions and markets that are now in crisis.

Oh, fuck off, Lou. There's been no shortage of government regulating the institutions and markets--no shortage at all. Meddling regulators colluding with politically favored fascisto-corporatists (as opposed to capitalists, by which I mean laissez-faire) is not at all the same thing as "a failure to regulate". And you know it, Lou. You've just got different intervention recipes is all.

Oh, "our leaders" absolutely have squandered our wealth (that much is true)--but they certainly didn't do it by leaving things alone.

Instead, pandering politicians and pundits of the left and right, interventionist economists, and business interests favored by the resulting legislations caused this mess. Now those same types are just looking to shift the blame. As usual.

Typical Chavez.

In my last post, I wrote: "On an otherwise depressing day, I at least have my faith restored that a politician somewhere is gonna spew some reprehensible (and, in this case, cowardly) dribble," and I followed with some prattle from a Dutch politician.

But when it comes to classic political spew, though, there's few as arrogant, sleazy and dictatorial as Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez (AP).

From the article:

With the country recently facing milk shortages, Chavez said "it's treason" if farmers deny milk to Venezuelans while selling it across the border in Colombia or for gourmet cheeses.

"In that case the farm must be expropriated," Chavez said, adding that the government could also take over milk plants and properties of beef producers.

"I'm putting you on alert," Chavez said. "If there's a producer that refuses to sell the product ... and sells it at a higher price abroad ... ministers, find me the proof so it can be expropriated.

There's a shorter version, in plain english. Chavez' grand plans have totally fucked up Venezuela's economy and now he's more desperate than ever to force folks to fix his mistakes, as if more of the same is a solution. It won't work; it never does. This is just one more step on the escalator to economic collapse and squalor. In other words, just the typical socialist-interventionist end-game.

Oh, and this:

Addressing his Cabinet, he said: "If the army must be brought in, you bring in the army."

That's just unequivocal warning that he'll kill to get his way. Like I said: typical.

He's a typical megalomaniacal thug.

Really?

On an otherwise depressing day, I at least have my faith restored that a politician somewhere is gonna spew some reprehensible (and, in this case, cowardly) dribble. Today's nonsense:

Anticipating a possibly wildly violent reaction to an apparently inflammatory Dutch film that allegedly shows (in the words of the director) the Koran as a "source of inspiration for intolerance, murder and terror", Maxime Verhagen, the Dutch Foreign Minister, stated:

freedom of expression doesn't mean the right to offend.

Really?

Then what the fuck of any importance would such a "freedom of expression" be fit to protect?

Kevin McCormick

I just got the news that a treasured friend from my early musical days back in the late 60s/early 70s, Kevin McCormick, has passed away after a long battle with cancer.

Nick Springate of GoSeeTV, another long-time friend of Kevin's, has put up a wonderful Life & Times of Kevin McCormick at Typepad, pictures and videos--and a huge number of tribute emails and letters to and about Kevin. Kevin changed people's lives.

Kevin, it's not that you won't be forgotten. It's very much more that you will be often remembered.

There's nothing I could write that would ever really communicate how I feel this morning.

Ezra Levant vs "The Commish"

6 videos.

H/T to FARK and Little Green Footballs, but this stuff can't be spread enough.

I have no idea of Mr Levant's opinions on most things; I've never really paid him much attention. He might be a total asshole for all I know. But he's *exactly* right in his attitude towards the Human Rights Commission.



Freedom of Speech that doesn't protect unpopular speech--all unpopular speech--isn't worth a pinch of coonshit.

Thanks for standing up, Ezra. I'm really ashamed of my country and my province that you had to be there. Ya did good, though.

Instead of a smoke free workplace...

how about a meddler-free workplace?

MSNBC Associate Editor Brian Tracey wrote a small story about a German employer who fired the non-smokers on his staff because they were troublesome to him, constantly complaining. For whatever reasons, the employer prefers employees who smoke.

Tracey got kinda smarmy, writing:

Not surprisingly, the three fired workers are now suing for unfair dismissal.

They may have a strong case because we believe Jensen's policy is too narrow: In addition to being smokers, he needs to also restrict his hiring to people who overeat and get falling-down drunk at lunch.

Actually, Brian, maybe the employer just oughtta be able to choose his employees, and those who wish to work for him on his terms ought to be free to do so. That would, I know, be a disappointment to nanny-staters, and it'd reduce employment opportunities for bureaucrats, but still...

Me, I'm 100% with the employer on this one.

About what I'd expect...

Six years after new rules made it much easier to get a license to carry concealed weapons, the number of Michiganders legally packing heat has increased more than six-fold. But dire predictions about increased violence and bloodshed have largely gone unfulfilled, according to law enforcement officials and, to the extent they can be measured, crime statistics. The incidence of violent crime in Michigan in the six years since the law went into effect has been, on average, below the rate of the previous six years. The overall incidence of death from firearms, including suicide and accidents, also has declined.

Complete article by Dawson Bell/Detroit Free Press (worth the read).

...not that I think folks ought to need a freakin' license in the first place...

They have a word for stuff like this:

Newspaper photo coincidence leads to robbery suspect. (with photos/KTVB/Idaho)

Yep. A coincidence.

A really beautiful coincidence.

It's a wonderful world.

Why All the Fuss?

The Mitchell Report (on steroids in pro baseball).

Wouldn't it just be easier, more honest, and waaaaaaaay more entertaining to run Stock, Fuel and Modified? And "Funny"?

Madness Redux

H/T to Billy Beck who points to an illustration of why the madness I describe below exists...

Anyways, here's the link to a NY Times article that states that tax cuts are crippling the economy.

From the article:

From 2002 to 2011, forgone revenue from the cuts will account for 37 percent of the federal budget’s descent into the red... (emphasis mine)

"Forgone revenue"...it will do you well to understand and know that the only way such a term makes sense is if you start with the assumption that the State owns all the money in the first place. That makes "foregone revenue" the money the State could have taken (should have taken from the point of view of the editorial) but didn't grab yet.

But there's a big difference between a dollar lost and a dollar not taken. If you have a dollar and the State takes it, you've lost a dollar.

But, if you have a dollar and the State doesn't take it, the State hasn't lost a dollar in any way shape or form--unless (like the twit who wrote that article) they assume the money was *all* theirs in the first place.

The twit who wrote that article might have chosen to be honest enough to simply say that the government didn't steal enough to pay for a 37% shortfall between revenue and spending (in other words: the State spent money they didn't actually have), but that would be saying something that could be interpreted as "the government spent too much"--and no Statist/interventionist is gonna trot that out when it's spending they want or wanted.

Question to supporters of the Meddler State: this kinda math doesn't make sense in your home? What in hell makes you think it works on a bigger scale?

This.

Powerful Bay Area Lawyers Represent Immigrants For Free

the lawyers [will] vigorously defend the constitutional rights of all people, including undocumented immigrants

Actions like this could get me to tell a few less lawyer jokes because these American lawyers are correct in what they are trying to do, which is: ensure that the government recognizes that (from my own blog on Sunday, November 11, 2007):

Rights are not something governments give you. They are things you have because you are human, period. Now, governments can recognize your rights, or try to suppress them, but that is all.

In other words: rights are not the same thing as mere legal permissions. Confusion over (or simple failure to recognize) the distinction causes all sorts of sloppy thinking, and no end of human injustice and tragedy.

Spokane schools skip Christmas...

OK. Not exactly. It's just that the Spokane Public Schools newsletter for December omitted Christmas while Hanukkah, winter break, Human Rights Day, the Islamic holy day Eid al-Adha, the first day of winter and Kwanzaa all made the list.

Well, the folks who put the calendar together might have been inept, thoughtless, or trying to make some sort of point. Which is it?

"It was absolutely an error of omission," district spokeswoman Terren Roloff said. "In our efforts to be inclusive, we missed the obvious."

All three, evidently.

Uh, shouldn't that be spokesperson...

Jeff Beck w/Tal Wilkenfeld...

Joy.


'Cause We've Ended as Lovers


Big Block

Y' don't see communication like this every day.

The first tune had me in tears. The second had me grinning from ear to ear. It's almost like a chick flick for musicians. Perfect.

Double Standard Deluxe...

Judges decide father has no rights over child, who is now in foster care, because "he was only a one-night stand".

Ah, well...then I'm certain the converse is now true: that "fathers" from one-night stands also now no longer have any responsibility.

Yeah, right.

Immigration laws...

Illegal Immigrant Rescues Boy in Desert

Why would I not want this man as a neighbour?

Yeah, yeah, forgiveness... whatever...

Headline (CP): Top Roman Catholic's appeal for forgiveness dismissed by church critics

Y'know...I could be a lot more forgiving, I suppose, if I thought for one minute that the Church (and not just this one) recognized and understood that the mere existence of the mistakes totally trashes any claim the church has--or ever has had--for obedience.

That's what I want to hear.

Words mean things.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- As Congress debates new rules for government eavesdropping, a top intelligence official says it is time that people in the United States change their definition of privacy. Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people's private communications and financial information.

Privacy doesn't mean "anonymity", Kerr, you meddling, paternalistic, arrogant fuckwit. It means: "none of your fucking business." I don't want the State to safeguard my private stuff, you dolt. I want the State to leave my private stuff the fuck alone. My private stuff is *mine*.

Is that clear enough?

Yeah, yeah...I'm sure you mean well...uh huh.

Credit where credit is due...

A liberal/leftist comes to his senses regarding gun control (except not that we have a 2nd amendment in Canada; we're not near that brave or that principled).

Considering the Framers and their own traditions of hunting and self-defense, it is clear that they would have viewed such ownership as an individual right — consistent with the plain meaning of the amendment.

None of this is easy for someone raised to believe that the Second Amendment was the dividing line between the enlightenment and the dark ages of American culture. Yet, it is time to honestly reconsider this amendment and admit that ... here's the really hard part ... the NRA may have been right. This does not mean that Charlton Heston is the new Rosa Parks or that no restrictions can be placed on gun ownership. But it does appear that gun ownership was made a protected right by the Framers and, while we might not celebrate it, it is time that we recognize it.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.

My comment for Canadians:

Rights are not something governments give you. They are things you have because you are human, period. Now, governments can recognize your rights, or try to suppress them, but that is all. In other words, you already have the right to individual gun ownership; the fight is just over the legal permission to exercise that right.

Do what's right.

Permission is for children.

Section 899a of...

...H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 passed today.

It includes this gem (Section 899a--Part III):

(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. (emphasis mine)

Cool.

Does that mean the tax guys and drug police have to stop threatening citizens with jail and such?

One could only hope.

Nostalgia...

Back in the 1950s, my folks had a 1954 recording of two Jackie Gleason (well, I'd call 'em...) "musical monologues":

What is a Boy
What is a Girl

Both recordings are scrathy as heck...just the way it is, sorry. ;-)

Here's a look at one version's record cover:

There's a lesson in this...

...a few actually.

Boozers Fight Off Armed Gang (The Sun, UK)

Thirty drinkers [at a British pub] waded in after five masked thugs tried to rob them at gunpoint and demanded cash from the tills...."People were picking up ashtrays, pint glasses, chairs and even champagne bottles and just throwing them straight at these idiots."

And they kept up the onslaught until the would-be robbers fled – even though one of them fired a gun...“The gang tried to intimidate us, but the regulars said this was their place and they just weren’t having it."

Wonderful. The universe unfolding exactly as it should.

Side note:

"People were picking up ashtrays..."

Fighting back and smoking? Land of the Free and Home of the Brave!

Can't think of a title...

...but I was wandering the blogosphere when I ran into this at Hornby Island's Word of Mouth blog: as kids are taught to fear men, men are learning to fear children

Go read it.

Anyways, the article there reminded me of growing up in the then tiny scenic village of Comox on Vancouver Island, just down Comox Avenue from what is now Mack Laing Park. If you walk from downtown to the park, our place was just a block or so outta (I laugh calling it this) downtown but before the Filberg place, and then it was a short walk more to Mr. Laing's place. This was back in the mid-50s.

I knew Mack as Mr. Laing, and I got to know him pretty well, as did a bunch of neighbourhood kids. (It's easier...I was maybe six/seven or so at the time, I never called him Mack back then, woulda never thunk of it, but it'll save some typing...) Mack would walk to town, him and his cane and small backpack, to the post office most days and when the weather was nice, he'd collect whichever kids were interested on the walk back to his place. Sometimes one, two and sometimes maybe up to seven or eight kids.

See, Mack had been a naturalist and a writer and a curator and so on, and evidently had been a scoutmaster, but he was maybe seventy or so when I knew him and pretty much retired. He was just gentle, beautifully sorta-British-type old-school, well-mannered and proper, easy to be friends with, patient and extremely interesting. He didn't talk down to us, even at 6 or 7...it was like he was always just talking straight across, person to person, with the same vocabulary he'd have used with folks three times our age. He treated us like he expected us to understand, so we did. No big words for big-words sake, but big words when they were the right words. And he collected kids and took them back to his place, regularly.

When we were with him, he'd teach us about anything that came up, or anything we asked (and he knew a hell of a lot of neat stuff), and he'd feed us what he called his "health salad", all sorts of raisins and such, lettuce that was more interesting than just iceberg, ...geez, seeds and nuts and things, and homemade salad dressing. He got us kids thinking salad was cool; no small trick. He'd show us his huge collection of taxidermy-birds, explain how and why binoculars worked, train us what "found food" to eat in the woods and what to stay way from. And more and more and more; history, geology, philosophy...we'd spend hours with him at or in his place. You get the picture.

Anyways, one day Mack and me and a few other kids were trotting to his place after his daily post office trek, and he bent down and picked up a dead bird, asking us what type of bird it was and then asking if we could tell how it died. We checked it out until one kid noticed it had a small hole in its side. Mack pulled out his pen-knife and extracted a BB, a small copper pellet.

He showed us the BB, reminded us gently that birds have valuable lives too, and then asked "is this bird male or female?".

We'd been hanging and learning with Mac for a while so we mostly trotted out the "males usually have brighter plumage" thing, and Mack replied that, yes, that's usually true and then he told us "but there's one way to know for sure". He took his pen-knife and made a small incision low in the belly of the tiny bird, opened it up some and pointing with the tip of his blade so we could all see, said "see those two things? Those are ovaries. If it has them, it's female. If it doesn't, it isn't."

There we were, all of us 6 or so years old, getting the straight goods about life with no hassle or embarrassment or hesitation, from a 70 year old man who simply cared enough to just teach.

Now I'm sure Mack never spoke to our parents about permission to teach us, or to have us over at his place, or to have us with him for hours and hours and hours, alone without another parent hovering nearby. I'm sure it never occurred to him to ask for permission any more than it occurred to our parents to stop him--and I'm also sure he never worried that his actions might be misinterpreted [Addendum 03/25/08: I checked with my Mom and Dad....nope, he never asked 'em. They never thought about it.] . And it absolutely never occurred to us that there was anything unusual about all this going on. It was just a normal day in Comox with Mack Laing and his collected kids.

As if such a thing could happen today.

We're so much better off now, all scared, distrustful, careful and litigious.

Mack lived to be 99 and gave his property to the town so it could be a park.

More about Mack Laing here.

More on Mack Laing Nature Park here.

Coffee...

Readin' FARK, sippin' a coffee, and I happened on this in a discussion about a Christian congregation with a beef about Hallowe'en:

FTFA:- There are many message-driven alternatives to offer, other than a bowl full of candy. For instance, there are Gospel tracts designed for trick-or-treaters that can be purchased online or at your Christian bookstore.

jay-vee: You might want to hide your cat, and particularly it's rolled-up-gospel-tract sized rectum if you're going down this route.

Time to clean my keyboard.

Wildlife recognition...

The call of the Arrogant Fuckhead:

The people don't want them...

That's Los Angeles Councilwoman/person/nag Jan Perry speaking about her proposed 2-year ban on new fast-food restaurants in Los Angeles.

Here's the short version of her thinking: Although the relatively free market already provides literally thousands of restaurants (Los Angeles County has over 14,000), people are too stupid and/or concerned with convenience when left to their own devices to choose to eat healthily. Consequently, they (read: you) need bureaucrats to make the difficult choices.

One would think if "the people" didn't want fast-food restaurants, the restaurants would go broke.

At least CNN is being honest...

...and calling it compulsory health care or mandatory health care instead of the Orwellian double-speak of "free" health care trotted out by lefties.

Clinton unveils mandatory health care insurance plan (CNN)

Not that double-speak isn't obvious in the plan. Billary Rodham is using the term "individual mandate" in her prattling for support. That's individual as in: everybody must comply.

She's brazen enough to call it the "American Health Choices Plan". You understand: your menu consists of "yes" and "yes." Choose.

"I know my Republican opponents will try to equate this plan with government-run health care. Well don't let them fool you again," Clinton said, explaining that her plan would allow participants to "keep the doctors you know and trust" while it would expand "personal choice" and keep costs down.

Clinton's package would also require insurers to provide coverage for anyone who applies for it and would also bar insurance companies from charging people with greater health care costs more for their premiums. (CNN)

Right, Billary. The government won't be "running things" even as they force insurers to carry clients at rates the government mandates. Bismark anyone?

Words are not a replacement for thought.

They're supposed to be a tool for thought. Over the past bit I've been noting that "evidently lines on a piece of paper substitute for thought with some folks."

Well, here we go again:

Former Jamaica Assistant Principal Guy Venezia sent a memo to school deans on April 12 banning 911 calls "for any reason."

so school officials didn't call 911 even though:

14-year-old Mariya Fatima suffered a [devastating] stroke...

Dumbass zombie-prole "zero tolerance thinking" in spades.

And this happened where government folks teach kiddies how to think, people.

More on the next (as in previous and lower on the page) post...

...or at least a connected idea.

I bump into this at Tech News by way of FARK: Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming.

And here's a kicker...

In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

So I gets to thinking when I run into this quote:

I think it's a slap in the face to the entire scientific community for you to simply pick and choose which empirically observed, peer-reviewed, scientific theories to accept based on whether or not you like their conclusion

I'm fifty-six years old, and I bet I didn't hear the phrase "peer-reviewed scientific theories" more than once a year in my layman's life. Now I run into it maybe three times a week or more, and pretty much only (as in: only still) on this one subject.

I figure the vast majority of the folks sputtering this script have barely skimmed an original, current technical article or three on climate change, and this only after being prompted to do so by a pundit of their usual persuasion, and I further estimate these 95% folks have read none of the peer reviews. It sure wasn't like they were heavy into peer reviews in the past; judging by present behaviour, they woulda told us about it.

Anyways, I was mentioning in the next post about "Evidently lines on a piece of paper substitute for thought with some folks."

Another stellar bureaucratic moment...

Ambulance called for 10 yrd trip

A HOSPITAL refused to help an emergency patient parked TEN yards from its A&E entrance — and told his pal to call 999 for an ambulance

There's a photo and more details, and nothing except a line somewhere on a piece of paper makes this "the thing to do" for anyone. Evidently lines on a piece of paper substitute for thought with some folks.

All over the net...

...you can find harmonica players (some of who are really very good, and legions who are not) who insist that the only way to get authentic blues harp tone is to 1) tightly cup your hands around 2) a small, old crystal or controlled magnetic mic through 3) (essential again) a classic small tube amp. According to these folks, nothing else will do; it's the only way to do it.

Little Walter with Hound Dog Taylor:



Evidently there's another way to do it.

I love Rock'nRoll...

...and I've been to Mount Rushmore (Summer 1964). So I'm perusing through the Ebay Mount Rushmore listings, and I stumble on >>this gem<<. Pure genius.

The description:

Very unique little vintage sugar bowl made in Japan. There is Mount Rushmore one one side, but the weird thing is that instead of Abe Lincoln they have the head of Elvis...

It's a truly wonderful world.

Oh. My. Gawd.

Beauty Contest...contestant.

Gotta see it to believe it.

...and people ask me why I'm not a democrat.

H/T Fark.

The Comox Valley and a *great* photographer

Ork de Rooij is an evidently young and very skilled photographer whose photos I bumped into on Flickr. The Comox Valley is still "home" for me, and probably always will be; it's a spectacular place.

Anyways, you can see lots more of Mr Rooij's (mainly Comox Valley) work here. It's *premium* quality eye candy. Yes, the Valley really looks and feels like that and this guy is one of the few who have ever managed to really capture it. Mr Rooij has a remarkable, inventive eye; his photos affect me like music.

Only one example (marked public at Flickr) and I'm only including it as a teaser. It is nowhere near his best shot, but I don't want to spoil your enjoyment by having you see his stuff (and especially his best stuff) any other way than Mr Rooij intended.

Total respect.

Saw it on a T-shirt:

Other People are Not Your Property.

(from Strike-the-Root.com)

In other words: They are not yours to boss around. Their lives are not yours to micromanage. The fruits of their labour are not yours to dispose of.

It doesn’t matter how wise or marvelous or useful it would be for other people to do whatever it is you’d like them to do. It is none of your business whether they wear their seatbelts, worship the right god, have sex with the wrong people, or engage in market transactions that irritate you. Their choices are not yours to direct. They are human beings like yourself, your equals under Natural Law. You possess no legitimate authority over them. As long as they do not themselves step over the line and start treating other people as their property, you have no moral basis for initiating violence against them – nor for authorising anyone else to do so on your behalf.

The basic principle of civilised social intercourse was stated in 1646 by Richard Overton:

To every individual in nature is given an individual property by nature not to be invaded or usurped by any. For every one, as he is himself, so he has a self-propriety, else could he not be himself; and of this no second may presume to deprive any of without manifest violation and affront to the very principles of nature and of the rules of equity and justice between man and man. .... No man has power over my rights and liberties, and I over no man’s. I may be but an individual, enjoy my self and my self-propriety and may write myself no more than my self, or presume any further; if I do, I am an encroacher and an invader upon another man’s right .... every man by nature being a king, priest and prophet in his own natural circuit and compass, whereof no second may partake but by deputation, commission, and free consent from him whose natural right and freedom it is.

Nor is this requirement lifted merely because you happen to be a police officer, or an elected legislator, or a member of a majority of citizens casting their votes. As Voltairine de Cleyre pointed out in 1890:

[A] body of voters can not give into your charge any rights but their own; by no possible jugglery of logic can they delegate the exercise of any function which they themselves do not control. If any individual on earth has a right to delegate his powers to whomsoever he chooses, then every other individual has an equal right; and if each has an equal right, then none can choose an agent for another, without that other’s consent. Therefore, if the power of government resides in the whole people, and out of that whole all but one elected you as their agent, you would still have no authority whatever to act for the one. The individuals composing the minority who did not appoint you have just the same rights and powers as those composing the majority who did; and if they prefer not to delegate them at all, then neither you, nor any one, has any authority whatever to coerce them into accepting you, or any one, as their agent ....

T-shirt here.

It's a fact: other people are not your property.

More reasons...

...the drug war is stoopid (Washington Post).

H/T to Jay Currie

British Columbia is now home to the greatest number of organized-crime syndicates anywhere in the world (if we accept the U.N. definition of a syndicate as more than two people involved in a planned crime). According to B.C. government statistics, the production, distribution and export of B.C. Bud, highly potent marijuana grown in hothouses along the province's border with the United States, accounts for 6 percent of the region's gross domestic product. It now employs more Canadians than British Columbia's traditional industries of mining and logging combined.

The majority of the province's criminals remain passive hippie types for whom the drug is a lifestyle choice. But...the marijuana trade is threatening to turn nasty as British Columbia's Hells Angels, one of the best-organized criminal syndicates in the world, moves in on the action. (emphasis mine)

Odd that I haven't heard Al Sharpton mention this story...

H/T to Let Freedom Reign

Wikipedia for details (warning: brutal)

I'm sure Al woulda said something if it had been, say, black folks murdered by whites, even if

Police Chief Sterling Owen IV said that there is no indication the crimes were racially motivated, and that the murders and assault "appears to have been a random violent act."

So I'm reading Crisis Counsel at CNN/Money...

...which is a bunch of major business players talking about the recent credit shenanigans. And I read the following from Steven S. Roach from Morgan Stanley Asia:

The current financial crisis is a wake-up call for modern-day central banking. The world can't afford to lurch from one bubble to another. The cost of neglect is an ever-mounting systemic risk that could pose a grave threat to an increasingly integrated global economy. It could also spur the imprudent intervention of politicians, undermining the all-important political independence of central banks. The art and science of central banking is in desperate need of a major overhaul--before it's too late. (emphasis mine)

Now, there's a wealth of concepts referred to in that one paragraph, but I highlighted something.

You'll notice that nowhere does the guy question the existence of central banks as a good idea. It's just sorta lying there, assumed as he continues with "...in need of a major overhaul...."

There's an alternative. Get governments out of the money business and just put money and business back into the hands of free people. Overhauling central banks is like fine-tuning the timing on a ticking bomb. I mean, it might improve the bomb itself, but you still go boom.

Otherwise, then and as now, you're plain gonna get: imprudent intervention of politicians. Every time, and all the time.

Dammit, this guy plays a mean, mean guitar...

Christopher Cross in 1998 with Michael McDonald.

Y'gotta hang in till about the last quarter *(3:58) before he burns, but damn.

In something akin to Dennis Miller's classic rant (mediocre audio) regarding retired Admiral James Stockdale, Christopher Cross didn't have "the look" expected of a music icon back in the day (early 80's original video of the tune) and his career suffered for it.

Anyways...

I hope if someone shoots at my place, they use the method these folks were using...

An elderly Iraqi woman shows two bullets which she says hit her house following an early coalition forces raid in the predominantly Shiite Baghdad suburb of Sadr City. (Agence France-Presse)

Here's the photo and caption, captured from the Yahoo News page (in case the link disappears)



File this under "humour in the midst of tragedy". I'm not saying the woman is lying; the bullets could have hit her house. But they weren't fired at her house. They weren't fired at all.

I think this is a mistake:

US to move on Iran's Revolutionary Guard
Adminstration will designate group as global terrorist

Real problem, certainly. Still, bad solution. Cannot come to any good, and I don't mean that just because it'll make Iran angry.

Axl Rose and Haircut 100...and Obama.

H/T to Fark which was how I found this: Axl Rose: The Rolling Stone Interview.

Look, I don't always agree with him, but he's not bullshitting. He's telling you like he sees it. And after reading the interview I actually don't think he's an asshole--and I'm not sure it says anything good about about me that I once did. I had nothing first hand to go on. Anyways, he has reasons for what he thinks.

Continuing...I keep a list of quotes on my blog, and one of them is this one, from a sort of "let's get a classic band back together for a one-off" type of TV show I saw a few years back:

"We didn't speak to each other. That's how everything falls apart, isn't it." Nick Heyward, commenting on Haircut 100’s breakup.

But this ain't about Haircut 100, or even Axl except for what I wrote above. That's just context. It's about Reagan and Obama and Ahemedinijad, and Hillary Fucking Clinton if you want it to be:

Obama said in a TV debate that he'd talk to the leaders of the countries the US is arguing with, within the first year were he President. Hillary then made noises about "there's a reason for diplomats..." and "maintaining the prestige of the office", that sort of tripe. The upshot is now a lot of folks are thinking Obama blew it. He may have. And don't get me wrong; this article isn't an endorsement of Obama,; it's an endorsement of a method: fucking talk, man to man, any chance you get, and tell the truth as you see it. There's no insult to anybody in that--and if you think there's a loss of stature in doing that, you're foolish, or a poser (Clinton ain't foolish). The rare exceptions that exist prove the rule.

Ahmadinejad. Twice I've seen him interviewed. Twice he's made some sense. NO, I don't agree with him all over the place, but people are not their caricatures (that's mine, and I think it's original).

Reagan told his aides and diplomats to get out of the way and talked to Gorbachev. And Gorbachev talked back.

Or you and me and they can play it the other way, like always.

And I think Ian over at Ianism has more than a passing acquaintance with A E van Vogt, or Hayakawa or Korzybski; "the word is not the thing" and "people are not their caricatures."

You may have already seen this...

but if you haven't:



1964. Stairway to Heaven.

Polygamy: Maybe the government oughtta...

...just get out of the marriage business, period.

I mean if people are allowed to be polygamists, the next thing you know men will be allowed to marry men, and women will be allowed to marry women. ;-)

Canadian Press, Vancouver:

A special prosecutor has concluded there's not enough evidence to charge members of a British Columbia polygamist colony with sex offences involving minors, partly because the women involved said they wanted to have sex with the older men.

"The real issue here is that the number of so-called complainants that we have have all told us that they consented to the act that took place," Oppal said Wednesday...[A]authorities tried to pursue charges that the women had been sexually exploited by a person in a position of trust, but that effort was again thwarted. "There's no evidence of exploitation," Oppal said. "In fact, it was surprising to me the number of young women who told police that they were the aggressors, that they wanted to have sex with the older men." (emphasis mine)

BC Special Prosecutor Richard Peck wrote:

"There is a substantial body of scholarship supporting the position that polygamy is socially harmful."

Written by folks who just took an objective look at the situation, no doubt. Me, I looked all over my house and yard and I couldn't find a single difference it made. I've heard tell there used to be a substantial amount of scholarship supporting the positions that blacks and women shouldn't get the vote and that gay folks were mentally ill.

The article says Peck "thinks Canada's anti-polygamy law does not violate the Charter of Rights guarantee of religious freedom."

Wanna bet?

And, of course, there's always that pesky Freedom of Association clause, too. Polygamy might be "associating on steroids", but that's all it is.

Just so you know: I'm not for or against polygamy in the legal or social sense. As long as it's not coercive, I really don't care who is sleeping or living with who, and I really don't see how other folks' love lives is my business. But then it's not the government's business either, any more than it is the next door neighbour's.

Billy Beck on Mugabe's Zimbabwe

HERE at Two-Four. There's a reason I hold Two-Four as essential reading.

Further on Billy's note: The New York Times and others are reporting on Mugabe's plan to:

require virtually all publicly traded companies to cede controlling interests to “indigenous” citizens...who were “disadvantaged by unfair discrimination on the grounds of his or her race” before April 1980, when the nation won independence from white rule.

Yeah, that'll work. Like it did on the farms.

Ain't planned economies wunnerful?

More on Mugabe madness.

A Life Lesson from the British.

Some months ago I ran across a number of lengthy debates in the Blogosphere about torture of terrorists complete with the usual atom-bomb and lifeboat scenarios...anyways...

Tonight I read this: UK wanted US to rule out Bin Laden torture

MI6 believed it was close to finding the al-Qaida leader in Afghanistan in 1998, and again the next year. The plan was for MI6 to hand the CIA vital information about Bin Laden. Ministers including Robin Cook, the then foreign secretary, gave their approval on condition that the CIA gave assurances he would be treated humanely. (Emphasis mine)

The US never gave that assurance.

Right now, this example of British sensibilities and reverence regarding human dignity is a shining light on the principles that maintain human rights. The British were willing to fail at achieving a desired goal if it meant crossing ethical boundaries, even when it came to Bin Laden.

The shame of it is that United States was once a beacon of similar but superior light shining on Britain.

In many ways both countries have lost much of their legacy when it comes to individual rights and human freedom, making this story a welcome change to the usual run of world news.

We aren't the good guys when we break certain rules. Period.

Total respec'.

Politicians as chickenshit schoolyard bullies...

New Zealand politicians, upset at being seen as lazy and offensive, have banned journalistic satire as well as coverage that ridicules or denigrates them, according to new rules passed on Thursday.

Members of New Zealand's parliament voted overwhelmingly in favour of the new rules. Just six members of the 121-seat parliament were opposed. (a grateful H/T to Stageleft for the heads up)

New Zealand is a commonwealth country, just like Canada, and ideas historically often do the rounds among member countries.

Best, then, to make as much fun as we can of our Canadian politicians while we're still allowed.

Then, when it's not allowed:

Do it anyways.

And in case I ever get to New Zealand:

"Hey, you Kiwi politicians....I am a freelance journalist/writer. I am satirizing you, gleefully making abject fun of your pretentious, simpering puniness. I'm saying you're ridiculous and this post covering your actions is absolutely intended to denigrate you."

Maybe Canada has an extradition treaty; have at me.

Ain't Planned Economies Wunnerful...

Thousands arrested in Zimbabwe for not cutting prices (CNN).

Nearly 5,000 store owners, managers and business executives have been arrested since the government began its campaign to slash prices last month, state media reported Thursday...

President Robert Mugabe told parliament Tuesday that his government was committed to its program to restore "price stability" and protect ordinary consumers from "inexplicable and astronomical" price increases by profiteers.

The price increases and product shortages are inexplicable and astronomical only to believers in the magical workings of planned economies (read: state socialism). Other folks find these product shortages and price increases easily understandable and absolutely predictable.

Statist Socialists: *heads up* because this is exactly what you're bargaining for--and in exact proportion to the the degree you're consistent with your policies and ideology.

Look for Chavez's Venezuela to follow the same road, but it might take a bit longer to cause Mugabe-level squalor since Venezuela has some expropriated oil money to squander first.

Yo'know, I try to be nice, and I'm sure Mugabe and Chavez mostly love their families and generally treat their pets OK and such, but migawd the two of 'em are arrogant, ignorant fuckheads. No surprise that they like each other.

The Dangers of Pot

Pot may hike risk of psychosis, research finds (MSNBC)

OK. From the article:

“The strongest case is that there are consistencies across all of the studies,” and that the link was seen only with psychoses — not anxiety, depression or other mental health problems, he said.

Note though...

Scientists cannot rule out that pre-existing conditions could have led to both marijuana use and later psychoses, he added.

That's OK. For now, let's assume pot causes *all* the increase...

The scientists found a more disturbing outlook for “heavy users” of pot, those who used it daily or weekly: Their risk for psychosis jumped to a range of 50 percent to 200 percent.

WOW!!!! 200%!!! Still, let's assume pot causes *all* that increase, and it causes the full freakin' 200%.

So what are the risks in plain english:

They found that people who used marijuana had roughly a 40 percent higher chance of developing a psychotic disorder later in life. The overall risk remains very low.

For example, Zammit said the risk of developing schizophrenia for most people is less than 1 percent. The prevalence of schizophrenia is believed to be about five in 1,000 people.

Nope. I'm gonna stick with the 200% for the sake of this analysis. 40% or 50% is playing it too safe. "Think of the children (™)", after all...

If the normal rate of psychosis is 1% of the population (though 5 of 1000 people is actually 1/2 of 1% or 0.5%), heavy use doubles (as in: increases by 200%) the lifetime risk of developing psychosis to...

2%

...well, actually 2 times (1/2 of 1%) .5% is....

1%

...which means that for 98% (more likely 99%) there's no psychological worries. Period. That's what they said.

And back to the first paragraph quoted: the link was *only* seen with psychoses, and *not* seen with anxiety, depression or other mental health problems (emphasis mine) In other words, that's *all* the damage smokin' dope does (at worst, and only maybe), just the puny noted raise in psychosis...

...which means this article is very much scaremongering ado about not very bloody much.

My thinking is that there is not a single punishment for the use of, or a method of policing to prevent the use of, pot that doesn't cause way more freakin' problems to the user and/or society than even heavy use of the drug itself.

South Park Ron

By way of Mike, by way of Brad, by way of Presto. And the help of SP Studio.

I present South Park Ron:

Yeah, that'll work...

Toronto Mayor David Miller said the latest rash of gun violence shows why Canada needs to toughen its gun laws, tighten border security and issue a complete ban on handguns...

The 11-year-old's death was one of four apparently unrelated gun killings in Toronto over the weekend...

Toronto Mayor David Miller said the latest rash of gun violence shows why Canada needs to toughen its gun laws, tighten border security and issue a complete ban on handguns. (Emphasis mine)

Right. Canada already has the toughest gun laws on the continent. It's working well so far, ain't it. Why, just out of respect for our unarmed law-abiding citizens, the baddies are obviously not buying any guns of their own.

Wonder why there's *always* a shortage of...

...every "socialized" commodity?

HERE, writ large and obvious so even the dullards might finally get it.

Mr Mugabe has accused business interests of fuelling inflation, running at about 20,000%, to bring down his government. A hotline is in place to report "overcharging", and retailers who flinch at slashing prices are being dragged before the courts. Several thousand have been arrested for "profiteering" over the past week, including the chief executives of the biggest retailers in the country, some of them foreign-owned.

Economists say the price cuts will only deepen the national crisis, leaving many shops bare because they will not be able to afford to restock while official retail prices remain lower than the cost of buying wholesale or importing. Mr Mugabe has dismissed such warnings as "bookish economics".

Now, if you want to get somewhat serious about understanding why this is happening:

The Primer: Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson"
Some Details: Ludwig von Mises' "Human Action"

A part of the "why":

Ludwig von Mises' "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth" (pdf) --

or just read this Human Action excerpt for starters:

"The Impossibility of Economic Calculation Under Socialism"

-------------------

H/T: Billy Beck's Two-Four

Life with Ricky, Bubbles & Julian...

Got myself a 6 year old SRI Ambassador AM-884 is what I did. In a nice trailer park nestled over the mighty Peace River (read: an opulent version of a van down by the river).

I like being different places. Moving is a pain.

Excellent.

Guido Daniele

A dream line-up...

Elvis Presley



All-star backup: Sugarbabes, Marvin Gaye, Jimmy Page, Noel Gallagher, Keith Moon, Sheryl Crow and Stevie Wonder.