The Supreme Court handed those who believe in the right to self-defense another victory yesterday with their McDonald v Chicago decision. Sadly, as with their Heller decision two years ago, it was only 5-4, but residents of the People's Republic of Illinois (as my dad likes to call it) can now sleep a little easier knowing that they can once again exercise their individual right to defend themselves. There is still a long way to go in educating the American people that their own security is a personal responsibility, but declaring bans on guns as unConstitutional is certainly a step in the right direction.

I've already heard the victim disarmament crowd whining on the news about how this decision will cause more crime in low income neighborhoods and more violence in the streets. This is simply nonsense. Those who would commit crimes have always had guns, and always will, regardless of the machinations of the legal system. By definition, they operate outside the legal system, so how can one expect the outcome of a court case to have any effect whatsoever on their behavior? On the other hand, the victims of these criminals now have one more option available to them, and the criminals now have one more variable to consider before committing that crime.

I think it is important to keep gun-related crime in perspective. There are over 300 million people in America, and the Department of Justice estimates that there are 275 million firearms. That's almost one gun per person! And yet, the gun homicide rate is on the order of 10,000 per year. Somehow, hundreds of millions of people manage to own and safely operate their guns without killing anyone else. And that doesn't even take into account the number of crimes that are prevented by guns, which could be as high as hundreds of thousands (depending on which study you read). So what is all the screaming about?

Let's take this opportunity to celebrate. Millions of people around the world are denied their right to self defense. Today, we as Americans declared that we will not be among them.

It's a good time to be an anarchist. It is encouraging to hear that eighty-six percent of people think the government is broken, even if they are misguided about exactly how and why. You see, saying our system of government is broken is like saying the internal combustion engine is broken. Sure it produces all sorts of deleterious effects on its environment, but it does exactly what it was designed to do, and at the time it was created there just wasn't anything better. So you can waste a lot of time and energy trying to make the engine more efficient, less polluting, or try to make it run on used vegetable oil, but in the end, you will find you are much better off simply scrapping the whole thing and starting over.

And starting over doesn't mean merely changing the party affiliation of the occupant of the White House. Or voting out incumbents in Congress. I think we've tried that. Repeatedly. It doesn't work. But the joyful news recently is that it seems the American people are finally starting to develop some long-term memory where these things are concerned. A poll by the Wall Street Journal and NBC reveals "sixty-two percent of adults ... feel the country is on the wrong track, the highest level since before the 2008 election." Well, that didn't take long -- President Obama isn't even half way through his term yet. But the most telling part of the data is here. Specifically, look at the party identification tab. I'm curious what the difference is between Independent and Other -- they are the same thing to me -- but if you combine those two categories, you find that at the beginning of this year, a full thirty percent of those polled identified themselves as neither a Democrat nor a Republican. We haven't seen numbers like that since Ross Perot's campaign, and this isn't even a Presidential election year. Imagine how much farther those numbers could swing in the next two years.

So, to that thirty percent out there I say stay focused. Don't let the shiny objects of the two-party system distract you. Whatever it was that caused you to feel disenfranchised, trust me, it's not going away. You want change? Don't delude yourself into thinking you can fix it by working within the system. It can't be fixed by a simple tune-up or an alternative fuel blend. It's time to take this old engine to the junkyard and start designing a new one.

You've no doubt seen the story by now of this Seattle police officer caught on videotape. The headline reads "Seattle officer punches girl in face during jaywalking stop," which is a bit sensationalist, but does sum up the salient points. Watch the entire clip on YouTube, however, and you're provided with some context for the events that transpired. I find myself having sympathy for all parties involved.

The cop is easily the bad guy in this story. Considering the entire incident stemmed from his attempt to enforce a law against jaywalking, it is especially sad. Jaywalking is not a crime, and there should be no laws against it. Choosing to cross a street at an unsafe point is foolish, but people have a right to be stupid. Just like they have a right to drive without seatbelts or motorcycle helmets. Why do we, as a society, continue to allow pointless laws such as these to be passed, and then, more importantly, why do we continue to task cops with enforcing the stupid things?

Given all of that, resisting arrest in this particular case was warranted, in my opinion. No crime occurred, no one was harmed, so no one -- including the cop -- has any reason to involve themselves in the lives of innocent people just trying to cross a street. Now, do I believe that these individuals were taking a principled stand against what they viewed to be tyrannical behavior on the part of the local legislature and constabulary? Hardly. I could be wrong, but I'm going to guess that their resistance was based on other factors. Nevertheless, objecting to unwarranted searches and seizures is justified, and they have my full support.

There is also the larger matter of the cop's use of excessive force. There should be no question in anyone's mind that punching an unarmed woman in the face, even under those circumstances, is completely reprehensible. This officer should be required to publicly apologize to all parties involved, and then promptly be fired from his job. Having said that, I can certainly recognize that he found himself in a very difficult and stressful situation. His training seems to have kept the situation from escalating any more than it did. But just like the folks who chose to cross the street, he made a choice too -- when he decided to enforce an unjust law. So the situation was largely his own making. Maybe next time he will think twice about attempting to enforce a stupid law, and maybe they will think twice about their own safety.

[Update: pretty good discussion on this one going on in the forum]

I've written about how rights are digital, but there is another quality that I'd like to explore a bit. While all of our rights may be equal, they may not always be symmetrical. We all have the right to do whatever we want unless or until it infringes upon the rights of another to do the same, but what happens when two parties are exercising the same right, equally, at the same time, but only one of them is infringing on the other?

For example, few would deny that one has the right to sit out in the back yard and enjoy the peace and quiet of the outdoors. But at the same time, sitting outside with your stereo on listening to your favorite tunes would also seem to be a right we should all enjoy. It is clear that the right to be as loud as you want, when exercised by multiple people simultaneously, can lead to conflict. Resolving these disputes is beyond the scope of this essay, but the intriguing thing to me is this: the guy who wants to be as quiet as he can doesn't infringe upon anyone else's rights, it's only his next door neighbor, with the amplifier that goes to eleven that infringes on others. So there is an asymmetry in the right to be as loud as you want.

Another example would be walking down the street. You walk at your own pace, and certainly no one would argue that this isn't an inherent right -- you walk as fast as you like. But I'm sure we've all been in a situation where someone has stepped aside, to allow faster walkers to pass, with a polite "excuse me." This act is recognition of the fact that exercising the right to choose the speed at which we walk is asymmetrical, and that walking slowly prevents others from exercising their right to walk fast. The converse is not true, however -- the fast walkers do not prevent the slow walkers from walking slow -- so again, this right is asymmetrical.

The state of Georgia recently considered this assymetry by proposing to fine slow drivers. I think this is a step in the right direction. The next step, of course, would be to eliminate the penalties against those who want to drive fast, since they are not infringing on anyone's rights.

I am hereby starting the national dialog on reforming our nation's Appetite Care laws. Your appetite cannot be ignored, after all. If you cannot afford to address your appetite issues, then you will surely die. So, clearly, you have a basic human right to appetite care. But not everyone sees it this way.

There are a number of greedy appetite care providers out there, charging exorbitant rates for their services. The other day I went into one of these places, and got served and then they proceeded to give me a bill! I tried to explain that I had been there once before when I was hungry and had paid them the last time I was there. They tried to deny me coverage -- they said hunger was a pre-existing condition! This is outrageous! Are we supposed to just go without? Obviously, the government needs to step in and do more. The current Appetite Care system has been wildly successful, so why not just expand it to include all Americans? It seems like a no-brainer.

As long as the government is going to regulate every aspect of marriage (who can get married, who pays for the kids, etc.), I think Congress should go ahead and eliminate the moral ambiguity of adultery. Sen John Ensign's comments about his extramarital affair last year highlighted the fact that adultery isn't technically illegal. Why isn't it? Shouldn't we have a law against sleeping around? I think it would reduce the number of failed marriages, and illegitimate children, thus lessening the impact these behaviors have on society. We (allegedly) protect the institution of marriage by forbidding homosexuals. We protect married couples from temptation by going after prostitutes. We protect our children by going after deadbeat dads. Certainly there is sufficient moral justification for it, so isn't it time we take the final step and outlaw infidelity?

Oh wait, we can't do that. Then members of Congress would have to go to jail even more frequently that they do already.

Now let's address our hypocrisy where drugs are concerned. Interestingly, when the Harrison Narcotics Act was passed in 1914, it was estimated that 1.3% of the population was addicted to some kind of drug. In 1970, when the so-called War on Drugs was launched with the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, the rate of addiction was again estimated at 1.3%. And today, after 40 years of violence and billions of dollars wasted, the addiction rate in America is... drum roll, please -- 1.3%.

The abject futility of the "War on Drugs" can no longer be ignored -- even the Obama Administration has stopped using the term as the President has recognized that it is counter-productive -- and the American people are slowly starting to realize this as well. Last week, NPR ran a series of stories on the shift in attitudes towards marijuana. One individual, whose livelihood depends on continued prosecution of the War, not surprisingly is opposed to relaxing the regulation of marijuana. Andrew Cummings, a Drug Court director in Dekalb County Georgia, said, "People often think about marijuana, and understandably so, as one might think about having a drink at the end of the day and relaxing, but it doesn't stop there for a lot of people. And as the potency increases, the likelihood of dependency increases." He actually makes the comparison to everyone's favorite legal drug, alcohol, with no hint of irony. Alcohol has all of the same potential negative effects, and yet we allow it to be sold on virtually every street corner. Isn't it time we take the final step and outlaw alcohol?

Oh wait, we tried that, and Prohibition taught us that we cannot ban a substance. We lack the Constitutional authority, and attempting to do so only creates underground markets that spawn all kinds of intolerable side effects. The most obvious of which is the businessman who sells these products is forced to resolve his disputes with other businessmen using violence instead of in a court of law, as legal businesses do. But here is one of the less obvious ones: the number of people who drank hard liquor increased significantly during Prohibition, because it was easier to brew your own bathtub gin than it was to brew your own beer. Consequently, the alcohol was more concentrated, and more prone to harmful impurities -- it put the roar in the Roaring Twenties. Are we to believe that no one suffered ill effects of drinking a product that was both more potent and more polluted?

The logical inconsistencies in our laws loom large, and we continue to ignore them. Homosexuals are not allowed to marry, but Britney Spears can get married for 55 hours, and we're somehow protecting the institution of marriage? Serial drunk drivers kill by the carload, but we put a million people in jail for possession of weed, and we're protecting who exactly? Our hypocrisy is sickening.

This is addressed to those who routinely mispronounce the name of my home state. Some of you, inexplicably, are from this state and you still don't know how to pronounce it. Since you somehow managed to escape any proper instruction in its pronunciation, allow me to enlighten you. It is pronounced Mizz-oo-ree. Please note that the word ends in the letter 'i' and not 'ah.' Would you care to explain why Missouri gets special treatment? I've never once heard anyone say "Miss-iss-ipp-ah." Or talk about how they had spaghett-ah for dinner. So what exactly is your problem, anyway?

I don't mean to impugn anyone's upbringing, or education level. I don't think those are relevant, anyway. Our very own Senator Kit Bond, who grew up in St. Louis, went to Princeton and was a Rhodes Scholar after all, suffers from this same horrible affliction. I guess I need to write him a letter and ask why it is he can't correctly pronounce our state's name.

Many years ago I remember hearing about a story where someone had the battery stolen out of their car. A day or two later, a brand new car battery showed up on their doorstep, with a note apologizing. The heartfelt apology described how they were down on their luck and needed the battery to get to work to feed their 12 kids, or something along those lines, and in the envelope were two tickets to a local sporting event, to act as compensation for their trouble. The homeowners attend the sporting event, and return home to find their house robbed of all of their valuables. I'm not sure if that story is true or not -- it could just be an urban legend -- but today I read this story about a cruise ship employee who robbed the homes of vacationers. The moral here, of course, is to not make it public knowledge when you are going to be away from home.

But if we dig just a bit deeper into this, and acknowledge that this was a matter of personal privacy, the moral to me is, never give anyone your real address. Get a post office box and use it for everything. Because nobody needs to know where you live -- that's none of their business. Now I'll concede that choosing this path will make your life a bit more difficult. Your dentist's office will call you and demand your real address, claiming that too many people use post office box addresses to skip out on their bill. If you order something online and have it shipped, the company will demand a shipping address, because they have exclusive arrangements with UPS or FedEx, and they don't ship to PO boxes. The worst one so far, though, is the DMV. The State of Missouri does not allow you to use a PO box on your driver's license anymore. Apparently, in order to drive legally, you have to live somewhere. I called the Department of Revenue in Jefferson CIty and asked what do I do if I am homeless? Does that mean I can't renew my license? The simple but painful answer is yes. Sorry homeless people -- you can live in your car, you just can't drive it anywhere!

Not to mention the bigger problem of what if I lose my wallet? Whoever finds it now knows where I live. What if my car is broken into and my wallet is stolen? The crook now knows where I live, and also which house the garage door remote works. Call it paranoia, but as the true story above illustrates, there are plenty of people out there looking to take advantage of this private, personal information, however they can get it, and I believe that businesses and government -- most importantly government -- are obligated to help us to protect it.

Having spent a few weeks on the road this year, I've had more exposure to the TSA recently than I really care to. This, coupled with the announcement that the current theater that passes for airport security will be enhanced with random hand-swabbing, is enough to bring into sharp relief the myriad reasons that I dislike the TSA and everything for which it stands. This isn't new, of course. I've written about the TSA before and that I believe common sense will eventually prevail, and the TSA will be relegated to the dustbin of history. I look forward to one day regaling my grandchildren with stories of the post-9/11 world, and their slack-jawed reaction to the sheer absurdities of this life. So here is the start of a collection of these stories.

In January, traveler Bucky Turco took a photo of a TSA agent sleeping on the job at LaGuardia airport. Granted, the agent was not on duty at the time, but gaffes like this do little to improve the TSA's image. Also in January, a terminal at Newark was on lockdown after a TSA agent left his post, allowing a man to duck under the rope to say his goodbyes to a friend. I suspect incidents like this are fairly rare, but again, they do nothing to improve the general perception that the TSA is is suffering from a severe lack of professionalism. Whether you leave your post, or fall asleep on the job, no one is going to believe that you are taking the security of passengers seriously.

In yet another story from January, an agent in Philly tried to remedy his boredom by playing a prank on traveler Rebecca Solomon, planting a plastic bag of white powder in her bag, and then letting her off the hook with a grin and a "just kidding!" Using your position of authority to meet women was a helpful plot device in the recent movie She's Out Of My Leauge, but when it comes to real life, these agents need to stay a bit more focused. The agent was subsequently terminated for this behavior, but it does lead one to question, where did that bag of white powder come from? Was this simply the desperate action of a lonely guy, or are TSA agents actually trained to use tactics such as this?

What about the agents that detained Ron Paul campaign staffer Steve Bierfeldt at the St. Louis airport in 2009? His quick thinking to record audio of the entire incident on his iPhone helped him win his case and reestablish some proper boundaries around the agency's outrageous power grab. The TSA subsequently "issued a new policy directive making clear that its safety screening procedures would be strictly limited to passenger searches for the purpose of safeguarding flight safety." We owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Bierfeldt for standing up for all of our rights, and striking a significant blow in defense of common sense.

Earlier this year, I documented my Home Theater PC project. My primary motivation for this endeavor was to find a viable alternative, preferably less expensive, to my subscription to DirecTV. I had been a customer of theirs for over 10 years, and in that time I watched my monthly fee creep from $29.95 all the way up to $59 -- almost double! And what did I get for my money? Not a damn thing. I still had the same satellite decoder (circa 1999), with no DVR, and no High Definition content. Their latest rate increase that took effect at the beginning of the year was the proverbial last straw.

The customer service representative that took my call made an enthusiastic attempt to sway me. He offered a $10/month rate reduction (but only for 12 months) and 3 free months of all the premium channels (which I don't watch anyway). Then when he said he was going to transfer me to their customer retention department, I told him not to bother. I wasn't calling to complain -- I had done that plenty of times in the past, to no avail -- I was calling to cancel. It felt good to send that message. I know the faceless rep on the other end of the phone will not lose any sleep over it. But I do know that this is the only message I can send that will have any impact at all. I am now a statistic in DirecTV's databases somewhere. A ten-year veteran customer who got fed up and told them to take a hike. And I'm not alone. And if enough of us send this same message enough times, they will change. I know I will never be a DirecTV customer again, but maybe this will help make it better for their current subscribers. So if you're a DirecTV subscriber, you're welcome!

Ignoring for the moment the complete absurdity of giving a third-grader detention for eating a Jolly Rancher, let's explore this story a little deeper. In other words, follow the money. Because the real story here doesn't appear until the tenth paragraph, when the school district superintendent, Jack Ellis, says, "failing to adhere to the state’s guidelines could put federal funding in jeopardy." There it is. The federal extortion racket is at it again.

If you watched any of Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution, you know that he ran up against this same nonsense, except the logic there was reversed. At the elementary school in Huntington, West Virginia, where he was trying to eliminate chocolate and strawberry flavored milk (because, as he put it, they contain more sugar than a can of "fizzy pop"), it took several attempts before the school district finally got "approval" from state authorities to remove a food item that was bad for the children's health.

So in one state, the extortionists punish a child for eating sugar, and in another state, they punish the school for trying to reduce the sugar intake of their students. But in both states, the root cause is the same: fight the system and lose your funding.

Thought to be a curse of ancient Chinese origin, the title of this essay is appropriate for life in America today. A new report by the Pew Research Center is in the news today -- just the latest data showing that most believe our government is broken, echoing results from a similar CNN poll conducted in February. But you don't need poll numbers to notice the downward spiral we find ourselves in -- simply watch the news. I'm not sure that the frequency of these incidents is increasing (although it seems like it to me), but they are certainly becoming better documented (thanks to the internet) and more widely known.

A decade ago, one could point to a handful of hard-core anti-government episodes (Ruby Ridge, Waco, Oklahoma City bombing) that were so conspicuous, each had become iconic in its own right. Now they seem to happen so often, that no single incident has enough time to etch itself in our collective consciousness before the next media frenzy begins:

• Feb 18, 2010 - Andrew Joseph Stack flies his Piper Dakota airplane into an Austin, Texas office building housing the Internal Revenue Service, killing himself and one IRS worker inside. Stack left behind a manifesto expressing his anger towards the IRS and the government in general.
• Mar 4, 2010 - Two police officers were shot and wounded inside the Pentagon subway station in Washington, DC by John Patrick Bedell. Bedell had a history of mental health problems, but also a healthy dislike of government.
• Mar 27, 2010 - Members of a self-described "christian warrior" group called Hutaree were arrested in Michigan for plotting to kill police officers. The group has been known to advocate anti-government doctrines.
• Apr 2, 2010 - More than 30 state governors received letters from a group called Guardians of the Free Republics demanding that they resign from office, or be removed. The Guardians are devoted to dismantling goverment.
• Apr 6-7, 2010 - Within a day of each other, two men, Charles Wilson and Gregory Giusti, were arrested for issuing threats against their respective members of Congress.
• Apr 15, 2010 - And of course the most vocal and omnipresent anti-government group is the burgeoning Tea Party movement, which concluded a coast-to-coast bus tour last week on Tax Day with a rally in Washington, DC to protest government oppression, in general, and taxation in particular.

Now these are just the stories that made national headlines. The assumption is that there are many, many more similar stories at the local level that go unnoticed. On February 7, 2008, for example, the St. Louis suburb of Kirkwood was rocked by a shooting spree during a city council meeting. The gunman, Charles Lee "Cookie" Thornton, finally had enough of what he considered harrassment by local government officals and killed several of them. There is also the tale of Jerry Andres, who recently invoked the memory of the Kirkwood shooting when he made his own angry visit to another St. Louis area city hall. Author and columnist Vin Suprynowicz devoted an entire book, called The Ballad of Carl Drega, to documenting a number of these same kinds of local stories across the country.

It is easy to dismiss all of the actors in these stories as "wingnuts" with mental disorders. But that simply isn't the case. Every person has a breaking point, and the tragedy is that the rest of us cannot relate to these stories because we have never been pushed to our own breaking points -- but these individuals have. Now whether the oppression or harrassment is real or imagined is left for history to record, but it brings to mind the quote by a former Secretary of State:

The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it. -- John Hay, 1872

What all of these people have in common is their desire and their willingness to resist what they perceive as tyranny. Their courage to take a stand should be respected, even if they are misguided, or their methods are despicable. So does the increase in the frequency of these stories mean that more and more people are saying "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!" or is it simply a trend that the mainstream media is temporarily willing to indulge? Needless to say, my hope is that it is the former.

...in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. -- Luke 2, KJV

I guess the connection between taxation and the census is as old as the human race. But for roughly 150 years in this country (before we had an income tax), the only real purpose for the census was apportionment of representation in the House of Representatives, and, in that context, the only data necessary to the task are the raw numbers of population in each state. This is a legitimate function of the government, I suppose, to the extent that the Constitution itself is legitimate (which is certainly open to debate). But I object to what the census has become. It is now much closer to what we had when Cyrenius was governor of Syria than what the Framers had in mind when these words were ratified in the Constitution:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed... The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand...

Clearly the reason for the census was in support of this numbers game prescribed by Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, but look at what it has turned into: a competition between the states, each jockeying for the best position at the federal trough. And the first notice sent out by the US Census Bureau last week made no attempt to hide this perversity. Instead it celebrated it, pointing out that billions of dollars in federal funds were at stake, and that not participating would put your state at risk of not getting its fair share. Sorry, for people like me, that is not the proper incentive. It makes me want to drop the thing in the shredder rather than cover it with personal information about myself and my family and then mail it off to some faceless bureaucrat.

The census form I received states that "Federal law protects your privacy and keeps your answers confidential," although there are numerous exceptions and exemptions outlined in Title 13, Sec 9 of the USC that governs the census. It goes on to say that "The answers you give on the census form cannot be obtained by law enforcement or tax collection agencies. Your answers cannot be used in court. They cannot be obtained with a FOIA request." Despite these claims, the form fails to include a simple Privacy Act statement, mandated by USC Title 5, Sec 552e, which requires that "Each agency that maintains a system of records shall ... inform each individual whom it asks to supply information, on the form which it uses to collect the information ... the authority (whether granted by statute, or by executive order of the President) which authorizes the solicitation of the information and whether disclosure of such information is mandatory or voluntary." This has been the practice since 1974 when the Privacy Act was passed, three censuses ago, so how can an agency that is already hypersensitive to the privacy concerns of American citizens ignore this requirement?

The form also says that anyone who does not provide the requested information is liable for a $100 fine. You know what? My personal information is worth more than that to me, so go ahead and fine me.

It looks like my prediction about Avatar is on track to come true, but the box office reports today reminded me just how pointless box office reports are. I already know the answer to this question, but why do these reports still use dollars instead of gross tickets sold? Hey James Cameron! Since you're trying to revolutionize the movie industry with your work, how about doing something really revolutionary -- how about you demand that your box office receipts be reported in numbers that actually mean something? Because, if you look at Titanic's box office take, it's based on the cost of tickets in 1997 (about $4.50). Tickets on average today are about twice that much, so when Avatar's take exceeds that, it'll be on half as many tickets. On the other hand, Titanic sold about 95 million tickets in 1997. That number still has meaning today. For example, the original Star Wars in 1977 sold over 160 million tickets in total. So if bragging rights are going to mean anything at all, everyone needs to be using the same standard of measure. Otherwise, just stop bombarding us with meaningless numbers!

If one were a flea, and one's entire life was spent nestled among the black hairs on a zebra's back, one might tend to conclude that zebras are black. Until one met a flea from a neighboring white region of the same zebra's back. Then an argument might ensue between the two camps over which one was right. Time would pass, and after the fleas established a space program and launched their first surveillance satellite (held aloft on the back of a dragonfly), one might expect the issue to be settled once and for all. But the highly-anticipated, and "conclusive," data would still be subject to interpretation. That is, some would believe that zebras are white with black stripes, and others would believe that zebras are black with white stripes.

The point is data are rarely conclusive. And even when they are, the personal agendas and biases of those who own or collect the data, might sometimes prevent the truth from being known. So it is with the current debate surrounding what was once called "global warming" and is now called "climate change" -- just the surreptitious change of moniker is enough to bring motives into question. Couple this with the recent revelations of emails between scientists in the field that have given the appearance of impropriety, the failure to reach consensus at the recent Copenhagen summit, and the whole environmental movement seems to be losing momentum.

I hesitate to say that the movement is receiving its just desserts. I am sympathetic to the goals of the movement, I'm just not a fan of their tactics in most cases. I also struggle with the way the message has been communicated over my lifetiime. I was two years old when the first Earth Day was held, and the histrionics first began about how we were killing our planet, and that if we didn't address the crisis, we would all be dead by the end of the century. Well, for those of you keeping score at home, the crisis continues unabated now forty years hence, and we're all still here. But no one within the movement shows any sign of backing away from the hyperbole -- they just keep moving the goal line out, a generation at a time.

So as we enter the fortieth year of this movement, where are we really? Is the planet in better or worse shape? Are zebras black with white stripes? Or white with black stripes? The answer that seems most reasonable to me, and the one that is most striking, is that no one really knows. Not yet. For each objective data point on one side of the debate, its equal appears on the other side. Forty years on, and we have a stalemate, the rhetoric on both sides having become trite. The problems appear objectively real, but the proposed solutions do not.

I would encourage the movement's crusaders to take advantage of this respite, dress your wounds, and regain your bearings. But most of all, refine your message, banish the traitors among you who have brought harm to the movement, and come back when you've figured out the color of the zebra. Until then, frankly, I'm tired of hearing from you.

A friend was lamenting today about having to throw away an expensive bottle of hairspray in order to pass through airport security. That would be bad enough, but then she commented that it was her own fault. That is the truly tragic part. We have all been assaulted with the TSA's ridiculous propaganda for so long now, that we are actually starting to believe that it is wrong to travel with things like hairspary. It's not, by the way. The TSA is wrong, and it's not your fault!

Don't allow yourself to be brainwashed into believing that the current theater that passes for airport security is a necessary part of life in this country! It's a fad. It's all part of the knee-jerk reaction that this country had to 9/11 that continues to play out even today, eight years later. But make no mistake, it is a temporary condition. Common sense is on life support, but it is not yet dead. We can resuscitate it and get our lives back.

Every once in a while, there is a story in the news that offers a glimmer of hope -- what we used to call good news -- and today's Post Dispatch offered evidence that common sense may be making a comeback. The story, TSA changes procedure after Lambert incident, revealed that the fear-fueled hysteria does have limits. Steven Bierfeldt was inappropriately grilled by TSA personnel for trying to travel with a large sum of money. After facing a lawsuit from Bierfeldt and the ACLU, the TSA revised their rules to require their agents "to stick to matters related to flight security rather than policing airports for other crimes." Gee, ya think?

So be patient, fellow travelers. As common sense recovers, and continues its physical therapy, these small victories will continue until things return to normal. And one day, as we spritz our hair before boarding our plane, we will all look back at the dark days of the TSA as quaint and unnecessary.

In 1906, the Supreme Court case of Hale vs Henkel was decided. The case centered around whether or not the defendant, serving in his capacity as an officer of a corporation, had a right to claim 4th and 5th amendment protection from the court's subpoenas for the corporation's records. In the majority opinion, they attempted to make their point by contrasting the defendant's standing as corporate officer with his standing as a private citizen. In so doing, they left a significant contribution to the fossil record of personal liberty in the United States.

Why do I refer to it as the fossil record? Because personal liberty is all but extinct in this country today, but it wasn't always that way. And here, buried in an obscure, century-old, Supreme Court ruling, is a gleaming nugget of evidence of what liberty in this country used to mean:

The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

Today, the Supreme Court hands down rubbish like Kelo, or ekes out a disappointing simple majority in a case like Heller. But there was a time, way back in the Mesozoic Era of freedom, that the Supreme Court would affirm what the rest of us already knew: you have the right to do whatever you want, unless or until it infringes upon the rights of another to do the same. Evidence of this attitude among modern Americans is very hard to find, indeed.

Friends, neighbors, and relatives, lend me your ears. This is a supposedly free country, where we subscribe to various notions of personal liberty, privacy, and periodically reaffirm our commitment to things like the Castle Doctrine, which states that a man's home is his castle. In other words, what goes on within the walls of our homes should be no one's business but our own.

It is against this backdrop that the government of St. Louis County plies its wares. I know people, close friends and relatives, who have found themselves at odds with County government, but I haven't felt compelled to expound on this until now. While at a picnic today, surrounded by people with whom I am familiar, but don't consider close friends, I overheard two separate conversations (one while waiting in line for food, the other after I had sat down) by two different people, concerning their recent experiences with County government. This is as close to a random sample of St. Louis County residents as one is likely to find, so combining these data points with others I have collected, I am led to only one conclusion. The widespread interference in our private lives by St. Louis County government is not only increasing in frequency, but has reached intolerable levels.

These stories all center around permits. Permits for various home improvement projects. Projects that agents of St. Louis County government would have no knowledge of if it weren't for 1) conscientious residents trying to do "the right thing" by applying for permits that they aren't even sure they need, or 2) the government invading the privacy of its residents, all in the name of "safety." So I have two messages, one for the residents and one for the County.

To my fellow residents, I say stop groveling! Stop begging for permission (because that is what a permit is) to exercise your inherent right to property. Do you own your house? Why should you have to ask anyone for permission to make improvements to your own house? Chances are you don't own your house -- it is more likely that a bank somewhere owns it. Would you call up your bank and ask their permission to remodel your kitchen? Or build a patio? Or finish your basement? Of course not. Why would you? It's none of their damn business what you do with your house! So why do we all buy into this myth that it's the government's business what we do with our houses? How did they get involved in this, anyway?

To St. Louis County, I say back off! Stop violating our rights to privacy and property! Keep in mind, we fought a revolution against Great Britain for actions that were less egregious. One of these days you are going to pick the wrong resident, and like so many other sad examples (most recently in Kirkwood) of government pushing someone too far, you will find yourself on the receiving end of a violent and needless reaction. And even if it never comes to that extreme, is that what it takes to get your attention? Isn't it enough to hear feedback such as this from your residents? Your involvement in our lives is unwanted, unnecessary, and adds no value. So why do we continue to tolerate (and fund) your invasive behavior? What good do we get out of it?

Some would argue that without government oversight of some kind, the projects attempted by some residents would be far from improvements. Some of them would be of such inferior quality that they not only detract from the value of the home, but could pose hazards to other residents. That is certainly true. My response to that is, so what? As Thomas Jefferson said, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Which is more important to you? Your rights, or your property value? Not to mention the fact, that you and every other homeowner already have the power to keep the shoddy work in check. Every time you purchase a home, you have the right to negotiate with the seller to have their property inspected (by yourself and/or a qualified third party) to make sure that it does not suffer from any of this substandard work you fear so much. Likewise, the work you perform on your own home is subject to inspection when you go to sell it. Isn't "caveat emptor" enough protection without sacrificing yet more of our liberties for a small amount of safety?

So next time you are considering upgrades to your castle, and you want to do the right thing, here's what you do. First, keep your mouth shut about it. Don't go asking for permission from people who have no right to tell you what to do with your property in the first place. Second, hire competent people who share your disdain for permits to do the work (if you aren't comfortable doing it yourself). Lastly, if they come around telling you that you've violated some ordinance or some regulation you've never heard of, ignore them. If they keep bugging you, tell them to show you the law you are supposedly violating and then hire an attorney. Remember, they are counting on you to follow the path of least resistance, and to just roll over and pay your tribute to Caesar. If they can tell that they are going to have a fight on their hands, they just might leave you alone, and find someone else to terrorize. If enough of us do this, they will eventually go away entirely.

I'm no fan of Lou Dobbs, and this latest flap about President Obama's birth certificate is just more evidence that he's an idiot, but the dialog has highlighted what I think is an interesting political oddity. The Obama administration has chosen to ignore this tempest in a teapot. Okay. I don't disagree -- this claim is not legitimate, as far as anyone can tell. As Jon Stewart pointed out the other night on The Daily Show, unless Obama has a time machine, the birth announcements in the August 1961 Hawaiian newspapers are compelling evidence. However, how difficult would it be for the Administration to simply produce the birth certificate, and silence all of the critics? This may seem like caving into the demands of the lunatic fringe, but this is the same administration that held a do-over of Obama's swearing in, after Chief Justice John Roberts flubbed his lines, in a preemptive strike against anyone who would question the validity of the ceremony, all out of "an abundance of caution." Remember that? Where is that caution now?

Of course, the more interesting question in all of this (that I don't hear anyone talking about) is not was Obama born in Hawaii, but is Hawaii actually a state? This issue may enjoy the same level of respect as other internet conspiracies, like the Bohemian Grove and black helicopters, but there is little debate that Hawaii was illegally annexed by the United States, as evidenced most recently by President Clinton's 1993 apology to the State of Hawaii for overthrowing their kingdom. If Hawaii isn't really a state (legally), then Obama's birth certificate doesn't really matter much, does it?

A few recent stories in the news have caught my attention, so I wanted to comment on them. First, CNN ran an editorial on hate crimes. I already responded to it in the comments, but I wanted to address one other point the authors made. In the last paragraph, they make the claim (without a reference, I might add) that "over two-thirds of the American public favor hate crime laws." So? Over two-thirds of the American public are morons. I suspect that any survey you would conduct on this issue would go something like this. Hate is bad. Crime is bad. Therefore, hate crime is doubly bad. So any law making hate crimes illegal is doubly good. Sure I'll vote for that. It doesn't matter that it's meaningless. The term "hate crime" is like something right out of Orwell's newspeak. It's doubleplusungood. It is literally thoughtcrime brought to life, and the potential dangers of attempting to police people's thoughts are far greater than the danger of ignoring a perpetrator's motivation in committing a crime.

In other news, the First Amendment is under attack in Wisconsin, as an Iraq War veteran turned entrepreneur is being harrassed by the local constabulary for flying the US flag upside down as a sign of distress. His quote at the end of the story really says it all: "It is pretty bad when I go and fight a tyrannical government somewhere else, and then I come home to find it right here at my front door."

Lastly, I recently posed the question, is Atlas shrugging? Here is one more bit of affirmative evidence from the Wall Street Journal, documenting that previous attempts to "soak the rich" in various states have never achieved the stated goal. Raising taxes significantly on the rich only provides incentive for them to avoid the taxes, either by moving out of the oppressive state or working harder to shelter the income, thereby driving down the state's annual revenue. In Atlast Shrugged, the rich are encouraged to disappear to Galt's Gulch -- in real life, they are being encouraged to relocate to tax havens like Texas or Florida. Either way, the government's attempts at redistributing wealth are thwarted.

If you've ever gone through the process of getting a new phone number, you know that the previous owner's reputation and associations may haunt you. The phone companies are supposed to let phone numbers lie fallow for some period of time (usually a year) before they reassign them to new customers. This isn't always done, and in some cases a year is not enough time, so you may find that acquaintances or customers of the number's previous owner continue to call you. As I have recently learned, the same is true for IP addresses.

In the thirty or so years since the first spam email, the most successful method found so far to combat the problem is to blacklist the IP addresses of known spammers, and block any internet traffic that originates from these IPs. This works well. Too well. Especially if you inherit an IP address from a spammer, like I recently did. It is a serious pain in the ass to have your IP removed from all of the various blacklists that are maintained around the world. Some are open source lists that are available to anyone, some are owned by individual Internet Service Providers. But they all have one thing in common -- they all have their own unique way of administering their lists, and processing your appeal to be removed from them.

The most ironic and painful thing about this process is that I requested and paid extra for my own static IP address specifically because I was having a problem with some of my emails bouncing back as spam! Now, I'm running into this problem even more than I was before, so the cure is worse than the disease.

So let me take this opportunity to thank all of you assholes out there who feel the need to fill up people's inboxes with offers for penis enlargement, hot singles in my area, Nigerian bank scams, and Viagra. Like pissing in someone's pool, you've ruined it for everyone else.

I like to periodically cover the topic of misconduct by law enforcement, and my story archive continues to grow (now over 130 stories). But a couple of stories since my last update deserve attention.

First, the year began with one of the most heinous examples of police brutality in history when multiple cell phone cameras caught the cold-blooded murder of Oscar Grant in a crowded San Francisco subway station. The officer responsible fled the state soon after the incident, but was apprehended and now faces murder charges.

A New Jersey woman named Sheila Stevenson was beaten in another instance of what has now become the iconic police dogpile, fists and batons flailing, all caught on dashcam video. Another example of the dogpile is Anthony Warren's beating by Birmingham police, also caught on dashcam video, and covered up by the department for over a year. This video is especially disturbing since the five cops viciously attacked the unconscious man after his body was thrown from his vehicle on the side of the road. Stay classy, Birmingham!

The latest taser saga has a relatively happy ending, since the family of 23-year-old victim Stanley Harlan were awarded $2.4 million in damages after police in Moberly, Missouri killed him with a taser gun during a suspected DUI stop. The lawsuit claims police refused to allow Harlan's mother or other bystanders to help him when he stopped breathing. Aren't tasers supposed to be non-lethal weapons?

If you have any examples of police misconduct in your local news that you would like to share, please let me know and I'll be happy to add these stories to my collection.

A survey by the Library of Congress in 1991 showed that Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand was the most influential book in America, second only to the Bible. I run into very few people who have actually read it, and at 1,200 pages, it is daunting. However, in recent months there has been a resurgence of interest in this book. Hollywood has even responded with a fresh attempt at making a movie out of it.

The book explores what would happen when government intrusion into the free market becomes so onerous that the nation's entrepreneurs finally become fed up and go on strike, throwing the entire country into socio-economic turmoil. Earlier in the year, there was a flurry of news stories surrounding the book, as pundits and politicians alike made reference to it in comparison to steps being taken by the Obama administration. I think these comparisons were accurate, if a bit premature, especially since the intervention into the auto industry had not even begun yet. Today, the parallels have become even more astounding.

Rand's tale, published in 1957, seems to be somewhat prophetic. She escaped the oppression of the Soviet Union as a child, and came to America seeking a better life. Her novels were critical of any steps America took that she felt would lead us down the same path as her mother Russia. Fifty years later, we seem to still be meandering along that path. Sadly, Rand died in 1982, but her legacy lives on.

With the government now in direct control of most of the financial industry, the auto industry, and seriously discussing a takeover of the health care industry, how much further down this path will we go? The predictions in Atlas Shrugged have been eerily accurate so far. Read the book to learn one possible outcome.

Allow me to introduce you to the Peterkins. If you've never been exposed to this book, I strongly encourage you to read it. Especially the first story in the book. As this article describes:

The charm of the story is not in the plot, but in the telling, building up layers of complication, and the affectionate fun poked at the not-quite-cartoonish characters.

The first story is about how Mrs. Peterkin mistakenly puts salt instead of sugar into her morning cup of coffee. The day is spent on an absurd quest (meeting with chemists, and herbal experts, and...) to neutralize the effect of the salt, all of which leaves the coffee undrinkable. The solution is obvious to the reader, you simply pour out the coffee and start over, but this eludes the Peterkins.

When I read the news, or watch the theater that passes for politics in this country, it always feels like I'm watching the Peterkins. The most recent stories about the financial meltdown and the government's response to it is just another desperate attempt to neutralize the salt in our coffee. The futility of this band-aid on top of a band-aid approach becomes obvious, as the government responds over and over again to problems of its own creation, due to the The Law of Unintended Consequences. When will this country wake up and realize that it's time to pour out the coffee and start over?

We all know what this law says, or at least most of us do. Why is it that so many people who work in government either forget this law, or believe they are exempt from it? I had to comment on this story which brilliantly illustrates this point. The State of Hawaii is ending its program of universal health care for children because it has become too expensive. The reason?

A state official said families were dropping private coverage so their children would be eligible for the subsidized plan.

You mean if you give away something for free, some people will start using it instead of paying for it themselves? Oh yeah, would not have seen that one coming. Shocking.

"People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free," said Dr. Kenny Fink, the administrator for Med-QUEST at the Department of Human Services. "I don't believe that was the intent of the program."

Gee, ya think? Of course it wasn't the *intent* of the program! That's why it's called the Law of *Unintended* Consequences. How does someone make it to adulthood and remain this clueless?

Last winter I received a rather curious letter in the mail. It was from a company calling themselves RedLightViolations.com. I've seen other scams by mail, and at first glance, I thought that this was just another. It purported to be a citation, issued by authority of the State of Illinois, for running a red light. After further inspection, I became even more convinced that it was a scam, especially since they didn't have the right vehicle model, or even the right license plate. There was a photo on the notice of what they claimed to be my car, at a rural intersection that I'm pretty sure I've never been through, and the violation allegedly occurred on a date when I was, in fact, on vacation in Florida.

But if we ignore all of that, and further set aside the general legal issues raised by red light cameras across this country (a plague that organizations like the National Motorists Asssociation are currently fighting), we come finally to the point of my rant: what is the procedure when the system fails? In other words, when an innocent person is wrongfully accused, what is their recourse?

After a quick Google search, and verification that RedLightViolations.com was a bonafide agent of the State (which, by the way, does not at all diminish their scam status), I called the toll-free number provided on the notice to inform them that they had the wrong guy. The license number cited was very close to mine, but the 2s had been replaced with 3s. How this happens in our current Information Age, I know not, but explaining all of this to the bureaucrat on the other end of the phone left her completely uninspired. Her only response was the standard protocol: I would have to draft a written statement documenting this fact somehow, and mail it to the address provided on the notice.

So in a country where our justice system is supposedly predicated on the maxim of innocent until proven guilty, I had to literally *prove* my innocence. Not in a court of law. Not before a magistrate. But in a letter to some faceless Sheriff of Nottingham threatening to take my money if I did not comply. It did not matter that their mistake was self-evident. I still had to expend my time and energy (and postage) refuting this meritless charge against me. Is this what we've become? America, I think we can do better.

I hereby announce that I am organizing The Six Million Man March. Why? Because apparently a million isn't enough. If you really want to get the government's attention, it takes six million. Or maybe five million. But it's something more than three million. How do I know? Well, remember back in February when everyone was supposed to switch to broadcast Digital TV? You know, the thing that had been in the works for over 10 years? The Neilsen Co. was reporting back then that over six million people were still unprepared for the switch, and since the US Constitution guarantees us all a right to television, the government stepped in, led by the newly-elected President Obama, to protect the rights of six million Neo-Luddites, technophobes, and other toothless morons who couldn't figure out what they needed to do to not miss Deal or No Deal. Plus it was sweeps month.

Now fast forward to June. CNN is reporting that when the switch was made on Friday, there were still three million people unprepared. But wait, the government didn't step in this time? Nope. No love for the three million. Sorry, y'all are on your own. So the critical threshold for government intervention (at least under the Obama administration) is apparently somewhere between 3 and 6 million. Geez, how many detainees do we have at Gitmo, anyway?

This is the halfway point in this year's 30 Days of Blog, and I thought I would devote at least one day responding to the man who started all of this. The Numb Trolleybus is singing Congress's praises for finally making the move to regulate tobacco products. And I shared his surprise when I learned that the government didn't already regulate it. I mean, the feds tell you how much water your toilet can use per flush, how is it that they aren't already involved in this aspect of your life?

Whenever anyone casts tobacco as the bad guy, I always reflect upon the fact that our country would not exist but for tobacco. The Virginia Colony was founded to make this product more affordable (and to make its growers rich), and for the first 100 years of our history, next to cotton, tobacco was our biggest export. But for my entire life, we as Americans have had a love/hate relationship with this lowly plant.

I'm certainly not advocating smoking, and I'm no fan of sitting next to a smoker, if I can avoid it. However, I am a fan of freedom, and I recognize that person's right to put whatever they want into their own bodies. The argument is that allowing them to use this dangerous product will "inflict enormous drains on the health care system." That may be true, but the first question to ask yourself is, why am I paying for the health care system? Since when is it the job of goverment to provide me with health care? The answer: it isn't. And despite the attractiveness of giving away health care to every American, it creates just as many problems as it solves. Entitlement spending always creates or exacerbates problems like this, or immigration, to use another example.

When you agree to pay for something, you should have some say in how that something is used. The logic behind that is unassailable, however, it's based on a flawed premise: that you have the authority to pay for that something in the first place. Health concerns are certainly a valid reason for shunning tobacco, but don't blame the plant for the problems caused by our attempts to implement socialism.

If you were born within the last forty years, chances are good that you share a healthy skepticism when it comes to claims by our government that the Social Security system can be repaired. We've been hearing the gloom-and-doom predictions for at least the last ten years that when the Baby Boomers begin to retire, the demand will far exceed the supply and the Social Security trust fund will become insolvent.

We always hear Social Security called the "third rail" of politics -- meaning that anyone who dare touch it can count their political career as good as dead. While this may be true, just sitting around waiting for the calamitous end isn't doing anyone any good, either. Especially when you read stories like this. The Fountain of Youth has been a quest for mankind for as long as anyone can remember. In fact, if humans could both live forever and fly, there would be little reason to get out of bed each morning.

But when you are a politician, learning that scientists have made breakthroughs in slowing (or stopping) the aging process is not welcome news. It means one of two things: you are either much closer to the end of your political career than you had hoped, or you are much closer to having to admit what an unsustainable Ponzi scheme Social Security really is. The band-aid fixes that have been proposed in recent decades would do little to stem the tide, when you are suddenly talking about a population that may live well into their 120s. When 60 becomes middle age, there is little you can do to fix such a system.

So even if no politician ever musters the courage to dismantle Social Security, requiring Americans to take full responsibility for their own retirement planning, the relentless march of technology is likely to force the issue anyway. I predict this will happen within a generation. Better open up another IRA.

In case you thought the Politically Correct (PC) craze of the 80s and 90s was over, better look again. Paulo Serodio, a New Jersey medical student born and raised in Mozambique, who happens to be white, and is now a naturalized American citizen is being penalized for identifying himself as a white African-American.

What does it mean to be African-American in this country? Unfortunately for Serodio, it means your skin is black and if you are actually from Africa and happen to be white, that term is off limits to you. Because you might offend someone who takes pride in their African heritage -- even though, I'll surmise, they have never been to Africa, and probably couldn't find it on a map.

During the 2004 presidential campaign there was some discussion about the fact that Senator John Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz (also from Mozambique), was a white African. And Charlize Theron is perhaps the best known white African in America (she is from South Africa), and, according to her bio, is the first African to win an Academy Award in a major acting category. So this specie, while rare, does exist.

I suspect there are significant numbers of white African-Americans in this country. Is it fair for the PC movement to deny them their heritage? Especially when they are more deserving of it than a lot of others? The fact that Paulo Serodio was harrassed, vandalized, and eventually suspended from medical school for correctly classifying himself is unconscionable, and there is nothing correct about that, politically or otherwise.

Once upon a time, there was a man who lived nearby a casino. On his way to work everyday he passed through the casino floor and put a quarter in one of the slot machines. He always played the same machine and he always played a single quarter. By chance, he won every single day! He would put his quarter in, pull the handle, and the machine paid out five dollars. He would collect his winnings and then head off to work, confident that he would be able to pay for lunch that day.

This amazing streak of luck continued. Day after day. Week after week. Year after year. Every day he won five dollars, and every day he bought lunch with the money. It went on for so long that he became accustomed to his daily winnings. He came to consider them a reliable part of his income. So reliable, in fact, that he eventually began to feel entitled to his daily winnings.

Then one day, he dropped his quarter into the slot and nothing happened. No bells, no flashing lights, and most importantly, no five dollars! He was stunned. What happened? Someone was obviously cheating him out of his rightful earnings. That was *his* five dollars, after all. How could people be so selfish and heartless? How would he afford lunch today? He couldn't believe that he was going to go hungry because of someone else's greed!

He went to complain to the owners of the casino. He explained that he was counting on that money to live on, and they had no right to take it away from him! When he demanded that they turn over to him what was rightfully his, the casino owners just laughed. They told him he was welcome to continue playing games in their casino, but expecting to win every time he played was very foolish indeed.

So the moral of this story is, if you are going to gamble on the stock market, be willing to accept the risk of loss. There are a lot of people complaining right now about the current meltdown in the financial sector. Some of them are complaining about the fact that a few crooked bankers and hedge fund managers have poisoned the well. That's fine. The people guilty of committing fraud, in any of its myriad manifestations, should be held accountable. But fraud is already against the law. There is no need for additional government oversight or regulation of the markets.

What is needed is a little bit of education. Just because the stock market has traditionally returned eight percent does not mean that everyone who puts money into the market is going to get an eight percent return on their investment. Many people will get no money back at all. That is the risk you take. Historically, the stock market has been more reliable than a slot machine, but that does not mean that there isn't still some risk involved. Caveat emptor.

What we are witnessing today is simply that risk playing out in reality. It hasn't been this bad in 80+ years, but does anyone truly think we can fix the system in such a way that this type of thing will never happen again? Does anyone believe that we can eliminate the risk? Even if we could, a risk-free market is not going to return eight percent, I can guarantee you that. So be careful what you wish for: fixing the broken market just might turn it into a slot machine.

Kudos to Amazon for introducing Frustration-Free Packaging! My only question is what took so long? Make sure to check out their gallery of "wrap rage" too. I hate blister packaging with the heat of a thousand white-hot stars, and It is encouraging to know that I am not alone, and that at least one high-profile retailer has heard our complaints and responded. Now if we can just get Walmart on board...

Congratulations on making history! The endless string of old white guys was growing a bit tedious, and it was about time that America showed the world that we have the courage to elect a black man to lead us. You have your work cut out for you, as expectations will undoubtedly be higher for you than they would be for a white president.

I wanted to address something you said in your speech last night. You are my president, but I did not vote for you. Indeed, I did not vote for any of the candidates for president because, frankly, none of you deserved my vote. You see, I am part of a growing segment of the American population who has become disillusioned with the political theater we call elections. No matter how eloquent the oratory, no matter how grand the promises made, and no matter how much apple pie a candidate eats, a campaign and a candidate devoid of principles that match my own is of no value to me. I see through the rhetoric and the flashy graphics. You are not what you seem, and nor are any of the other aspiring politicians.

I am part of a group that continues to grow in size and popularity. A group that will not be placated, patronized, or pandered to. A group that understands that America was founded upon principles of freedom and that we have strayed much too far from that path. A group that knows that no good can come from perpetuating the traditional two-party system. A group that occasionally makes its voice heard with candidates like Ross Perot and Ron Paul, and sees that the frequency of those occasions is increasing.

Mr. President, I sincerely doubt that you will ever represent this group, but I certainly hope that you will try, and I pray that you will succeed.

I've written before about the War on Your Rights, and how ridiculous its officials appear when they feign outrage at the extreme tactics employed by drug smugglers. The latest to exhibit this righteous indignation is none other than America's own "Drug Czar." (I hate that title, but it does at least elicit images of the brutal reign of Ivan the Terrible and his contemporaries.) In this story, John Walters, director of the National Drug Control Policy, stands amid the scrub in Sequoia National Forest where a large crop of marijuana plants was found, and whines that, "This is about serious criminal organizations. They're willing to kill anybody who gets in their way. They're taking money back to those who kill prosecutors, judges and law enforcement."

I wonder if it has ever occurred to Mr. Walters that our own government's untenable policies where marijuana and other drugs are concerned are the very thing that makes these criminal organizations profitable? Eliminate the profit motive, Mr. Walters, and you eliminate the drug problem. All of it. The attendant violence and illegal immigration will also disappear. Let's have some serious discussion of Congressman Barney Frank's proposed legislation to elminate the penalties for marijuana possession. It's not enough, but at least it's a step in the right direction, and will start people having the right dialogue about this issue. Instead of talking about how to funnel more resources into this failed "war" and going after the "drug lords," let's spend some time talking about the lessons we learned in this country from Prohibition some seventy years ago: not only does Congress not have the authority to ban substances, doing so only creates a market for organized crime. You want to get rid of the thugs? Get rid of their market.

But please stop whining to me about the lengths that people will go to in order to profit from these substances that we've declared to be illegal. You will never stop them because greed is too powerful a force. Attempting to eliminate them through legislation is like trying to make planes fly by legislating against gravity. Stop wasting America's time and money prosecuting this pointless war, and start talking about real solutions.

Last month I wrote about what a colossal waste variable speed limit signs are. As I was driving to work this morning, and saw someone in the opposite lanes flashing their headlights, it occurred to me that it might not matter anyway.

It is only a matter of time before cars have internet access. They will either be sold with this option, or it will be available as an after-market add-on. It is a certainty. Once this happens, and the vast majority of cars on the road have it, inevitably there will be a whole series of distributed software applications that act to tie all the cars together. Something like instant messenger for cars, only these messages will also contain useful information for the driver beyond the normal inane conversations. Traffic information like debris in the road, or emergency vehicles approaching from the rear, could be passed from car to car, traveling in both directions on any given stretch of road, giving the driver insight into driving conditions both in front of him and behind him.

Once this is well-established, it is not hard to see that the next logical step will be notifying motorists of speed traps. The information will be much more sophisticated than simply flashing one's headlights at oncoming traffic, however. These packets of data could include precise GPS coordinates, for instance, reconnaisance photos of the area (because no car with internet access will be without a hood-mounted or dashboard-mounted webcam), as well as brief notes describing the trap. With all of that information available to a driver, who needs radar detectors anymore? The effect will be, on a macro scale, that traffic will naturally slow around the location of a cop, and speed up again once the threat of a ticket has passed. Much the same way it works now, only infinitely more efficient. So efficient, in fact, that it is likely that no cop will ever write a speeding ticket again.

You heard it here first, folks. Tell your friends. The days of speeding tickets are numbered.

[This is the third article in a series.]

The timing of the Supreme Court's decision this week is fortuitous, because it serves to underscore the crucial point of Phase III, and that is that keeping and bearing arms is in individual right because personal safety is an individual responsibility. A person's unalienable right to self-defense (using whatever arms they should happen to choose), as acknowledged by the Second Amendment, may be voluntarily delegated to others, however, it is important that every citizen understand that the responsibility for their own safety and security is not automatically assumed by any other party.

If you want to be safe walking down the street, you must take the proper precautions. If you want your home to be safe from invasion you must take steps to ensure that security. If you want your family and loved ones to be safe from harm, you must be prepared to defend them in any situation. These points will be hammered home to everyone throughout Phases I and II, but they cannot be emphasized enough. Our population has become not only complacent, allowing the responsibility for their safety to be assumed by others (police), but taught to be afraid of the very means they must be use to defend themselves and their liberties (guns).

When Mel Gibson's movie The Patriot was released in 2000, there was some furor in the press over the scenes depicting Gibson's young children in the movie using their muskets to fight the British Army. The argument being that this is not the proper message to be sending to our children. That we, as a society, do not want our kids to be learning at an early age how to handle and use weaponry. Futhermore, it was hard for some to believe that these scenes were based on reality -- they cannot fathom a world in which 10-year-olds were capable marksmen, taught to not only accurately place a shot in the center of mass of their enemies, but also taught to safely handle their weapons to prevent the accidental injury or death of their kin. How could children be this responsible? Children are capable of many amazing things when we set our expectations of them sufficiently high. And, most importantly, responsible children grow into responsible adults.

It is this defect that education campaigns during Phases I and II will strive to correct -- multiple generations of people who were never taught to use or respect guns, so they've grown into adults who fear guns, or disrespect their destructive power. These hoplophobes have convinced everyone else that guns are dangerous and unnecessary, when the exact opposite is true, and once this brainwashing has been reversed in a large enough number of people, the task of dismantling the government's defense infrastructure will not seem as daunting.

During Phase III, all property of the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security will be auctioned off to the highest bidder. Private protection agencies will have been gearing up for Phase III for forty years at this point. They will be in best position to bid on all of armaments and other hardware of the Armed Forces and other federal law enforcement agencies. All of it will be gradually sold and the responsibilities for security, both personal security and that of our borders, will be gradually transitioned to the private sector during this phase.

Revolution complete - 2076

Americans will, for the first time in centuries, celebrate their freedom from oppressive government during our nation's tricentennial. The federal government will no longer exist and the process can be expected to repeat for state and local governments, as needed.

I don't know which is more disturbing to me, the fact that the Supreme Court had to weigh in on the Second Amendment at all, or that it was only a 5-4 decision in favor of it. I was fully prepared for it to go the other way. I mean, the Court has not been shy about showing its disdain for fundamental rights, such as property rights, in their Kelo v. New London decision, for example. Since we no longer have a right to personal property, it would not have surprised me at all if they had moved to take away our individual right to self-defense as well.

So, now the residents of the District of Columbia can once again have an efficient means of protection in their homes again. It will be interesting to see if repealing the handgun ban in the District has any effect on crime statistics. One would expect home invasions, for instance, to drop considerably. The next step will be to remove any impediments to the citizens carrying their weapons with them, thereby reducing crime rates overall.

Thank you SCOTUS, for acknowledging a right that all of us already had!

Is America condemned by global warming? Or maybe some new terrorist threat? Is the high price of oil going to drive us to destruction? No, America is doomed because of this young lady (watch the video in its entirety). Whitney Houston used to sing that she believed that children are our future. Despite the inevitability of that statement, it really is true. And if Stephanie Woods (and her friend) is our future, America has already failed.

More specifically, parents have failed in their duty to their children to teach them right from wrong. Stephanie Woods clearly does not grasp the concept, and she is probably not alone among members of her generation. What happens to this nation in ten years, or twenty years, when Stephanie Woods is in a position of authority? Or worse, is a parent herself, and raises another generation with even less respect for the rights of other people? One of the YouTube commenters said that these two girls should be sterilized. I can't say that I disagree.

[This is the second article in a series.]

Public property is a paradox. How can something be owned simultaneously by everyone and no one? In order to avoid this logical inconsistency, as well as the Tragedy of the Commons, and the staggering costs of the endless bureaucracies needed to administer it, public property must be eliminated.

During this phase, all land and property currently "owned" by the federal government will be auctioned off to the highest bidder (or returned to its rightful owner). This includes all interstate highways, Post Offices, National Parks, and all land currently held by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the western States. It also includes federal territories such as Guam, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands. It does not include military bases and the District of Columbia - these will be sold at auction in Phase III.

All public schools (from kindergarten to universities) receiving federal funding will be closed, dismantled and/or sold at auction during this phase. This includes the Department of Education and all of its employees. The People will once again have to take direct responsibility for the education of themselves and their children.

Private companies will be the most likely customer to buy schools. In most cases, schools will be converted in place to private schools, with the free market determining the cost of tuition. Teachers currently employed by the government-run schools that meet the minimum requirements of the private schools will likely not lose their jobs.

Post offices will most likely be sold to private delivery companies (FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc.), but may be sold to anyone with the means to purchase them.

National parks could be sold to private environmental organizations whose focus is conservation, such as the World Wildlife Fund or the Sierra Club. Admission to these parks would no longer be free, but any fees charged for maintenance and upkeep would be subject to free market forces (and therefore kept low) and could also be subsidized by the charitable donations already collected by these organizations.

BLM land will be given, free of charge, to any rancher/farmer who can show compelling evidence to a jury that their continuous use and stewardship of a given parcel of land should reasonably confer ownership. All other land will be auctioned to the highest bidder, while residents of all Federal Territories will be given their independence and granted full rights and title to their homelands.

I've discovered fellow St. Louis blogger Brian J. Noggle appears to share my sentiments where John Haasis is concerned. I'm glad I'm not the only one who recognized his statement as being outrageous. Hi Brian, I'm looking forward to reading more of your stuff. I certainly wish I had the free time to read and write that you apparently do.

In October of last year, I wrote about St. Louis County's plan to create a series of monopolies, where previously we had a free market. They provided a list of reasons they were doing this, none of which made any logical or financial sense, all of which were beyond the scope of the government's authority.

Today I read an excellent article in St. Louis Magazine. I was completely flabbergasted by a comment made by John Haasis, who is the manager of the Solid Waste Management Program for St. Louis County, so I wrote him the following letter:

If I receive a response, I will post it here.

Look, I'm a software guy, okay? I've been banging around on computers since my first TRS-80 that my dad bought in 1982. I'm a software engineer for the world's largest aerospace company. And I'm here to tell you that as far as computer operating systems go, we as a civilization peaked with DOS. Microsoft Windows sucks. We all somehow intuitively know this, but we've been in denial for twenty years because until recently there just weren't that many alternatives.

I have a little bit of experience with Unix/Linux. I had a Silicon Graphics workstation on my desk for a few years. I played around with an early version of Red Hat. I even downloaded the original Ubuntu and loaded it on an old Toshiba laptop just for kicks. My opinion back then was that a lot of progress had been made, but that we still weren't there yet. The Windows-like GUIs were pretty good, but the application software support still wasn't there.

So recently, after seeing the slick Xandros load on my Eee, I decided to give Linux another shot and tried to install the latest versions of both Ubuntu and Kubuntu on a home server that I'm setting up. You know what? Linux sucks too, albeit for different reasons.

It's an extremely difficult operating system to configure right out of the box. There, I said it. We all know it's true, but everybody seems to be in denial about this too. But the complexity of Linux is a well known punchline, as you can see here. That video is several years old, but nothing has really changed. Despite the open source community's best efforts, Linux is still cumbersome, buggy, and frankly, not ready for primetime. Or at least not ready to expand their market much past the legions of nerds who have nothing better to do than "check your version dependencies."

Now I know that many of the Linux faithful will attack me for saying this, so I'm going to offer this little challenge. Point me to a Linux distro that 1) installs from a single disc (either CD or DVD), 2) includes both VNC and Samba right out of the box, and 3) won't take me to "sudo pico" hell trying to "config it" and I'll take back everything I just said. Any takers?

[This is the first article in a series.]

A bloodless revolution is not without pain. Any time you take something away that people have grown accustomed to they will suffer as a result. Just how much will be determined by each individual's ability to adapt to change. But, assuming that a revolution can be achieved peacefully, the goal should be to gradually transition systems from old to new to minimize the suffering as much as possible. During this phase, this goal will be paramount, as it is well understood that treating people humanely is more likely to result in success.

All so-called "entitlement" spending by the federal government will be halted at the end of this phase. Families on welfare, or using food stamps, AFDC, etc. will have roughly one generation to ween themselves and their children from the government teat, and find jobs for themselves. Those people within 20 years of death (generally, anyone over the age of 60) need do nothing as their benefits will continue until the end of this period, but those who are just beginning a life of dependency would do well to find other sources of income during this period. Government employees who have made a career of administering this wealth redistribution will also need to seek employment elsewhere. Their jobs will disappear at the end of this period.

Much of this phase will also be devoted to educating the people about the upcoming changes in Phases II and III. Private schools and home-schooling organizations will start preparing the public for closing of all public schools in Phase II. Private organizations such as JPFO would begin a massive campaign to inform and convince Americans that they are responsible for their own safety and security, in preparation for Phase III. This education is necessary to couteract the effects of decades of indoctrination that most people have received as part of the standard public education curriculum.

In 1776, one of the self-evident truths that Thomas Jefferson included in the unanimous Declaration was "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Friends and neighbors, the time has come for the Second American Revolution.

It should be obvious to anyone paying attention that the train that is our government left the tracks a long time ago. For those who have not been paying attention, God bless you. We will allow you to go on living your lives blissfully unaware of the travesty of self-governance all around you. All we ask in return is please, for your own safety, do not get in our way as we begin this important work, for who among us could read Jefferson's long list of usurpations and not find in today's government a parallel for virtually every one of them?

Some will read these words and think them folly. For you I have only the words of Samuel Adams: "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!"

Others will hear the truth of these words ringing in their ears, but despair at the daunting task of slaughtering a 230-year-old beast, with a litter of millions suckling at her grotesque teats, and believe themselves unequal to the task. To you I have only Jefferson's words: "It behooves our citizens to be on their guard, to be firm in their principles, and full of confidence in themselves. We are able to preserve our self-government if we will but think so."

Still others are ready to join the fray, but cannot see a path forward that will assure success. For even if we were to succeed at abolishing the current government, we might not achieve our ultimate goal if in instituting a new government we fail to make things better than they are now. A revolution without a plan for new government is a hollow victory indeed.

Furthermore, a revolution that sacrifices lives is of little value if the same ends could have been achieved without the spilling of blood. So a worthy plan should assume that it can be executed within the constraints of the current government, resulting in bloodshed only as a means of last resort, when all lesser means have failed. However, Jefferson understood that "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants," so there is certainly a time for bloodshed. Let us all pray that we have not yet surpassed that point of no return.

In short, overthrowing a government is easy. Replacing it with something better is the hard part. In honor of Flag Day this weekend, and all of the things that our flag used to stand for, this is the first in a series of essays outlining a modest plan for accomplishing the latter.

Phase I - Dismantling the Welfare State (2008-2025)

Phase II - The End of Public Property (2025 - 2045)

Phase III - Homeland Security (2045 - 2075)

If you've seen my story archive, you know that I collect stories documenting the misconduct of police officers. While this story doesn't really qualify as misconduct, it does serve to illustrate another potential reason why cops suck.

It seems the New London, Connecticut, police department doesn't like their officers to be too smart. They give all of their applicants a standardized IQ test, and if you score too high, like Robert Jordan, you are rejected. Now IQ tests are not a terribly accurate predictor of a given person's mental faculties, but if they are going to go to the trouble of administering the test, you would think they would set a minimum score criteria, not a maximum score.

I can only speculate on the reasons behind this policy: smart people ask too many questions. If you want someone to blindly follow your orders, you are better off hiring less intelligent folk. And if you know that your department is, from time to time, engaged in activities that raise certain legal and/or ethical questions, you don't want a precinct full of geniuses second-guessing your command. Perhaps my bias in this area is showing, but I really can't think of any other explanation, can you?

The St. Louis Post Dispatch reported a couple of weeks ago about the new variable speed limit signs that have been installed along the 30 or so miles of Interstate 270, which is the main beltway surrounding the metropolitan area. The Missouri Department of Transportation wasted almost a million dollars installing these signs which are both ineffective and illegal.

The Federal Highway Traffic Safety Administration (which is, in itself, a monstrous waste of taxpayer money) issues a document called the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and requires all states to adopt this manual into law as a prerequisite to receiving federal highway funds (also known as extortion). This means that the MUTCD is federal and state law and is applicable to every mile of public road in the United States. It clearly outlines two criteria for speed limit signs: 1) an engineering study must be performed and documented for every single sign that is erected, and 2) the numeric value that appears on the sign must represent the 85th percentile speed (as measured in the absence of any speed limit) of naturally flowing traffic, rounded up to the nearest 5-mile increment.

You only have to drive I-270 for 10 or 15 minutes to discover that the vast majority of motorists are traveling at 70-75mph. But do these variable speed limit signs reflect that reality, and comply with the law? No. As the Post story indicated, MODOT has set the signs at 60mph, and will adjust them as low as 40mph when warranted by conditions. Do they really believe that anyone is going to drive 40mph on a four-lane interstate highway?

Imposing an artificially low speed limit results in unsafe driving conditions as some people will obey it and others won't, which creates a dangerous speed differential within the flow of traffic. And studies have shown that it is not speed alone that causes accidents, it is dramatic differences in the speeds of vehicles sharing the same road that causes accidents. It is much safer to allow the drivers to choose their own speed based on their perceptions of the current driving conditions. In other words, no speed limit at all is safer than having a speed limit that can change at any given moment.

This is also a perfect example of an analog law that I wrote about a few days ago. Not only is there literally someone sitting there with their hand upon the dial, adjusting the law right before your very eyes, but there is an unimaginably costly infrastructure necessary to implement the law and provide for its enforcement.

The Post described this as an experiment. Well, it's an experiment that costs too much, is in violation of the law, and is potentially unsafe for St. Louis area drivers. It's an experiment we can live without.

I cut my grass today, as I do most every weekend this time of year -- although I think it's been worse this year with the record rainfall that St. Louis has received -- and as I take the tractor another round, it gives me time to ponder things. Things like why do people waste their grass?

Let me explain. There is this cycle of waste that is promoted in suburbia. You pay a lot of money for a good lawn mower, then you pay for those nifty little yard waste bags, and extra to your trash service to haul away your yard waste, and that doesn't count the extra time you spend bagging your grass clippings and leaves. Then, you have to buy fertilizer to keep your yard well fed and you have to pay to water it to keep it looking green.

This doesn't even take into account the long term degradation of your soil because you take pounds and pounds of biomass out of your yard every year and wave goodbye as someone you paid to haul it away either turns it into mulch and resells it, or dumps it in a landfill somewhere.

Well, there is a very simple solution that will break this cycle of waste: buy a mulching mower. If you can't afford one, buy a mulching blade for your existing mower, and stop bagging your clippings. That's right, just let them fly. I know your yard won't have that golf course manicured look when you're done cutting, but who cares? Especially when you stop to consider that those clippings will fall in between the blades of grass, and provide a natural mulch that not only traps moisture (so you don't have to water your yard), but as it decays, it fertilizes the ground as well.

So say goodbye to the cost of yard waste bags and hauling, say goodbye to fertilizer, and say hello to extra money and extra time as well as a greener yard, both literally and ecologically.

When discussing individual rights, I like to borrow a concept from software engineering and say that human rights are digital in the sense that one either possesses them or they do not. All humans possess a right to property, a right to self-defense, and the right to freely contract, for example, while they do not possess a right to tell others how to live their lives, or a right to dictate how others use their property. So these rights are either a one (1) if you possess them, or a zero (0) if you don't -- they are digital.

Governments will, from time to time, attempt to convert one's rights into privileges by qualifying them, or restricting them in some way. This is equivalent to applying a potentiometer to your right, and turn it from a digital right to an analog one. Someone may, at their own discretion, dial your right down from a one (1) to a 0.99, say, imposing some small restriction on how you are allowed to exercise that right.

But a right that requires the permission or endorsement of someone else is not a right at all. It's a privilege. That's not to say that a privilege can't be legitimate, but for someone to call it a right is, at best, disingenuous, and, at worst, immoral.

So given that the only legitimate purpose of government is to protect the rights of the individual, and all government action occurs through the passage of laws, laws that protect the rights of the individual must be digital as well. That is, a law cannot restrict a right, or qualify it, thereby turning it into a privilege.

Some restrictions may seem completely reasonable on their face, but the logical problem with inserting a potentiometer into the mix is that someone (other than the person whose rights are being acted upon) must have their hand on that dial. Who is this person charged with watching the dials to ensure they are all set correctly? And, indeed, who watches the watcher to verify that they do their job?

This is, in a nutshell, what is wrong with our government. There are far too many analog laws, each of which require a whole host of attendants to ensure that the potentiometers are set at the proper level, and that they are enforced, and that the people setting the levels and doing the enforcement are properly supervised.

The easiest way to tell if a law is analog or digital is to look at its length and complexity. Digital laws are short and simple: do not murder other people, do not steal other people's stuff. Analog laws are long and complicated, like our tax code, for example. Another way to tell is by how much pain or inconvenience it causes you. For instance, if you find yourself standing in line at a government office for a long period of time in order to talk to someone behind the counter and give them money, then you can be sure that an analog law is the reason you are there.

As part of the digital revolution, let's not forget to upgrade our laws too. Analog is out, digital is in. And now that you know how to tell the difference, you can be on the lookout for those analog laws and avoid or ignore them.

Attention all teachers! Remember this man's name and face, because many years from now, after the Department of Education has disappeared, and our country's education system has been completely dismantled, and you are out looking for a job, you will know who to blame. History will record that this is the man who divulged your dirty little secret.

Judge Walter Croskey, ruling on whether homeschooling parents were abusing their children, wrote the following in his decision:

Since then, the California 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to reconsider its ruling, but the cat's already out of the bag. Even if the court reverses itself, and homeschooling parents in California are no longer considered outlaws, the true mission of our public education system has been revealed in all its splendor. That is a truly disturbing statement. The purpose of an education system is to teach loyalty to the state. Funny, I always thought the purpose of an education system was to educate.

John Taylor Gatto has written about this topic extensively, and I can give it no better treatment than he has in his many books and essays. He has made the point over and over that you cannot fix our nation's public schools because they are not broken. They do exactly what they were designed to do, which is to indoctrinate our youth with government-approved propaganda. It was just surprising to me to hear an Appellate Court judge of all people admit that the emperor has no clothes.

Teachers beware! Judge Croskey has outed you, and concerned parents have had their suspicions confirmed. From this point forward, it will no longer be so easy to hide your real agenda.

I'm currently reading Chris Anderson's The Long Tail. It's a very interesting book concerning how the internet has changed everything. Not just the number of books or CDs that you can order online, but all of retail economics. Its influence extends to all entertainment media, and, eventually, politics and government. I was struck by this quote in particular on page 64:

"It's one thing to see a movie or listen to music and think 'genius' -- that some gifted person and exalted apparatus has put together this unique work of art we appreciate. However, once you know what's behind the curtain, you being to realize that it could be *you*."

It is precisely this paradigm shift that will lead to the Second American Revolution. As more and more Americans realize that there is nothing special about our system of government, or, indeed, the individuals that run it, they will become less and less satisfied with its operation and begin to explore the possibilities (all over again) of governing themselves.

Why shouldn't we? Do we honestly believe that there is "some gifted person" or some "exalted apparatus" that is in control of us all? Many of us do believe this. Many more simply wish that it is true, and try not to think too much about it for fear that we will completely lose faith in our government. But have you ever been to the DMV office? Or your city government? Have you stood in long lines and cursed the inefficiency of those bureacrats behind the counter? Have you personally witnessed their blatant stupidity and/or rudeness? Where is this gifted person that is supposedly running the show? Is he in the back office, sequestered from the people so that our mediocrity does not dilute his genius? Where is this exalted apparatus? Does it reside in some central office far away from the rabble? Clearly the answer is no. We have precisely the government we deserve. It is horrendous. It is exquisitely inefficient. And it is breathtaking in its scope. But there is a growing number of people out there for whom it is no longer tolerable, and they are capable and talented enough to replace it with other things that work better, or simply just work.

During an election year, people who would otherwise not be involved are suddenly more in tune with politics. Their thoughts turn to the candidates, and the coverage of their campaigns. They may even engage in debate about the issues of the day. But one issue is seldom ever discussed, and since it forms a foundation for virtually every other political issue, it deserves careful attention: what is the purpose of government?

A candidate or a politician may ask questions like, why can't our government offer the people a particular service? The answer in most cases is that it certainly can – our government is extremely powerful, after all. But they never bother asking the question of whether or not it should. They don't ask the question because they don't want to hear that the answer is usually no. Telling a politician no means taking away some of the good will of their constituents who would have been helped if this particular service were enacted. It means taking away some of their power, and that is not something that most politicians enjoy.

As the abolitionist Wendell Phillips is quoted as saying, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty--power is ever stealing from the many to the few." Our Constitution was designed to sharply limit the powers of our government to protect our liberties. But without an eternally vigilant populace to constantly ask the government if it should be providing a particular service, ambitious politicians are free to continue slowly increasing the government's power (and by extension their own), while at the same time slowly eroding our liberties.

So while we are evaluating the candidates this election season, participating in the democratic process that has made our country so unique, it is important for us all to remain vigilant and to view the candidates with skepticism and suspicion. That is not to say that we should all be paranoid. But we also should not be afraid to pointedly ask our candidates, what is the purpose of government? Likewise, they should not be afraid to answer such a question. They may try to avoid it because they simply don't know the answer. Or they may be afraid that their answer will be different from what we are expecting to hear. In any case, a candidate that avoids answering this question does not deserve our trust.

So what answer should we expect? We need look no further than our very own Declaration of Independence to define the purpose of our government: to secure our unalienable rights. No more, no less. A candidate or politician that is ignorant of this fact, or not in agreement with it, does not deserve our support. Quite the contrary, they deserve our scorn and derision for attempting to take away our liberties in order to make themselves more powerful.

But even more importantly, a candidate must have an understanding of the rights that government is intended to protect. We should be equally wary of a candidate or politician whose aim it is to create new rights for us where previously none existed. Government cannot create rights, and a politician who promises to do so should be the primary target of our eternal vigilance. The purpose of government, and the purpose of the people we elect to represent us, is to protect the things we have, not to give us things we don't.

I've been writing about the mismanagement of the Hurrican Katrina disaster for over two years now. First, that FEMA had no right to provide trailers to disaster victims, and then the staggering levels of fraud that they have allowed to go on. Now we are being told that FEMA has downright lied to us.

According to the story, FEMA "ignored, hid and manipulated government research on the potential impact of long-term exposure to formaldehyde" on Katrina and Rita victims now living in FEMA trailers. So if the waste and mismanagement hasn't been enough of a financial burden on the American people, we will now get to pay legal settlements to all of the formaldehyde victims who will undoubtedly sue the government for damages.

Looks like FEMA should have listened to me in the first place and stayed out of the trailer business.

Live free or die, indeed. Is that the best you can do, New Hampshire? With fourty-four percent of you claiming to be independents, with thousands of free-staters now living there, with your state's heritage as the birthplace of the Revolution, and you hand over your delegates to a statist like John McCain, while delivering only nine percent of the vote to Ron Paul? You're a fraud, New Hampshire. You don't care about freedom. Your actions betray your claims to stand for liberty. You should be ashamed.

The frequency with which these types of stories are appearing is disturbing. If you read Radley Balko's Overkill, you are left with no other alternative than to believe that the use of paramilitary raids by local law enforcement is not only on the rise, but is reaching epidemic proportions.

This story illustrates the chaos and pain that was caused for Kayla Irwin when cops raided her apartment, which turned out to be the wrong address. Over a month later, she still has not been compensated for the damage to her property. Almost everything she owned was ruined by their canisters of CS tear gas that were lobbed through her windows. Covering her apartment with shattered glass and a film of noxious dust.

Can a free society that claims to respect not only the rule of law but the individual's right to be secure from illegimate searches and seizures really continue to tolerate these kinds of tactics?

My meager story archive no doubt represents only a very small percentage of incidents like these that go on every day in this country. I would wager that most never get reported in the news. And of the ones that do, few make it onto my radar. But I will continue to collect the ones that cross my path, to serve as evidence that the cost of maintaining police goes way beyond the tax dollars that are wasted. The cost to individual liberties is much higher, and much more devastating.

Ron Paul is a candidate for President of the United States. His campaign has adopted this question on their web site and in other printed media. Those of us in the know, that is, anyone who has ever read Atlas Shrugged, recognize this as an homage to Ayn Rand's classic novel and the character she created (who is John Galt?) who saves the world. For anyone else, it is a simple interrogatory aimed at those millions of Americans who have not yet had the pleasure of being introduced to this man.

I have been familiar with Dr. Paul for several years now, and I even had the chance to meet him at the 2003 Freedom Summit. He is an inspiring speaker. Not because he is particularly eloquent (although he can hold his own with any of the candidates currently running), but because his ideas are so clear and appealing, untainted by the rhetoric of political campaigns. His campaign's tagline is "Hope for America" and he truly does represent that, but not by himself as a person, or as a cog in the political machine, but solely through the ideas in which he traffics.

Many of his critics contend that he is unrealistic, that his ideas are, at best, impractical, and at worst, impossible. As far as I am concerned, ideas have to be big to be worthwhile. And if they are difficult to implement, that probably means they are even more valuable. Robert Kennedy was once lauded for his speech in which he paraphrased George Bernard Shaw and said:

Why should Dr. Paul be disparaged for dreaming and asking why not? Who is Ron Paul? Ron Paul is just a man, but he is a man with enough courage to have big ideas and to ask why not? His ideas truly do represent hope for America today. We should all give the man a chance to be heard.

A story in this week's Post-Dispatch prompted me to observe that the only time you ever hear stories like these is when a 63-year-old grandmother is the one toting the gun:

This must seem like such an oddity to newspaper editors that they feel compelled to report the story just for its novelty value alone. But the mainstream media does a disservice to the public when they choose to ignore these types of encounters, focusing instead on stories where guns are used to commit crimes, rather than preventing them. It leaves us all with a false sense about guns.

Statistically speaking, few of us will ever be directly involved in a gun-related crime, so our only firsthand knowledge of this area is what we hear in the news. Anecdotal evidence can be a very powerful thing, and for most people it carries more weight than raw statistical data. But these data show, documented in books such as John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime, that hundreds of thousands of people every year use guns to prevent crimes. Sometimes it is a 63-year-old grandmother. But more often, it's a shop owner protecting his wares, and his life, from a armed robber. Or it's an assistant principal protecting his students from a gunman.

The stories about crimes committed no doubt provide more interesting reading, and sell more newspapers, but they continue to reinforce the already distorted view that most people have of guns and those who carry them. Grandmas and thugs are not the only people carrying guns, but you sure wouldn't know that from watching or reading the news.

On Oct 15, I wrote a letter to St. Louis County in response to their fall newsletter in which they were trumpeting their plans to once again overstep their authority and interfere with the free market economy. Here is the letter I wrote:

St. Louis County Department of Planning 41 S. Central Ave. Clayton, MO 63105

Dear Sirs:

After reading the September issue of Saint Louis County Direct, and the story about the county's trash service proposal, I was compelled to write to voice my concern over this proposal.

I recently moved into a subdivision in unincorporated St. Louis County. Prior to that, I had been living in a municipality that had negotiated a similar trash hauling agreement with one particular company. I was never happy with the service I received at that location, and so it was one of the noticeable benefits of moving to unincorporated county that I could now use any trash service that I wanted. You are now attempting to take that benefit away, and I am opposed to you doing so.

In the article, Dave Wrone gives some of the reasons why this proposal is a good idea. Mr. Wrone says, “Currently five, six or seven different companies haul trash from the same residential street. That means large, loud garbage trucks rumbling up and down the street five or six days a week, every week, year-round.” I certainly won't presume to speak for all county residents, but the periodic noise of garbage trucks is not enough of a nuisance (by itself) for me to justify this proposal.

Mr. Wrone goes on to say, “The formation of trash districts, with each district receiving service from a single hauler, will mean less aggravation for residents, more accountability on the hauler's part, and less wear and tear on the public roadways.”

First, as I've already stated, there is no aggravation for me, personally, and I'd be willing to bet that it's not a problem for most county residents. Second, Mr. Wrone is mistaken to believe that a forced monopoly of service will increase accountability. As I mentioned above, my previous experience shows me that having a single hauler, reduces accountability because they are not worried about losing your business. As it stands now, if I am unhappy with the service my trash company provides me, I fire them and hire someone else. That's the beauty of the free market. Those “five, six, or seven” companies are all competing for my business. Under this proposal, that competition is eliminated, and so is the incentive to improve service and reduce costs.

Lastly, Mr. Wrone's claim that this proposal will reduce “wear and tear“ on the public roadways is somewhat misinformed. Does he really believe that all of those trucks will simply vanish if they are no longer providing service in a given district? I can assure you that they will continue driving routes throughout the county, continue using the public roadways, and continue burning the same amount of fuel (perhaps more, if being locked out of certain areas forces them to find business in other areas that are farther away).

In conclusion, I must ask that you stop interfering with the free market. That is not the purpose of government. Please drop this proposal entirely and allow the residents of the County to continue deciding for themselves who deserves their business the most.

Respectfully Submitted,
Jerry A. Pipes

I'm obviously not alone in my opposition to this plan, since the St. Louis Post Dispatch ran this story today. It cites a couple more reasons why this plan is such a good idea for County residents -- ideas that apparently didn't make the cut in the County's own newsletter.

One reason is the emphasis on recycling. I agree that recycling is important, I think the value is obvious, and that's why I am willing pay extra every month to my current trash service to see that it's done. But I respect the rights of my fellow County residents to decide for themselves whether or not recycling is important to them and their families. I wish my County government would do the same.

Also cited in the story is the problem of illegal dumping. Bob Robinson and John Thro of the St. Louis County Problem Properties Unit are "desperate" to have this problem addressed. Mr. Thro enthuses that "if this new ordinance will get at least some of these people to start using a hauler, then it will help a whole lot of people." The problem is dramatically portrayed as a "health hazard" but nowhere is it explained how forcing people to use a single trash service when they currently are not paying for trash service at all will help the situation. Am I missing something?

This has been a great week for cops, not just in the St. Louis area, but all around the country. And it doesn't seem to matter whether they are off duty or not.

The biggest story, of course, that everyone is talking about is Brett Darrow and Sgt. James Kuehnlein who was fired this week for showing his true colors as a so-called "law enforcement" officer. You see, the law is whatever Sgt. Kuehnlein says it is. As out of line as Kuehnlein was, I suppose Mr. Darrow is at least lucky that he didn't get hit with the taser.

Heidi Gill found out what that was like. So did Andrew Meyer. Was this National Taser Week and somebody forgot to tell the citizens of America? As much as getting tasered hurts, it could be worse.

You could be bar owner David Gaulden, who had the crap beat out of him by six St. Louis area deputies who have subsequently been fired. Jefferson County Sheriff Oliver Boyer asked that "you not judge us by the actions of a few, but by the history of many."

Unfortunately for all of us, these are no longer the actions of just a few. The number of stories and videos whizzing around the internet are merely the percentage of "the few" who have been unlucky enough, or stupid enough, to be caught and have their actions documented in the public eye. How many more are engaged in this activity, that we never hear about? Logic would suggest there are many, many more. And as for the "history of many," my own cop story archive and others like it, are all the history I need to know.

Good news for electricity fans out there. First, residents of Missouri now have a bonafide net metering law. Haven't heard about it? Yeah, me neither until a recent visit to the Earthways Center (a renovated house in the city of St. Louis that showcases conservation technology and alternative energy). You would think something this important would have been reported on, but multiple Google searches turned up nothing for me. So I'm about to become the number one site in the search engines for people looking for info about this.

According to the state Senate's web site, SB54 was signed by the governor on June 26. It takes effect January 1, 2008. Missouri is the 42nd state to implement a net metering law. Before now, the snakes at AmerenUE have been charging retail for the electricity they provide customers but only paying wholesale (or less) for the electricity customers provide to them (it's a shame you need a law to correct that kind of nonsense). So if you've been waiting to install that grid-tied, batteryless, photovoltaic array, your wait is over!

In other electricity news, Tesla Motors has announced that their first production model should be hitting the streets by the end of the year. Say a prayer for CEO Martin Eberhard. He's not the first David to go up against the Goliath of the Big Three automakers. He's liable to end up like Preston Tucker. Although, a lot's changed in sixty years. Back then GM wasn't reeling after having their ass handed to them by Toyota, and Chrysler wasn't being shuffled from owner to owner like a hot potato.

So keep your eye on Tesla, because the electric car is by no means dead. But if $100K is too much for you (as it is me), maybe you should consider a couple cheaper alternatives, like the new Think City, or the Tango. You heard it here first folks -- electricity is where it's at.

If I ever write a book about my conversion to anarcho-capitalism, I think this will be its title. Because this is easily the number one most-uttered response by those to whom I explain my belief that centralized government is immoral and must be abolished. What about the roads, indeed.

On the one hand, it is encouraging that most folks feel the most important service provided by government is transportation infrastructure -- a service that is easily provided by private interests. On the other hand, it is unfortunate that so many people have come to rely on their government for something so simple. I should point out that no government anywhere has ever built a road (or anything else for that matter). Private companies build roads and bridges. Governments simply write the checks.

The recent bridge collapse in Minneapolis, as well as last year's Boston tunnel incident, serve as evidence that as much as we might want to, government *cannot* be relied upon for the safety of these vital systems. That is not to say that private companies would be inherently more reliable (indeed the same contractors and engineers would likely be hired in both cases), but there are plenty of reasons to believe they would at least do a comparable job.

So who would pay these private companies? The obvious answer is those who use the roads and bridges that they build. Yes, that's right, tolls would be collected from those who actually use these elements of transportation infrastructure. Rather than saddling the entire population with the cost of building and maintaining roads that they may never use, the cost would be born by those who actually use them. There was a time when many would object to the notion of tolls because the impractical means of collection would snarl traffic and impose an undue burden upon drivers. Even if that were true, it is no worse than the undue tax burden on non-drivers. And in reality, technology has reached a point where cars needn't even slow down to pay a toll anymore, so this argument has been rendered moot.

Some would also argue that everyone benefits from the roads, so it is only fair that we all share the cost. By this same logic, my neighbors all benefit when I make improvements to my home (as it increases the property value of the entire neighborhood), so should I be able to send all of my neighbors a bill for the cost of these improvements? There are obviously direct and indirect benefits from virtually every action, but this doesn't necessarily justify coercing others to finance those actions. Keep in mind that there was a long period in this country before there were any formal roads constructed, and the country still managed to prosper commercially. There is no question that transportation is at the heart of any good economy, however, should the cost of the infrastructure be shared by everyone, or just by those who directly benefit from its use?

If you're like most Americans, you haven't been following the story of Ed and Elaine Brown, because it has enjoyed very little coverage by the major news media. But the story has been unfolding for six months now, and unless you're from New Hampshire (where local newspapers seem to be the only outlets covering this story at all), you've probably not even heard of the Browns.

What started out as your typical garden-variety tax protest, that had great potential for change in this country, has degenerated into some kind of anti-establishment, hippie carnival. And if this report is true, it's actually something just shy of a Klan meeting.

I supported the Browns at first. Their position was clear and well-articulated. They didn't believe they were obligated to pay the income tax. They didn't recognize the authority of a federal court to prosecute them for the crime. As a result of their position and the court's refusal to admit some of their evidence, they boycotted their trial and returned to the relative safety of their home. A home which has invariably been referred to by the media as a "compound." In fact, CNN showed total disregard for its obligation to remain unbiased when it ran a story on June 21 with the headline "Tax dodgers taunt police from hilltop compound." A story that has subsequently been removed from their site, but is still in Google's cache.

As I have continued following the story, almost exclusively through the blogosphere, it has become increasingly difficult for me to continue supporting them in their protest. Their arguments in interviews have evolved from succinct and well-reasoned to something that can only be described as kooky, while their 110-acre estate has become a veritable Lollapalooza for the tinfoil-hat crowd. Various reports describe the Brown's driveway as a gauntlet of freaks in lawn chairs spewing hatred of everything from the government and taxes to the Freemasons and the Illuminati. What is this, a Dan Brown novel?

We all know this is going to end badly for the Browns. They will most likely be killed in a Waco-style raid (that the government will ultimately cover-up to the point that none of us will ever know the truth), or they will simply be taken into custody, and never heard from again as they waste away in prison for the "crime" of simply wanting to hold on to what rightfully belongs to them. But it is a shame that the Brown's are either too overwhelmed by their situation, or too crazy, to see how they have mismanaged things.

Their press conference back in June featuring Randy Weaver was a stroke of PR genius. It set the tone for the entire standoff, and put the government on notice that We The People were watching and we had not forgotten the jack-booted thuggery of Ruby Ridge and Waco. There was great potential there to keep expanding public awareness and focusing pressure on the government. Then the whole thing turned into Woodstock.

Alas, things are too far gone now to get back on message. It is too late to use this situation to bring the fundamental problems with the federal income tax to the attention of the American people. It saddens me that the Browns are forgetting the principles that brought them here and instead seem willing to martyr themselves for the sake of a bunch of retarded conspiracy theorists. Rather than standing up to injustice and taking their place in history, they will become nothing more than a punchline.

While watching the customary fireworks this year, my mother-in-law said someone on the radio had asked why we all call it the Fourth of July instead of Independence Day. It occurred to me that the powers that be might prefer that nomenclature because it prevents We The People from pondering the true meaning of independence. And the fact that we no longer have any. So I am officially renaming this holiday for what it truly is. From now on I will celebrate Dependence Day.

I suspect our Founding Fathers viewed the fireworks on July 4, 1777 with great joy because they truly had something to celebrate. But now, over two hundred and thirty years hence, it is clear that the cause for celebration is gone. For all we've managed to do is trade one tyrannical and oppressive government for another. The fact that it is a government of our own design is of little consequence. Moreover, we, as a people, are far more dependent on this new government than we ever were on King George.

In our nation's earliest history, a man was truly independent. If he wanted to work his land and sell his crops or livestock, he could do so without first seeking permission from the FDA, the EPA, or the Department of Agriculture. If he wanted to start his own business and become wealthy, he could do so without interference from the Department of Labor, or having his income confiscated by the IRS. If he fell on hard times he did not rely on government to support him, but rather on the generosity and charity of his neighbors who were not concerned with how they were going to pay their own taxes or other government-imposed fees.

This culture of dependence will not be easy to excise for it has been growing for many decades and is now well established. So well established, in fact, that most who read this will wonder what I am talking about. The notion of living free, without the government involved in every aspect of one's life, is completely foreign to many. And frightening to many more. I'm sure there were those who were frightened as well by the talk of revolution by our Founding Fathers. But none of us today look back and fault them for their actions. To the contrary, we celebrate their courage and dedication to the principles of freedom. They were called to revolt by little more than a king who refused to redress their grievances and taxes that amounted to something less than three percent. This was enough to spark revolution.

Today we suffer under a tax burden above thirty percent (for most of us) and a government that has completely forgotten its First Amendment obligation to answer the petitions of its people. Is this not enough to spark yet another revolution? It certainly would be, if We The People were not so dependent on the government we created, that no longer has any moral right to exist.

So Happy Dependence Day! I would encourage you to spend this day thinking about all the ways that you and perhaps your friends and neighbors are dependent upon our government. And then, rather than celebrating that fact, start thinking of ways to change it.

This essay began as a manifesto of sorts. Inspired by National Public Radio's series This I Believe, I thought it might be worthwhile and instructive to actually try to record my beliefs in writing. I'm not sure that I will actually submit this to the radio show, since I don't think this can be trimmed down to meet their three-minute time limit, but I hope it will still be useful to some and might spur discussion.

I believe that I have an obligation to myself, my children and my fellow human beings to find truth in this life and pass it along. Here is what I believe and what I intend to teach my offspring about how they should live their lives, and how they should expect to be treated by others.

My belief system consists of three principles:

1. All Men Are Created Equal


2. The Initiation of Force Is Immoral


3. You Have the Right To Do Whatever You Want, Unless or Until It Infringes Upon the Rights of Another To Do the Same

Yesterday the Post Dispatch reported on ten St. Louis cops who are under investigation for... well, no one seems to be sure what they did wrong. Except for me, of course.

They allegedly used World Series tickets last fall that had been confiscated as evidence from so-called scalpers, and then returned the tickets to evidence after attending the game. The Post Dispatch reports, "As the department considers discipline, legal minds ponder what crime might have been committed, and who the victim might be."

This is actually a very realistic approach, and I think I'll use it. Let's identify the victim first, and that should tell us what crime was committed. Let's start with the person who was selling his tickets outside the stadium. Some people call them scalpers because they think they have a natural human right to attend baseball games for what they think is a reasonable price. In reality, they have a right to freely contract, just like every other human -- including the one selling the tickets.

Scalping is not a crime, because there is no victim. Both the seller and the buyer enter into the transaction voluntarily, and they both mutually benefit from it (or presumably they wouldn't go through with it). No one's rights are violated, and both parties get what they want. To put it simply, there is no crime.

Once you look at the story from this perspective, it is easy to see who the victim was: the person or person(s) who had their property stolen by police under color of law. What the police did with the stolen property after the fact is irrelevant -- the crime had already been committed.

But, of course, you won't hear anyone at the Post Dispatch report on that. They'll ask the question, who is the victim? But they don't really want to know the answer.

It's been almost four years since I first wrote about why cops suck, and you know what? Nothing has changed. In fact, it seems these stories are only becoming more prevalent. I have over fifty examples in my story archive, and I don't really go out of my way looking for them. Some sites have started similar archives, like Bad Cop News, for instance. Others, like The Newspaper just collect stories related to driving, which obviously often involve cops -- this one in particular is interesting since it includes video.

So does all of this mean that these incidents are becoming more frequent, or that there are just more people paying attention? I'm not sure, but my guess is the latter. I'm sure officers such as Richard Perrone wished that there weren't so many people watching. Recent internet buzz surrounding his story shamed him into reconsidering pressing charges against a couple who documented his own speed limit violations. Bloggers everywhere are asking the same question: are cops above the law?

Of course they aren't, but it's not always the cop that is to blame. Sometimes the laws are just stupid. This story about Police Chief Richard Knoebel writing himself a ticket serves to illustrate how ridiculous victimless crimes are. Kudos to the cop for being honest, but let's be realistic. No one was harmed by his actions, therefore there was no victim. Without a victim, there can be no crime. If there was no crime, should he have to pay a fine? No. And neither should anyone else that might receive a ticket for commiting the same act.

So here's an all points bulletin: be on the lookout for stories about cops found to be abusing their power and let me know about them. If we continue to talk about them, document their actions, and make them pay for their behavior, maybe it will start to be less common.

I already knew that, and that's why I usually avoid his missives. In the past, he has drawn attention (and ratings) by making controversial (and xenophobic) statements about the so-called immigration problem. Which, in my experience, is only a "problem" for those who don't like people whose skin is a different color from their own. So, like I said, I had learned to avoid him and his rhetoric (much like I avoid Bill O'Reilly's patented brand of nonsense).

But I was suckered in by the first paragraph of his column today (as it appeared in CNN's RSS feed), which led me to believe that I might actually share some common ground with Mr. Dobbs:

"We're fighting a war that is inflicting even greater casualties than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and, incredibly, costing even more money. We're losing the War on Drugs, and we've been in retreat for three decades."

Bravo! But rather than reaching the logical and inevitable conclusion from that premise, which is the War on Drugs has been a failure, and we must end it immediately, he instead goes on to cite examples of why we're just not trying hard enough. He details the monetary costs, makes brief mention of the cost in human lives (although he is only referring to those who have died as a result of drug use, not those killed by the government thugs charged with executing the War On Your Rights), and then ends by saying:

"Whatever course we follow in prosecuting other wars, we must commit ourselves as members of this great society to only one option in the War on Drugs -- victory."

What a moron. Ignoring for the moment that declaring war on an idea (like drugs or terrorism) is as nonsensical as declaring war on the color blue, it's not like there is any dearth of evidence that these wars are unwinnable. To declare that victory is our only option is idiotic. And invoking memories of Johnson's "Great Society" in the positive makes him an idiot *and* a socialist. But I repeat myself.

He apparently hates Ameren too. But not as much as I do. And not as much as half of St. Louis, after this, the third major outage in our city in six months.

Once again, the ice comes and the power goes. Thousands are plunged into the dark and the cold, as if we were still living in the 19th century, and this new-fangled "electricity" has gone out again. This month and last the beleaguered utility has been holding a series of public forums for customers to voice their opinions of Ameren's proposed rate hike. Needless to say, the responses have been overwhelmingly negative.

It is my hope that this latest storm and the resulting outages will seal Ameren's fate in the eyes of the Public Service Commission and they will make good on their threat to not only block Ameren's increase, but require them to lower their rates. I am generally opposed to government regulations, and anything that would force a private company to bow to the will of the public. But Ameren is not a private company, and as long as they refuse to compete in an open marketplace for my dollars, they will continue to feel the wrath of their customers (not to mention God's) every time the weather turns bad.

This is the third in a series of three essays.

Thomas Jefferson said, "Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plentitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." It's as if each of us is circumscribed by an invisible membrane that defines where our own rights end and the rights of those around us begin. A person is harmed when this membrane is punctured by another. Crimes occur when this membrane is breached. Legitimate laws exist only to define this membrane, but cannot extend past it.

If someone is going to disagree with one of my three principles, this is usually the one. While some may argue that what constitutes a right is not clearly defined, and what constitutes infringement is often ambiguous, as I pointed out in my second principle, our own justice system is predicated on our innate ability to judge for ourselves when the rights of another have been violated, when this membrane has been pierced. If this were not true, then juries would have no purpose.

Often referred to as the Libertarian Principle, it outlines a third class of laws, which are by far the most numerous in our society. These laws may not be in direct opposition to natural law. They may not be obviously immoral. They may even, at first glance, seem entirely sensible. But nonetheless they require the violation of individual rights, either by themselves or by their means of enforcement. This class of laws seeks to define victimless crimes -- things like speeding or the use of drugs -- outlawing actions that by themselves harm no one. They do not cross the membrane, so they violate no one else's rights. Without a violation, there can be no victim, and without a victim there can be no crime.

We've all heard a friend or acquaintance say, "there should be a law...," in response to some perceived injustice. The truth is, there shouldn't, and this is the principle they are attempting to violate when they say that. As we saw in my first principle, no one has the right to tell other people what to do. And, by my second principle, when you say there should be a law, what you are actually saying is, "someone should initiate force against that person, up to and possibly including lethal force, in order to make them stop whatever it is they are doing, even though it isn't directly harming anyone else." I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in that world.

It's been said that there are two kinds of people in the world: those that just want to be left alone, and those who won't leave them alone. Which one are you? I am definitely one of the former, but most people are one of the latter (even if they say they're one of the former). They are perfectly willing to live and let live. That is, until their neighbor puts up a basketball hoop in his driveway. Or someone wants to stock up on cold medicine at Walgreens. Or they want to travel to, or buy something from, Cuba. Then suddenly they want the authorities to step in and prevent and/or punish this so-called "crime." I've only listed a few examples, but the list of victimless crimes is almost endless in our society today. From the ridiculous (preventing model rocketry hobbyists from storing rocket engines without BATFE permission), to the even more ridiculous (federal regulations dictating how much water per flush your toilet can use). So much for live and let live.

Legislators are enacting this nonsense, and it makes one wonder if they even pay attention to the oath they take to uphold and defend the Constitution, when the Ninth and Tenth Amendments remind us that the Constitution is there to limit the government's powers, not we the people's. We retain the right to do whatever we want, until we harm someone else.

This is the second in a series of three essays.

The notion of laws and the rule of law are an attempt by humans to codify what each of us is born knowing to be true. Our behavior towards one another is governed by something called natural law. Natural law is a product of who we are as humans. It is our natural understanding of right and wrong that has evolved in us right alongside our aversion to falling from a great height and our ability to throw rocks accurately. Without these faculties we would not live as long as our brethren, dying because of our lack of hunting skills, or from falling off a cliff because we didn't know enough to stay away from the edge, or simply because we misjudged our companions' motives and succumbed to their evil schemes against us. Yes, judging the morality of the behavior of other humans is something we all innately have the ability to do.

Some doubt that this is true. But consider what it means if it is false. Our current justice system is predicated on the ability of twelve jurors to judge the morality of the actions of a defendant, to be presented with both the facts of a case and the attendant law, and to adjudicate. If humans are not capable of making those judgements, then justice can never be served under our current system. We would all be just as well off simply rolling dice or flipping a coin to determine the outcome of a trial.

Sometimes our laws are incongruent with natural law and we judge the laws themselves to be immoral -- the Fugitive Slave Laws, for example. Other laws, however, simply reinforce our inherent understanding of natural law, and declare things like murder and rape to be immoral, for example. A third class of laws fit into neither of these categories and will be discussed in more detail as part of my third principle.

A common thread that runs throughout the behaviors defined as immoral by natural law is the initiation of force. Just about any crime you can name involves the initiation of force against someone. The important point here is that it is the *initiation* of force that is immoral, not merely the *use* of force -- self-defense is therefore excluded as perfectly legitimate. But those that would initiate force against another by way of theft, fraud, or some other means, run afoul of natural law and would be judged accordingly by a jury of their peers.

George Washington said that "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force!" Indeed, at its most fundamental level, that is all government can claim to be. So it is interesting to note that when that force is used in response to someone's unlawful behavior, we say that the government does good. But what about when government initiates force against one of its own citizens that has done nothing to deserve it? That action is also immoral, regardless of the fact that government was the actor. The only purpose of government is to protect the rights of the individual. Actions taken by government that violate these rights (including the enforcement of laws that violate these rights) are not legitimate.

So it would seem that for a law to be legitimate it must be congruent with natural law and not violate the rights of the individual. But what rights are we talking about? That brings us to my third principle.

This is the first in a series of three essays.

Who among us, besides the most xenophobic and bigoted, would deny that this truth is self-evident? Regardless of your own personal beliefs on the origins of the universe, there can be little doubt that all human beings on this planet exist in a state of equality with one another. If history has taught us nothing else, it has underscored this point over and over again. From the colonial aspirations of empires in centuries past, to the grim tales of the conquistadores, to the lessons learned more recently about slavery, genocide, and the struggle for equality among the races in our own country. Who can view these incidents without wincing at the pain and suffering that results when one group of people assumes it is superior over another?

I turn to the chronicles of slavery in the US for empirical evidence of the truth of this statement. For if the moral values assigned to slavery are not objective and distinct from the political will of a simple majority, then slavery would yet exist here. Fugitive slave laws would have been upheld as morally correct, the KKK would continue as a respected community organization, and ethnic minorities would still toil for the benefit of the white majority. The fact that this is no longer the case is all the evidence I need that human equality is a fundamental truth in our universe. The transition from hegemony to equality is never swift nor painless, but it is inexorable. It is constant. And it is right.

There is a deeper implication, however. It goes beyond acknowledging that we lack the authority to enslave/eradicate our brethren based on arbitrary attributes. It speaks to a fundamental corollary of equality. For if we are truly equal, then we all possess an equal right to self-governance. That is, the right to rule over ourselves comes from within, not from any other source. That is not to say that this right cannot be delegated to an agent of our choosing, but this delegation must be completely voluntary, and may be revoked at any time we choose. If we are all equal, then no one has an inherent right to rule over us, for any reason, regardless of the number of people who might consent to it.

This revelation strikes at the heart of civil government as we know it, and it is often this aspect of equality at which even its proponents bristle. One may be in favor of equal rights for everyone, as long as that means a centralized government is still in charge, ready to mete out punishment to anyone who harms us. And, indeed, this is a fairly accurate description of the system under which we currently live, however, it is logically untenable as long as you believe that all men are created equal. For equality excludes the possibility of democracy.

Benjamin Franklin is quoted as saying that democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Do not let the humor of this quote obscure the deeper meaning. It amplifies the near unanimous concerns of the Framers about the type of government they were crafting. They all understood all too well the dangers of democracy as taught by history, and they strove to create a system of checks and balances that would prohibit the wolves from voting the sheep onto the menu. They called this government a republic, recognizing the fundamental difference between it and the mob rule of a democracy being that the rights of the individual are supreme, and that no individual's rights may be violated even if 99.9% of the people are in agreement that it should be so.

And yet, this is the system we find ourselves living under, where majorities of 50.1% are allowed to enact laws and regulations that violate the equal rights of 49.9% just because it is politically expedient. Those 49.9% have no obligation to subjugate themselves to the will (and the tyranny) of the majority, regardless of how legitimate the system of voting appears. The right to rule over oneself is absolute, and no one can take that right away. That is what it means to be created equal.

Some will allow their mind to expand enough to absorb that idea and its implications. Others will simply call it fallacy, claiming that producing and enforcing laws is the purpose of government, and this idea draws all of our current laws into question. For if one looks hard enough, there is surely someone out there whose rights are being violated in some small way by virtually every law ever passed in this country. Following this premise to its logical conclusion means that all of our laws are null and void, and surely that can't be right. What would society look like without laws? To embrace equality is to embrace chaos.

Do not be misled by this overstatement. Recognizing equality does not lead to a society without laws. It only means that for our laws to be legitimate, they must be held to a higher standard than simple popularity. The laws themselves, and the means of enforcement, must both respect the rights of the individual first and foremost. And the first step in that direction brings us to my second principle.

Apparently the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (MSD) has become jealous of all the attention I've been showing Ameren lately, and has decided to make a play for the number one spot on my list of most hated public utilities.

We live in a world of easements. [easement, noun: an interest in land owned by another that entitles its holder to a specific limited use or enjoyment] Public utilities justify the existence of easements because of the potential benefit to everyone. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, as they see it. That would be bad enough, but the reality is, even though by law an easement means co-ownership, or jointly held rights to a piece of land, the public utility has full ownership of *all* land, and it is up to them which land they allow you to use and which land they keep for themselves. So it is far from a 50-50 proposition. For if a utility has a use for a piece of your property, it will become an easement and under their exclusive control, regardless of your feelings on the matter. Does that sound like co-ownership to you?

Craig Berry is a nice enough fellow. He is a Right of Way Agent for MSD and he recently came to my house to "negotiate" an easement on a piece of my property. He actually used the word "negotiate," and I can tell by the way he said it that he really believes that this is what he does. His job is to "negotiate" easements. I asked him if I don't have the option of saying no, is it really a negotiation? He didn't have an answer. That's because his job is easement acquisition. Using his brain, and actually thinking about what his job means to the rights of individuals, is not a part of his job description.

I'll keep you posted as this saga unfolds. The work is not even scheduled yet, but eventually MSD will be tearing up my back yard to put in a new sewer line, and I have absolutely no say in whether or not it happens. So my question is, why bother calling it an easement? Why pretend that the rights to my property are jointly held? Does that make it easier for the Craig Berry's of the world to sleep at night? I'd prefer a little honesty. Just call it what it is: seizure of private property without regard to the rights of the property owner. I think that's called theft.

In answer to the response to my last post, I thought I would elaborate a bit on copyright law.

My first assumption is that justice is served only when the victim of an injury is made whole. That is, the purpose of a justice system is to restore the victim to the point (or as closely as possible) they were at before the injury occurred. Justice is not about punishment or revenge. This is because the victim has a right to compensation, and it is only by exercising this right that justice is legitimately pursued. The victim does not have a right to punish or seek vengeance against their attacker. The only thing they have a right to is that which was taken from them as a result of the injury.

My second assumption is that the so-called "theft" of intellectual property falls into the rather large category of victimless crimes. And if there is no identifiable victim, then no crime has occurred.

So, a victim of embezzlement should have little problem proving that they suffered injury -- one day the money was there, the next day it wasn't. A criminal investigation would hinge entirely on the exercise of this victim's right to compensation. Search warrants, obtained from a court, based on probable cause, would allow the legitimate suspension of a suspect's right to privacy. In other words, the victim's right to compensation trumps the suspect's right to privacy.

Not so for the author of some intellectual property (especially that which is in some digital format). Theft does not occur when a copy is made because nothing is taken from the author. The argument that potential profits are stolen is also untenable because the author must then prove that the copies that were given away or sold at a lower cost would *still* be sold at the author's asking price. Since this cannot be proven to any reasonable level of satisfaction, no injury has occurred. If no injury has occurred, there is no victim. If there is no victim to exercise his right to compensation, any suspension of another's right to privacy in order to investigate the alleged crime cannot be legitimate. Therefore the law is unenforceable, and is no law at all.

Here is a brief excerpt from a letter detailing Thomas Jefferson's thoughts on this topic:

"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me ... Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody..."

This quote very succinctly sums up the issue for me. Society has attempted in the past to grant this exclusive right, but we have a reached a point where the will and convenience of our society are now in conflict with one another.

"Intellectual property," as defined by our current laws, is no more property than the flame on top of a candle. Technology used to be such that one could not convey the flame without selling someone the candle. Today, that is no longer the case.

In the war over copyright law a new front has opened. After being fired upon by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (and, presumably, the RIAA), the Russian government has agreed to shut down "websites that permit illegal distribution of music and other copyright works." Russia has agreed to modify its laws by June 1, 2007 to make sites such AllOfMP3.com illegal. I'm surprised that the same government who just dispatched former spy Alexander Litvinenko would be so willing to just roll over. Maybe it's all a ruse. Maybe when the deadline passes and the US cries foul, they will simply have lunch delivered to RIAA CEO Mitch Bainwol in the form of a polonium sandwich. I wouldn't mess with the Russian mob, if I were you, Mitch.

It's sad news though in this terrible War, which, like so many other wars (Poverty, Drugs, Terrorism) is nothing more than a war on the rights of the individual. It was nice to see someone -- *anyone* -- willing to stand their ground and tell the RIAA to go to hell.

I used to be firmly in the other camp: defend the artists' rights to profit from their creations, as provided by the Constitution. But then one day I realized that even though I am a potential beneficiary of this manufactured right, I value my natural rights to privacy and to freely contract much more. And since technology has led us all to a point where this pretend right can no longer be enforced without violating real rights, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 simply becomes null and void. Add it to the list of fundamental flaws in our Constitution.

If it wasn't such an egregious violation of our rights, I could almost feel sympathy for the recording industry, as it flails about watching its business model evaporate before its very eyes, lashing out against those who would do it harm. Suing grandmothers (both alive and dead) for downloading rap music, while ignoring the sins of its own. Eighty-three year old Gertrude Walton died in December 2004, but that didn't stop the RIAA from suing her. Meanwhile, in December 2006, the CEO of Warner Music admits that his own children have illegally downloaded music, and yet nothing happens to them.

Why the disparity? Because, you see, it's all about the money. The RIAA would like to take the moral high ground, and claim they are just defending the rights of their artists, but their actions betray them. All they care about is the money. The law used to be crafted such that they were guaranteed a profit on their product. But technology has rendered copyright law obsolete. Rather than pursuing new revenue streams, they seek to infringe upon the rights of all people -- not just Americans anymore -- by drafting and pushing through Congress legislation like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The DMCA will gut, if it hasn't already gutted, the notion of "fair use" and puts into place provisions of enforcement that are simply Draconian.

The RIAA (and MPAA) will get their money. Even if they have to sue, slander, and terrorize every person and country on Earth. Watch out comrades!

If Travis Bradford is right, in the next decade or so we will all be producing our own electricity using solar technology. Back in August, I wrote about how utility monopolies are starting to be challenged in many states, but converting to solar must be an even better solution. Not only does a solar revolution allow us all to thumb our collective noses at government-mandated monopolies, but it represents a much more environmentally friendly alternative.

Decentralization of power is good. Decentralization of clean power is even better.

Earlier this year I wrote about AmerenUE's pathetic response to a massive power outage in St. Louis that occurred as a direct result of storm damage and Ameren's lack of proper tree trimming maintenance. It looks as though Ameren is not yet done atoning for those sins.

Today more than 500,000 people in the St. Louis area are once again without power. Thankfully, I am not one of them this time. Although, that is only because we moved out of our old house -- which, of course, is once again powerless. The predictions of the local media are even more dour than last time -- with early estimates of at least 5 days to restore power.

The last storm in July occurred during the peak of the summer heat, and several area residents died from it because they had no power to run their air conditioning. I fully expect the death toll from this outage to far exceed that, as we are in the grip of the worst snowstorm in years, and temperatures have dipped into the twenties.

The cost of repairs this time will no doubt exceed those of last time as well. Which leads one to wonder, what if Ameren had simply coughed up the few millions it takes to keep the trees trimmed? Would they have saved money in the long run? Would they still need the rate increase they had the audacity to request earlier this year?

Three cheers for Wisconsin state representative Frank Lasee for having the courage to suggest a real solution to the problem of school shootings: arm the teachers. The same people who recoil in horror at this proposition also object to allowing armed people on planes, but the simple fact is that guns prevent crime.

Within the past week, three school shootings have occurred in Wisconsin, Colorado, and Pennsylvania, all of which could have been prevented, or the effects of which at least diminished, if people on the scene had been armed, able to neutralize the shooter or at least defend the unarmed victims. But our society's hypersensitivity to guns has blinded us to their utility.

It is often said that when you outlaw guns, only outlaws will carry them. Nowhere is this truth more brilliantly illustrated than in the tragic theater of a school shooting. But one shooting in particular in 1997, illustrated how sensible Representative Lasee's proposal actually is. Joel Myrick, the assistant principal at Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi, ran to his car to retrieve his .45 caliber handgun *after* Luke Woodham began killing his fellow students, and then held Woodham until police arrived on the scene. Myrick's use of an "illegal" gun prevented Woodham from executing the rest of his plan, which was to drive to the nearby Junior High and continue his shooting spree. Imagine how much better the outcome might have been had all of the school's staff been armed on the scene. Woodham may never have gotten off a shot.

Pete Pochowski, the director of safety for Milwaukee Public Schools is quoted as saying, "We have problems in our schools, but not to the point where we need to arm our teachers and principals." At what point do the school shootings become a severe enough problem where this option can be considered, Mr. Pochowski? Four a week? Five? Ten? Before people criticize Lasee's plan they need to remember that not only is carrying a weapon for self-defense a natural right, it is simply a good idea.

I wish there existed an organization (and there probably does, I just haven't looked) dedicated to commemorating September 10. Dedicated to remembering what life in this country was like before September 11, 2001. Before this country lost its collective mind, and embarked on what The Onion aptly called "Operation Piss Off the Planet."

When you poke a hornet's nest with a stick, and the hornets swarm out and sting you, there are two courses of subsequent action you can take. You can choose to learn the lesson that nature has taught you -- leave the hornets alone and they will leave you alone. Or, you can, quite irrationally, declare war on hornets, and vow to eliminate hornets from the face of the earth. America has chosen poorly. And by all accounts there are more hornets swarming today than there were five years ago.

Some would argue that these hornets do not respect the "hands off" mentality, and they will not, in fact, just "leave us alone." But before one attempts to support this claim by citing incidents such as WTC '93, Khobar Towers, African embassies, and the USS Cole, one needs to make sure that the stick isn't being poked by someone else. The government is too big and complex to believe that all of the potential sticks can be controlled. These are the "foreign entanglements" of which we were warned by Washington.

I pray that I live to see the end of the "Post-9/11 Era," and an end to all of the nonsense Americans have had to endure the past five years (that I predicted). I pray that Osama Bin Laden will eventually be proven wrong when he said in October 2001, "I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people into an unbearable hell and a choking life." If not, then the terrorists will have won.

Regarding Jennifer Schwirzer's article entitled "How Noble Experiments Fail," I had to make a few comments.

First, her argument that our country's last attempt at prohibition was a miserable failure due partly to lack of enforcement has merit, however, any suggestion that we should try again with greater focus and fervor is reminiscent of socialists who argue that socialism would work if only the right people were in place to properly manage and execute it. It ignores the basic fact that socialism, and likewise prohibition, are incongruent with human nature, and therefore doomed to fail.

Second, pointing to Barrow, Alaska, as a prohibition success story is somewhat disingenuous. Schwirzer herself admits that, "such a ban was easy to enforce," due to Barrow's remoteness. Let's see the same "experiment" conducted in, say, a small midwestern town of comparable size within a reasonable driving distance of a major metropolitan area. Would the ban be easy to enforce? Certainly not. But more importantly, prices of the banned substance would remain reasonable on the black market, and it would likely flourish.

Lastly, the author's argument that "no man is an island" carries some weight in a debate about personal responsibility. However, self-harm is the other side of the freedom coin. The right to buy, sell, and imbibe alcohol is no different than the self-evident rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are among those endowed to us by our Creator. And one would think that writers for Liberty magazine would realize that fact.

As I write this, there are still over 500 people in the St. Louis area without electricity, according to AmerenUE's outage map. Granted, that number is down from almost 700,000 people. And, granted, this is following the worst storm damage in Ameren's 100-year history. But is it acceptable?

A half-million customers went 3 days or more without power following the July 19 and July 21 storms. My power was out for exactly one week, and when it came back on, there were still hundreds of thousands left in the dark. You know the situation is grim when the Reverend Al shows up to voice his concern. Despite only stepping out of his car for a few minutes to address the media, he did make one worthwhile comment, "when power companies fail, people should not have to pick up the tab." Indeed.

But we do. And the important point here is that we have no choice because the electric utilities in this country are, almost universally, government-mandated monopolies. It is interesting how many people find fault with monopolies, perceive them as a failure of the free market, and welcome any government intervention to prevent them. However, when the government *creates* monopolies (for the good of the people, of course), it's fine. Except when they fail.

The consensus that public utilities (especially electricity) must be run as government-regulated monopolies is starting to change, however, and incidents such as this outage in St. Louis only serve to spur those changes on. The Progressive Policy Institute issued this report in April 2000 calling the emergence of a competitive retail electricity industry "highly likely," since 13 states have already enacted some legislation to begin this transition. That is encouraging news, but to the rest of us still suffering under our government-imposed monopoly, things are perhaps not moving swiftly enough in that direction.

So in the meantime, what will the monopolies do to mollify their customers? Probably nothing. There is no incentive to make their service more attractive because they are not competing for your dollar. If you want electricity in your home, you will continue to pay them for it. And I should like to point out that losing power, especially in midst of the summer heat, is not merely an "inconvenience" as AmerenUE's spokespeople were so fond of calling it. It is truly a life-or-death situation, as the St. Louis residents who succumbed to the heat could attest (if they were still alive). The monopolies (and by proxy, the government) should be held accountable for these deaths.

In markets where electric utilities must compete for business, there is a clear incentive to provide the best (i.e. uninterrupted) service to their customers. In practical terms, this means investment in the infrastructure used to deliver the product. There is a clear business case for an electricity provider to make their wiring as bullet-proof as possible. If this means spending $1 million per mile of wire to bury it in the ground, making it impervious to storm damage, that is what you do in order to achieve a competitive advantage over other providers who are still using the 19th-century technology of stringing wires on poles.

AmerenUE has no such incentive. In fact, when asked about his plans to bury the company's power lines over a period of decades, the August 6, 2006 edition of the St. Louis Post Dispatch quotes Ameren CEO Gary Rainwater as saying, "Scratch that one off the list." He cites the prohibitive expense of burying some 61,000 miles of power line in the St. Louis area. Claiming the cost would "triple or quadruple the price of electricity." This coming from a company with annual revenues approaching $7 billion. Where is all that money going, Gary? Obviously, some of it is paying for your $800,000 palatial estate in Chesterfield.

I bet the storms didn't knock out Gary's power.

Mayor Norman McCourt is all over the map on this issue. But what do you expect? He's a professional politician. He's going to take whatever position is most likely to get him reelected.

I'm sure he hasn't been happy lately over the national exposure he has been receiving. Various accounts are portraying his sleepy little suburb of St. Louis as a quaint throwback to the 1950s -- complete with the institutionalized racism that was so prevalent then in our society. But let's give Norm the benefit of the doubt on that one. He may not be a racist at all.

As recently as 1999, Mayor McCourt was framing this as a moral issue, referring to unwed parents in their community as not being "an appropriate standard that they wish to approve." Well, that case didn't receive the attention that this one is, and in the past few months Mayor McCourt has done an about face. Now, he is championing a change in the local ordinance that stands in the way of Olivia Shelltrack and Fondray Loving obtaining an occupancy permit for the house in which they have already lived for months. Why the sudden change of heart, Norm?

Are the political winds blowing in a different direction this month? Did a focus group, or local telephone survey of prospective voters, indicate that you were on the wrong side of this issue? Or did you have a true epiphany and realize that government has no business defining what the term "family" means, or dictating what a homeowner can do with his/her property? I'm guessing it was the former.

Government has refined waste, fraud, and abuse to an art form. I wrote about one instance of this a couple of months ago. Now, from our friends over at Homeland Stupidity, here's another.

Some people might be willing to overlook a certain amount of this, and say that as long as the government's job gets done, a little corruption shouldn't worry anyone. But it's not just a little corruption. And it grows without bound. How do I know? Because I've been a party to it.

Around this time every year (as the beginning of the DOD's fiscal year Oct 1 approaches) military commands all around the world begin to review their budgets and start to draft budgets for the coming year. Much like any other government agency, if you do not do an adequate job of justifying your own existence, by spending your previous year's budget in its entirety, you aren't likely to receive the same amount (or an increase) the following year. So August and September are the months when the military goes shopping!

In 1988, I was a corporal in the United States Marine Corps, and in that year I personally oversaw my command's computer budget. I was asked to spend something close to $10,000 by ordering items from various GSA catalogs, or from commercial vendors. Some of the items I purchased were needed, some were even useful, but many of things we ended up buying that year sat on a shelf in our storage lockers until I was discharged years later. I was also made aware of leftover training budget that was spent to replace the carpeting our building -- carpeting that was only a year old.

If waste, fraud, and abuse are going on at that level at one small Marine command, imagine the amount of graft when you multiply that by thousands of military installations. Then couple that with the knowledge from the story above that much of this "surplus" is then being sold at pennies on the dollar, and the sheer amount of waste is staggering. Like I said, it's an art, and the DOD has some talented artists.

Almost exactly ten years ago I wrote my first rant on this web site entitled "Why AOL Sucks." It is nice to finally have confirmation of this fact. I'm sure the 5,000 employees losing their jobs would agree with me at this point.

I must admit, however, that AOL's business model lasted longer than I expected. I never would have believed there were enough people out there who were both computer-illiterate enough and stupid enough to part with $20 a month.

Perhaps this signals the beginning of the end of an empire that was once big enough to fool Time Warner into giving them top billing in their merger. We can only hope.

Last October, when I wrote about Time magazine's story How To Spend $1 Billion A Day, I had no idea they meant spending it on strip clubs and Girls Gone Wild videos.

The Government Accountability Office (how's that for an oxymoron?) hasn't even finished its audit yet, so stand by for all of the instances of contractual fraud that are no doubt on their way. Waste, fraud, and abuse. That is all government is good for.

There's been quite a bit of chatter in the blogosphere recently about
numbers stations (Slashdot, Homeland Stupidity). Hell, you can even order CDs of these stations and listen to them all the time, if you are so inclined.

No one really knows what these stations are for, or who runs them. Conspiracies abound -- everything from government spooks communicating with their agents in the field, to young geeks in love. But their significance to me has little to do with why or how they are run, but simply that they exist.

Despite all of the recent media frenzy over government intrusion into our private communications, it is nice to know that the technology still exists for all of us to communicate with whomever, about whatever, we want, using an uncrackable code, and the government is powerless to stop us.

It makes all of the furor over the communications habits of terrorist sleeper cells seem rather pointless, doesn't it?

I just can't win. Between my employer and the Veteran's Administration, and their penchant for storing my personal data on easily-stolen laptop computers, I might as well just post my name, birthday, and Social Security number right here on my web site and save all those thieves the trouble.

And people wonder why I am so fanatical about privacy issues. Concern over privacy 40 years ago, or even just a decade ago, might have seemed out of place. But today? If you don't think privacy is important, amid all of the stories of identity theft, you clearly aren't paying attention. Pardon me if I believe a little paranoia is warranted at this point.

A few years ago, after the release of the movie Catch Me If You Can, I was fortunate enough to hear Frank Abagnale speak at the University of Missouri. Abagnale was the original identity thief, in the days before there were computers or high-speed Internet connections, and after serving prison time, he became a security consultant. During the Q&A period following his speech, he was asked what the average person can do to prevent identity theft. His first suggestion: buy a shredder.

Sage advice, to be sure, however, if you can't even get your employer or your government to recognize the value of the electronic data that they are responsible for protecting, preventing someone from sifting through your garbage is the least of your worries.

Solving this problem is not easy. Since it's really just a symptom of a bigger problem that only a Bloody Revolution™ will fix. Despite FDR's promises that our Social Security numbers would never be used as a form of general identification, function creep over the last 70 years has made his promise a joke. Even individuals who wish to fully exercise their right to privacy, can never take full responsibility for protecting their own personal information, as long as they are being compelled to provide these data to a government with no vested interest in keeping them secure.

The mayor of Black Jack is at it again. This story has been going on for months (I even saw it covered on Headline News a few weeks ago) and I wrote about it back in March.

Mayor Norman McCourt and his city council are trying to make examples of Olivia Shelltrack and Fondray Loving. But this couple have done nothing wrong. Except apparently purchased property in the wrong municipality.

The AP is reporting (via CNN) that "Mayor Norman McCourt declined to be interviewed but said in a statement that those who do not meet the town's definition of family could soon face eviction." Who in the hell does he think he is?

As if to confirm what everyone already knew, Fox News Channel is now *officially* the mouthpiece of the Bush Administration. President Bush announced today that Fox's Tony Snow would replace Scott McClellan as White House press secretary. The only surprising part of this story is that McClellan was not replaced by a 16-year-old girl, as predicted by SNL on April 15.

When will the powers that be in this country (and the DEA) realize that the so-called War on Drugs is as unwinnable as the Wars on Poverty and/or Terrorism? Did we learn nothing from Prohibition? Are they not aware that banning a substance (something that the Federal Government does not even have the authority to do without first amending the Constitution) only drives the production/sales/consumption of said substance underground?

This story illustrates the latest escalation in the never-ending arms race between those who want to be left alone, and those who won't leave them alone. And the moral outrage expressed by DEA agent John Gilbride is laughable. No, scratch that. It's contemptible. How dare he express righteous indignation by saying, "like grave robbers who have no respect for the dead, this drug organization used revered tombstones to smuggle millions of dollars worth of cocaine into New York City..." What a hypocrite.

Someone... me, for instance, could just as easily say, "like jack-booted thugs who have no respect for the rights of the People, this drug organization used terrorist tactics to violate the rights of millions of people in New York City." See it works both ways. The fundamental difference being that only one of the aforementioned drug organizations has violated the rights of We the People. Care to guess which one?

How many times have we all heard this phrase? Whether it was from our own parents, or some movie or TV sit-com? Well, the statement is true enough in theory, but under our current system of government, it is far from true in practice.

Ignoring for the moment the Supreme Court's ruling last year on eminent domain, why does the government even need to bother with the formalities of seizing your home, if they can dictate what goes on inside of it?

I've been following this story since it broke here in St. Louis last month. A small municipality called Black Jack (insert jack-booted thug joke here) has taken it upon itself to define what a family is and to dictate to its residents who can and cannot live in their homes. One couple in particular has been denied an occupancy permit because their "family" does not meet the criteria specified by city officials.

You know when I read something like that, I get hung up on the words "occupancy permit." The notion that I need to seek permission from someone else to occupy a home I have purchased is ludicrous, and I applaud this family for moving in anyway even though they didn't have "permission."

This month, Black Jack Mayor Norman McCourt, made some statements that are even more contemptible. Including the claim that "many municipalities in the St. Louis area have similar - if not identical or more stringent - rules." Wonderful. Even city governments are resorting to the old "everyone is doing it, why can't we?" argument. So it doesn't matter how many individuals' rights to property are being violated, as long as all of the city governments are violating them equally?

Let me ask you, when you were a child, what was your parents' response when you told them that "everybody else is doing it, so I should too"? I think it's time Mayor McCourt check whose roof he is living under.

There's an old joke about a man-on-the-street interview in which they ask a typical John Q. Public which is the bigger problem facing our country today, ignorance or apathy? His response is the title of this article.

I was reminded of this after reading this story today. It should come as no surprise to anyone who has watched Leno's "Jaywalking" segment on The Tonight Show, that the results of the survey are true. The average American knows little to nothing about the system of government under which they live, nor do they care. It is a testament to the vision of the Framers that they were able to craft a system that even 200 years hence affords us the luxury of not knowing or not caring.

But it should also be noted that the Framers assumed there would always be a vigilant citizenry ready to rein in a government that went astray. As Thomas Jefferson said, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." This is the state in which we find ourselves in America today.

I just wanted to make the point that you cannot fix a system of government that relies on fans of the Simpsons to vote for the "fixes."

This tempest in a teapot caught my eye because it highlights just one of the many absurd aspects of so-called "illegal" immigration. People who care where Border Patrol uniforms are made are guilty of rearranging the deck chairs aboard the Titanic. There are larger issues here.

Harry Browne gave a speech at the 2003 Freedom Summit in which he said, "A free state doesn't care who crosses the border. A welfare state is scared to death of every poor person who enters and every rich person who leaves." Truer words have never been spoken.

Representative John Carter is quoted in this article as saying, "How do you know who are our guys and who are their guys?" How do we, indeed, Mr. Carter. Let's ignore for the moment that this is a nation of immigrants -- we wouldn't exist without them. Let's forget that the Statue of Liberty still beckons the world: "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore..." -- we haven't exactly turned on the "No Vacancy" sign. Consider the simple fact, brilliantly underscored by Mr. Carter's remarks, that a citizen of this country and a non-citizen are indistinguishable. How do we know "our" guys from "their" guys? The only way is through positive identification. But the only way to achieve this goal is by violating our own citizens' rights to privacy and anonymity by compelling them to submit to and carry State-issued "papers," namely a passport.

This violation would seem almost tolerable if it actually solved the problem it was intended to solve, but it doesn't. And it can't. Because we are attempting to solve a problem that cannot, and should not, be solved. The real issue here is not that people are entering the country, but that they are entering the country and using government-provided "services" for which they have allegedly not paid.

Since no one else seems to be asking the obvious question, I will. Why is the government providing these services in the first place? Confiscating tax money from the citizenry to pay for health care, education, and anything else the government dreams up is not only unConstitutional but immoral. Moreover, if we simply eliminated all of these services, the immigration problem evaporates overnight. No one but the most xenophobic among us should care who is entering this country once we are no longer picking up the tab.

Want to stop worrying about Border Patrol uniforms? Stop spending billions on the Border Patrol. Get rid of them. It's not like they are actually protecting our borders anyway. They will freely admit that they don't have the resources to do the job, and with organizations like the Minutemen demonstrating that civilians can perform the job at least as well, if not better, there is no reason to keep them around.

It is sad to me that a single breath is wasted on the debate over where some uniforms are made. They have completely missed the point.

Not in recent memory has there been a news report that so perfectly illustrated everything that is wrong with the so-called War on Drugs. I just had to share this one.

Let us ignore, for the moment, that neither Congress, nor any other legislature, has the authority to ban a substance (without first amending the Constitution). Let us further ignore that declaring "war" on drugs is as effective as declaring war on Poverty, Illiteracy, or Terrorism. Which is to say not at all.

If one can get past the absurdity of those two assumptions, then consider that federal tax money is being spent in my home state of Missouri to launch "an ad campaign Monday warning that the secondhand effects of meth labs can ruin the health of non-users." Whether or not that is an effective use of money is left as an exercise for the reader (hint: it's not), but just the simple fact that you, dear reader, as a non-Missourian, are helping foot the bill for an ad campaign that targets a bunch of inbred rednecks in another state should be enough to make your blood boil. But guess what? I live in this freakin' state and it makes my blood boil too!

Now consider the fact that designer drugs such as crystal meth would not even exist if the federal government had not overstepped its bounds in the first place and tried to ban naturally occurring substances such as marijuana, cocaine and heroin. That's right. The danger of drug use has been compounded many times over by the government's irrational and unConstitutional crusade against natural narcotics, thus forcing people to skirt the drug laws by constantly seeking to create and manufacture new drugs that do not appear on the government's ever-growing list of "illegal" substances. Some of these designer drugs that first appeared in the 1980s can cause instant Parkinson's disease in some users. You can say what you want about smoking weed, but it has never created a Parkinson's victim. Thank you federal government.

Beyond that it must be noted, as is so often the case with laws intended to protect us, that the rights of the *law-abiding citizens* are routinely violated here in Missouri as well. Forget about no-knock raids, and other overtly egregious violations of our Fourth Amendment rights, but what about an individual's simple right to remain anonymous? Not in Missouri. At least, not if you have a common cold and would like to go to your corner drugstore and buy some Sudafed or other cold medicine. No. You will not only be forced to *register* your purchase of Sudafed (with your name and home address) but your right to freely contract will be further infringed by the state of Missouri (in direct violation of Art I, Sec 10, of the Constitution) as they restrict the amount of Sudafed you are allowed to purchase.

All in the name of preventing a free people from engaging in the entrepreneurial activities associated with manufacturing a product that is in demand and bringing it to market -- none of which violates the rights of anyone. Because, you see, the so-called War on Drugs has never claimed a drug as its victim (and it never will), only the rights of the individual in an ostensibly free society.

The September 26, 2005 issue of Time magazine provided continuing coverage of the relief effort for Hurricane Katrina victims in a story disturbingly entitled How to Spend $1 Billion A Day. Before I even got to the story, however, the most disturbing image of them all was included in the table of contents:

This is the proverbial picture worth a thousand words, and it speaks volumes about how dysfunctional our government has become. As devastating as Katrina was, and as terrible as the living conditions have become in areas of the Gulf states, there is still absolutely no justification for government to step in and spend one dime of the taxpayer's money to relieve the suffering.

Charity is not, and cannot be, a legitimate function of government. Charity is, by definition, voluntary. If I showed up at your doorstep and demanded money for Katrina victims at gunpoint, would I be engaged in charitable works? Of course not. Even if I did, in fact, subsequently donate the money to the Red Cross, it doesn't change the fact that I stole the money from you, and that it was not my money to give. Why is it any different when a government steps in to spend money that does not belong to it?

Our government used to be aware of the limits on its powers. Congressman Davy Crockett knew better than to spend the public's money on charity. When confronted with the prospect of paying benefits to a Naval officer's widow, he said, "Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

Wake up America! Our government has lost its way, and We The People have fallen asleep at the wheel. As it has been painfully demonstrated, our government is inept at providing relief anyway. If you really want to help disaster victims, donate to the charitable organization of your choice, and then write to your Senators and Representative and implore them to dismantle FEMA, the National Flood Insurance Program, and all of the other disaster handouts. Because until they find the following line in the Constitution, it is not theirs to give.

So it's been almost five years since I last ranted about this topic. But recent developments have forced me to reevaluate my own attitude towards the entire movie-going experience.

It's no secret that I go to a lot of movies. But I used to enjoy them a lot more than I do now, and it took reading my friend John's recent essay, as well as the imminent birth of my first child in a month or two, to realize that I probably don't enjoy going to the movies enough anymore to justify continuing the practice.

If I could sit down with an executive from one of the big studios in Hollywood and have a conversation, what would I say? Five years ago I probably would have berated him for his industry's lack of creativity -- sequel after sequel, CG-laden eye-candy with no semblance of a plot -- the Hollywood well was running pretty dry.

But today, I would have just one question for him. I would look him directly in the eye and tell him to convince me why I should continue paying $6-$8 per ticket (yeah, I know I'm lucky to live in the midwest, ticket prices are even more insane elsewhere) plus gas to get to the theater, foregoing concessions that have long since surpassed any reasonable pricing scheme, and tolerating boisterous and rude audience members (which I have never actually done anyway), all the while resisting the urge to get up and go to the bathroom so I did not miss any of the movie, and ignoring my own home theater (which may not be world class, but certainly isn't anything to sneeze at either). Yes, I would look him in the eye and ask him why I should continue to endure all of that?

Any studio executives reading this care to take up my challenge?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

The State of Florida can't do anything right. Whether it's a botched Presidential election, Elian Gonzales, or the recent nonsense surrounding Terri Schiavo, Florida is, any more, like the kid on the playground who gets picked last for kickball. So when they finally do manage to get something right, like the recent "Castle Doctrine" law affirming the basic human right of self-defense, it's a shame to see it completely negated by an errant Supreme Court decision.

That is, there is not much point in defending one's home when the local government is now free to completely dispossess you of your "castle." For a fair market price, of course.

The concept of "eminent domain," outlined in the Fifth Amendment, has always represented a fundamental flaw (one of several) in our Constitution. The notion that property can be taken by force from its owner if it can be shown to be more valuable to the general public, is nothing if not an exquisite illustration of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

That a Supreme Court justice (John Paul Stevens) would jump onto this Socialistic bandwagon and declare with such fervor that, "The city ... believes [it] will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue," turns my stomach. Is that to be the litmus test from now until the day this country finally destroys itself in an Ouroborostic frenzy of self-looting? Because if tax revenue is the only criteria for deciding whether or not one's land is ripe for a strip-mall developer's picking, then there effectively is no such thing as private property in the United States anymore.

Thank you SCOTUS, for turning my homeland into the United Wal-Marts of America.

I guess it's not bad for my first attempt at a "vlog" entry. The "special effects" aren't as special as I would like, but I will fix them for my next one. Eat your heart out Rocketboom!

So, without further ado, ladies and gentlemen, for the first time anywhere on the Internet, you can see me rant.

(Topics discussed: Porter Goss, Osama Bin Laden, the Iraq War, the Planetary Society, Cosmos 1, Tom Cruise.)

In April of this year, I received an email from Netflix informing me that in June they would be raising their rates from $19.95 per month to $21.99 per month. In response, I fired off some hate mail and I'm sure I wasn't the only customer to respond negatively to this news.

Today I received another email from Netflix notifying me that they are subsequently lowering their rates now to $17.99 per month. That's great news, of course, but they still suck for lying to their customers. Because in the email they say:

Since our price increase in June, some of our members have expressed concerns about the new pricing. We've listened to this feedback and are pleased to inform you that we're lowering the price of your Netflix 3-at-a-time program from $21.99 per month to 17.99 per month.

What a load. The real reason they are lowering their prices is not all of the negative feedback they have been receiving since April, it's the fact that Blockbuster announced about a month ago that they would begin offering the exact same service, the exact same package, at the original rate of $19.95 per month, and Netflix customers were switching in droves!

Blockbuster's response to Netflix's announcement? To lower their rate to $17.49. God bless the free market.

With the 2004 election season looming on the horizon, like a trip to the dentist's office that you simply cannot avoid, I've been thinking a lot lately about the subject of voting. The reality of voting is very different from the popular opinion of same. The perception is that exercising one's right to vote is the single most patriotic thing a person can do. That it is this sacred ritual that defines America and somehow sets her apart from every other nation on Earth. Unfortunately, the historical context of the struggle to bring the vote to the "common man" has bestowed a much greater significance upon voting than it truly deserves.

H.L. Mencken said, "Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." Truer words have never been spoken -- with the possible exception of Churchill when he said, "the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." It is clear from these quotes (and countless others attributed to the Founding Fathers of our nation) that respect for the notion of democracy is far from universal, and rightly so.

As if the Tonight Show's "Jaywalking" segments aren't enough anecdotal evidence to convince us of the collective stupidity of our nation's electorate, behold, scientific evidence of this fact abounds! From the quasi-scientific results of surveys that tell us seventy percent of Americans cannot name their senators or their congressman, to the exhaustively researched papers that assure us that 2.8 million people voted against Al Gore in 2000 because of drought or flooding in their home states.

So if one can manage to ignore that the outcome of any given election is largely decided by legions of morons, and still accept the result as legitimate, then one is forced to face the next truth about democracy: mob rule. Benjamin Franklin said, "democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." Don't let the humor of this statement obscure the deeper truth that it contains. To embrace democracy is to abandon the notion of basic human rights, since any action against another person or group can be legitimized if it is sanctioned by a majority of voters. Witness the practice of slavery in this country's early history. I realize that not every ballot issue represents a violation of human rights (although most do), but it is important for people to recognize that it is the mechanism of voting that makes these violations possible.

Most of the laws, regulations, and bureaucracies that govern our day-to-day lives are rarely, if ever, impacted by a referendum. One could argue that our elected representatives are accountable to the voters for the laws that they are involved in implementing, but there are two problems with relying on this alleged check on the power of legislators. First, the public has a notoriously short memory. The sponsor of an unpopular law may be able to mitigate or completely erase the wrath of his constituents over the period of his term of office. Second, even if his actions were egregious enough to bring about his ouster, the infamous law lives on.

All men are created equal (I will assume that this truth is self-evident). The logical extension of this is that no one has a right to rule over you. Most people would not find a reason to disagree with that statement. However, some will object to the next logical step: while you may delegate your right to rule yourself to someone else, you cannot delegate the right to rule other people to someone else because you yourself do not possess that right in the first place. Delegating the right to rule is a purely voluntary action, and participating in the election process is tacit agreement to the terms of being ruled by someone else. People say, "if you don't vote, you can't complain." However, the exact opposite is true. If you *do* vote, you can't complain because you have agreed to be bound by the results of the election. If you don't participate at all, you are not responsible for the outcome.

On November 2 this year millions of Americans will participate in the grand bit of theater known as an election. I will be interested to see, following all of the "get out the vote" hype, if participation is actually any greater this time than it was four years ago. I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that it will be the same as 2000, if not less.

I would love to see the reaction of our politicians the morning after an election where voter turnout approached zero. Just imagine the spin doctors staying up all night trying to explain how their candidates *still* have a mandate to rule over us. How could a president who only received 10 votes legitimately lead this country?

Yes I'm a little behind the power curve in embracing blog technology, but better late than never. I've taken the time to add some of my older essays to the blog archive. Others, overcome by events, no longer reflect my personal philosophies or are just plain outdated, so they will no longer appear in this space.

Please feel free to go back and read them and leave comments, if you wish.

A while back I wrote a letter to the St. Louis County Department of Revenue expressing my displeasure at how easy it was to obtain sensitive information (such as home addresses) on their web site. Apparently, I wasn't alone. It took them a few months, but they finally responded to my letter.

I recognize the public nature of real estate records (although I don't agree with it), but it is simply irresponsible for a government agency to make these data too readily available. Although anyone can go to the County Clerk's office and look up this information, I believe it is necessary to maintain that level of difficulty in order to separate those who wish to obtain the information for legitimate reasons from those who might be seeking it for more impulsive and mischievous purposes.

Remember that time when you got pulled over for speeding? The cop started to write you a ticket, but stopped when you told him that your dad was a cop.

Or maybe he wrote you the ticket, and then you went home and called your brother-in-law or your buddy from high school (who is also a cop) and he "took care of it" for you. Incidents like these probably make you feel pretty good about cops in general, don't they? Yeah, well, they shouldn't. Incidents like these just serve to illuminate one of the many reasons why cops suck.

Reason #1: Cops believe they are above the law

They may not all believe this from day one (although many do), but eventually they all become affected by it. They come to view themselves as members of a class above the average citizen -- and maybe in some respects they are, because we as a society put them there. But the fact remains that all men are created equal and are therefore equal under the law. We are happy when a relative or friend who is a cop is successful at bending or breaking the law for our benefit, but then we turn around and demand punishment of cops that bend or break the law to the detriment of others. Why the double standard? Why is it okay for Uncle Joe to "fix" your speeding ticket, but not okay for some anonymous cop on the news to drop a dime bag in the back seat of a car he is searching? I think we rationalize it by telling ourselves that the driver of the car was probably a gang member or a drug dealer, and that we trust the officer's judgement.

I think the danger in this mode of thinking is obvious. Not only do we establish a dangerous precedent of allowing cops to also be judge and jury, but we subjugate ourselves to them and their decisions. Combine this with the fact that the average cop spends his days answering calls from those that he already perceives as weaker than himself, and we run the risk of establishing or simply reinforcing some kind of "Superman" complex in a cop's mind. I'm not at all surprised that this mindset develops in cops over time, and I'm not even placing all of the blame on them. Human nature being what it is, I would expect it to happen to virtually anyone in the same position. But the point is that it is immoral and does not serve the best interests of society for us to breed a segment of the population that does not feel it is subject to the same rules as the rest of us.

Reason #2: Cops are ignorant of the law

It is unacceptable to me, and should be to everyone else, that cops are ignorant of the very laws they are charged with upholding. We used to refer to them as "peace officers." They had a duty to be informed of what the laws said in order to act as impartial third parties in resolving disputes. Keeping the peace was their primary function. At some point in the not-so-distant past, they ceased being peace officers and became instead "law enforcement" officers. Their duties changed along with their name. A peace officer could never be asked or expected to conduct a no-knock raid on a private residence -- that is hardly a peaceful endeavor (not to mention all of the individual rights it violates). But today's modern law enforcement officer is all too happy to participate.

How many times have local law enforcement officers been enlisted in raiding someone's home under the auspices of the DEA, FBI, IRS, or ATF and some bogus search warrant? I assure you the numbers are staggering. And how many times, in all of those raids, have the local law enforcement officers asked to see the specific statute(s) authorizing the raid? Or even asked to read the search warrant? I have no idea, but my guess is that it doesn't happen very often. If it did, you would find a lot fewer "law enforcement" officers participating in exercises that only serve to break the laws.

Police academies across this country graduate hundreds of thousands of law enforcement officers every year. They perform swearing-in ceremonies with a great deal of pomp and circumstance, during which each newly minted officer swears an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. I wonder. How many of those officers have ever actually read the Constitution in its entirety? I mean, I'm almost willing to overlook a lowly traffic cop in a small St. Louis suburb who isn't aware that she is breaking her own state's law when she demands that I surrender my license to her during a routine traffic stop (when, in fact, according to Missouri Revised Statute 544.045, "the person arrested may decline to deposit his license to operate a motor vehicle as security and instead deposit a bond..."). Almost.

If ignorance of an obscure state law is not sufficient for you as an example, consider this. Every person on this planet has a basic human right to self-defense, which is acknowledged in the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The Second Amendment is so often debated that no one can claim ignorance of it based on obscurity. But yet, many cops have arrested, or worse, killed, a fellow citizen simply because he or she was exercising that right. Were they upholding or defending the Constitution with their actions? Can we as a society afford to overlook a cop (indeed, hundreds of cops) that violate their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution? Is it unreasonable to expect that those charged with enforcing the laws be aware of the laws themselves? I think not. As the Supreme Court said in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 US 800, "...a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct."

Reason #3: Cops hide behind their badge

Every mentally competent person is responsible for their own actions. One is not excused from accountability simply because one dons a uniform and some sort of badge representing a make-believe authority. Indeed, even within the United States Armed Forces, where warriors are taught to act without thinking, a soldier is still only required to follow *lawful* orders. This principle was illustrated at the Nazi war crimes trial in Nuremburg. The defendants' argument that they were "just following orders" did not absolve them from their responsibility for their own actions. It didn't work for them, it doesn't work for the US Military, and it definitely doesn't work for a cop. Despite their job, and their alleged authority, they still have an obligation to discern between right and wrong and act accordingly.

Reason #4: Cops have no legal obligation to protect us

This is perhaps the most compelling reason yet. If you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth. The lie in this case is that "cops will protect you" and those repeating it most often are gun control lobbyists -- their argument being that you don't need to own guns, cops are there to protect you. Well, the truth, in reality and in a legal sense, is that this position cannot be defended. If you need further proof of this fact, read Dial 911 and Die.

I guess the most shocking revelation in this book, however, is the fact that numerous court cases have established that law enforcement agencies, whether they be local, state, or federal, are under no legal obligation to protect you from crime. I know that is hard to believe, but it is true. As early as 1856 (South vs. Maryland 59 U.S. 396, 15 L. Ed., 433-) and as recently as 1989 (DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189) the US Supreme Court ruled on this matter. The US Court of Appeals has ruled the same way (Bowers vs. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 7th Cir. 1982). You would be hard pressed to find a case that found a law enforcement officer liable for not having prevented a crime against an individual.

Given this, I find it reprehensible that cops not only allow but encourage people (activists and politicians alike) to serve as their apologists and make the case for them that a cop's job is "so tough" that we as a society must provide them the tools they need to make their job easier and less dangerous. Since they are under no obligation to perform the job in the first place, and cannot be held personally liable if they fail, how dare they demand such things from us! If a cop is truly concerned with his safety on the job, perhaps he should consider a different line of work, instead of demanding more resources be culled from the very populace that he is engaged in harassing or terrorizing.

Story Archive

I am probably not the first person in history to voice this sentiment. The reasons why the IRS sucks are, in fact, numerous. But I would like to focus on one particular reason, give you some facts and then let you form your own opinion, if you have not already done so.

I hope that history will record that legislation such as the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, and the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, were just the first public manifestations of a growing movement within this country calling for not only fair taxation, but the elimination of the IRS and its unConstitutional practices.

Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Chuck Grassley spent some of your tax dollars and the better part of two days holding hearings on Capitol Hill in an effort to convince the American people that any group that would have the gall to question the motivation and the tactics of our beloved IRS is simply selling snake oil. His attempt to paint those who are merely asking to be shown the law requiring Americans to pay income tax as con artists borders on slanderous.

On April 5, 2001, the Committee held a hearing entitled "Taxpayer Beware: Schemes, Scams and Cons." Ostensibly, this was to be a public service hearing to address the growing number of hucksters that are using the Internet to bilk people out of their hard earned money by promising sure-fire schemes for avoiding paying personal income taxes. I won't deny that these people exist, but one of the organizations included in this rogue's gallery was the We The People Foundation.

I won't delve into the contributions of this organization to the Tax Honesty Movement -- please visit their web site and read it for yourself -- but I have been following their exploits for a couple of years now and they offer several compelling arguments. And while it is true that they do sell merchandise on their web site, none of it is literature describing tax avoidance schemes. They are far from what I would describe as "scammers" but that didn't stop Senator Grassley from lumping them in with a whole host of tax cheats and other reprobates. In fact, the Committee went so far as to have a full-page advertisement that the Foundation ran in USA Today enlarged to poster size and exhibited throughout the hearing. When Bob Schultz, We The People's founder, requested an invitation to speak at the hearing, in defense of his organization, he was refused.

Then, just last week, on April 11, 2002, in some sort of surreal homage to Star Wars, the Committee held a sequel hearing called < a href="http://finance.senate.gov/press/pr041102b.pdf" target="_blank">"Schemes, Scams and Cons, Part II: The IRS Strikes Back," the title of which would be laughable if it were not so true. The Empire is striking back. You see, the purpose of these hearings is not to seek the truth, but merely to provide a forum for Charles Rossotti, Commissioner of the IRS, to whine about how the Internet is making it more and more difficult for him to disseminate his propaganda and practice his jack-booted thuggery.

If Commissioner Rossotti wants us all to believe in his "kinder and gentler" IRS, then he needs to start by sitting down at the table with the delegation from the We The People Foundation (as he promised to do) and providing honest answers to their 460 questions. How 'bout it, Chuck?

Congress's most blatant attempt in recent memory to shred the Constitution is ironically titled the "The Patriot Act." Puh-lease. You can fool some of the people some of the time... Attorney General John Ashcroft and President Bush have both shown their true colors in this matter. Ashcroft has been pushing for an aggressive expansion of the DOJ's current bag of police-state tricks, and Dubya actually signed this pathetic excuse for a bill into law. We can only hope that some suspected terrorist challenges this in court, and then pray that a judge recognizes it for what it is and throws it out.

In the wake of the terrorist attacks against America, New York Governor George Pataki has decided to take advantage of the good will of his state and indulge in a little targeted socialism by offering free college tuition to the spouses and families of all the victims. He would do well to learn the Constitutional lesson taught to Congressman Davy Crockett a century and a half ago.

You may be thinking the reasons that terrorism sucks are obvious and recent events have only served to highlight this fact. Yes, there are obvious reasons, but I'm choosing to look past the death and destruction at some less obvious consequences of the most recent terrorist attack on America, and other similar tragedies.

Reason #1: The Media

If you thought the sharks in Florida this summer were bad, wait until you see the feeding frenzy of our nation's media surrounding this horrible episode. We've seen it lampooned before by Monty Python, Saturday Night Live, and the like, but the reason it's so funny is because it's true. Journalists, especially anchors, begin salivating whenever a major story like this one comes along because they know that the personal exposure they receive as a result can make or break a career. Bernard Shaw recently retired from CNN, but his notoriety was guaranteed ten years ago because of his association with the kickoff of the Gulf War.

At the outset of a catastrophe, we are thankful for the news media, both national and local, because we want all the information we can get. But once the initial stories have been written and reported, and the well of information runs dry, we begin playing this pathetic game of make believe with the news media. They pretend that they are performing some sort of public service, when in reality they are engaged in a shameless grab for ratings and celebrity. And we, in turn, pretend to be watching out of concern for the victims, instead of what we are really doing: succumbing to the same instincts that cause us to slow down and look at a crash on the interstate.

So how long will we have to endure this latest media onslaught? Well, thanks to Osama Bin Laden and his minions, we have weeks, if not months, of complete saturation coverage to look forward to. I dare say that this will be the top story on every morning news show, every evening news show, and every cable news show until every last victim's family members have appeared (live via satellite) to indict the airline industry's lax security practices, until Katie Couric has personally interviewed each and every survivor that they pull from the rubble, and until NBC and Fox have finished their bidding war over the inevitable script for the 4-part miniseries based on the whole event.

Reason #2: The Politicians

In the wake of every great tragedy in recent memory (the Columbine High School massacre is an excellent example), I have been disgusted by those who seek to use the event to influence public opinion. While some may have the purest of intentions, and are only seeking to prevent a recurrence of these tragic events, others have motives that are clearly more sinister, and are preying on public emotions to advance their own political agendas. Both groups are so preoccupied asking questions such as "How did this happen?" "How will we prevent this from happening again?", they never stop to ask the question "Could this have been prevented?" In many cases, the answer is simply no. But that won't stop them. The good-hearted, well-intentioned folk will pursue their agenda just to make themselves feel better whether it solves the perceived problems or not, and the socialists intent on perpetuating the constant erosion of our rights will work towards that end no matter what.

I fear the inevitable flurry of legislation that will follow this event. Tougher restrictions on air travellers top the list of proposals that you will hear in the coming months. And while requiring more forms of identification, or random luggage searches may seem innocuous enough in the name of "safety," let us not forget that Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." No one will bother to point out that these policies violate our Constitutional right to freely travel, and furthermore none of these restrictions actually solve the problem at hand. They will not prevent future hijackings if the perpetrators are intent on doing so. So what exactly is the point?

I guess I'm a monster for even posing the question, right? Some would ask, "Well, what are we supposed to do? Sit back and do nothing?" Of course not. You hunt down those who were responsible and you punish them. Make an example of them for others who might want to behave in a similar manner towards the US. But you don't punish a terrorist (in fact, you don't even inconvenience him) by taking away *my* rights, and creating more government bureaucracy in the process. The root cause of terrorism is outside the borders of the US. So how can one propose to solve the problem with solutions that exist on the inside?

Reason #3: The Lawyers

That dripping noise you hear is the sound of millions of lawyers across the country drooling. Let the lawsuits begin! Enough said.

Yeah, I realize this is a rather broad topic for an essay. There have to be thousands of reasons why people suck. I am going to focus on one specific reason, however. What is it with the recent trend among American moviegoers to treat the theater as if it were their own personal living room? Shut up already!

I fear this is merely a symptom of the greater ill we are suffering from in this country: lack of respect. No one, it seems, shows any respect anymore for anyone or anything (including themselves). Whether it be the rude motorist who disregards a traffic light and shows no respect for his own safety or that of other drivers, or simply the mischievous, teenage vandal who shows no respect for the property of others. This epidemic of disrespect culminates in the individual who sits in your aisle and fails to recognize that he/she is not the only person in the theater.

They may arrive alone, in pairs, or in small groups, but they all have one thing in common. They have come to enjoy themselves and they don't care one bit whether or not you do the same. Recently, I had my movie watching experience all but ruined by three fellow audience members. An infant, her mother, and another older woman, whom I presume was the infant's grandmother. The baby cooed and cried incessantly during the entire film. As the final credits rolled, and the audience exited, I passed in front of the three of them. I leaned over and said to the young mother, "Excuse me. Next time leave the baby at home, okay?" Once she recovered from the initial shock of a stranger calling her on her totally irresponsible behavior, she began to bob her head from side to side and called after me, "Mmm-mmm. When you find me a babysitter!"

Okay, now I'm going to refrain from making any generalizations, or stereotyping this young woman, but I must address what she clearly believed to be true. That it takes a village to raise her child, and that I (and every other member of the audience that evening) was somehow a member of that village. That I was somehow part of a vast right-wing conspiracy to deny her her God-given right to attend a movie anytime she pleased. Furthermore, that if I didn't want her baby to attend with her, somewhere within the twisted recesses of her mind, it seemed perfectly legitimate to expect someone else to take care of her baby, namely me, so that she could entertain herself. This shows a lack of respect for not only me, but the baby itself.

Another instance comes to mind that involved a young couple seated in the same aisle as I. They felt the need to talk. No, that's not quite right. They felt the need to discuss the subtle nuances of the film in great detail. And not in hushed voices either. Oh no. But in a normal, and wholly inappropriate, conversational tone. As if they believed themselves to be seated on their couch at home watching the movie on their DVD player. When I made the effort to be polite and said, "SHHHHHH!" instead of the words that were really running through my head, she had the nerve to ask out loud, "Who *said* that?" As if I had somehow just been rude to *her.*

Most recently, and the incident that prompted me to write this essay, a man brought his young child (probably no more than three years old) to an evening show of a movie (why do they always sit in *my* aisle?) that a three-year-old has no business watching in the first place. When the toddler became bored and restless, he made no attempt to prohibit her from pacing the aisle in front of her seat, leaning on and bumping the seat in front of her, and worst of all just talking and generally making a nuisance of herself. There was a general look of surprise and shock on his face when I crouched in front of him, one hour into the movie, and informed him that if he didn't leave with his child, I was going to notify an usher and have him removed from the theater. He subsequently collected his belongings, and his daughter, and left.

I am getting really good at these mid-movie confrontations. I'm actually starting to enjoy them. I feel that in some small way I am doing my part to educate the otherwise ignorant masses. I also enjoy the look of utter disbelief on their faces. They are either blissfully unaware of just how annoying their behavior really is, or if they are aware, they feel sure that in these politically correct times, no one would have the nerve to confront them.

Well, I do. I am not politically correct. I don't care about other people's child care problems. I don't care to hear their running commentaries. And if you cannot control your three-year-old, what do you expect to do when that child turns sixteen? Again, it's not my problem. I just want to see the movie I paid to see without the distractions provided by an endless parade of refugees from the Jerry Springer show. If you don't like it, you had better hope that I don't take a seat next to *you.*

Trucks don't kill people. People kill people. Yesterday, three people died.

They were killed by a man named Isaac Stewart. On March 15, 1999, eleven people died and another 122 were injured in Chicago by a man named John Stokes. Both of these men killed their victims using a truck. A tractor-trailer truck, or semi as it is called by some. Please note that the drivers are still alive, both walked away from their respective wrecks without a scratch, as is usually the case.¹ (As powerful and heavy as most of these trucks are, it takes colliding with something more significant than a puny automobile for the driver to sustain any injury, or even discomfort.) Which is great for the drivers, but what about their innocent victims? Who is to be held responsible for them?

There are three options to consider: either the government (state or federal), the trucking companies who own the trucks, or the drivers themselves. Frequent readers of this column know my stance on both personal responsibility as well as government intervention. So you may think the answer is a no-brainer. But it may surprise you to learn that I believe the answer to be a combination of all three.

In 1982, Congress passed the Surface Transportation Assistance Act which allowed for longer and wider trucks to travel our nation's highways. This Act was intended to reduce the number of miles travelled by trucks, thereby decreasing the number of accidents. It has not had the intended effect, however. Instead, "increasing the size of the trucks has simply reduced the expense of distribution. Consequently, more businesses have begun using this mode of transporting goods..." (Bureau of Transportation Statistics). From 1980 to 1989, according to the Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, "truck travel mileage in the United States increased by approximately 50 percent." Granted, that statistic is a decade old, but I think one can safely assume, and I can certainly attest from personal observations, that the number of trucks on the road today is significantly greater than it was 20 years ago. So not only are there more trucks on the road, but they are greater in size (and presumably weight) than they used to be. It should also be noted that trucks are allowed, with few exceptions, to drive anywhere at any time on our nation's highways. I believe this is one of the rare occasions where the federal government can make a beneficial contribution to the lives of every American. I would applaud any member of Congress who would not only repeal the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, but introduce federal legislation restricting truck traffic to the rightmost lane of our highways as is done in European countries.

In 1988, a company called Schneider National installed a system called OmniTRACS in its fleet of 9,000 trucks and began a revolution of sorts within the trucking industry. Rather than perpetuating a truck-driving culture based on Smokey and the Bandit, Schneider began teaching its drivers responsible driving techniques and consequently rewarding those same drivers for practicing them. With the OmniTRACS system installed, Schneider's headquarters in Green Bay, Wisconsin, was able to monitor not only every truck's position (which made customers very happy), but their average speed as well.

Schneider National [uses] precision logistics, rather than raw velocity, to win the moneymaking race. At Schneider, the 55 mph speed limit isn't just the law - it's also company policy. By keeping fuel costs down and reducing highway accidents, Schneider figured out that driving at 55 could be more profitable in the long run. And to underscore the point, the company decided to link driver bonuses - which can add more than 25 percent to a driver's pay - to compliance with a 58 mph limit. The rules of the game are simple: drive at or below 58 mph for 90 percent of the time (drivers are given a 10 percent "overspeed" allowance so they don't have to ride the brakes while going downhill) and bring home a bigger paycheck. Of course, there are no speed traps to avoid or radar guns to detect. As long as the motor is running, the OmniTRACS system will be watching your every move.

--Wired Magazine, January, 1995

If all trucking companies in America would follow Schneider's lead, rewarding their drivers for safe and prudent driving, there would be no need to impose federal restrictions on the drivers because their incentive for driving safely would be built into the job.

Trucking companies are at fault in other ways, however. Even if their drivers are competent and responsible, able to react in time and apply the brakes to stop their 40-ton behemoth before it kills someone, the brakes themselves might not be equal to the task². Tractor-trailer trucks are notorious for being badly maintained, and poor maintenance can only be blamed on cheap trucking companies who care more for the bottom-line than they do the safety of their drivers and those around them. In many cases, it is cheaper for a company to maintain good insurance through high premiums, than to maintain their fleet of trucks through regularly scheduled (and costly) maintenance. It is more profitable for them in the long run to pay for the cleanup of the occasional 16-car-pile-up, than to pay for the upkeep of a large fleet of trucks and trailers. Statistics seem to bear that out, since according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, "one out of eight traffic fatalities in 1998 resulted from a collision involving a large truck." Large trucks make up 3 percent of all registered vehicles on America's highways, yet they are involved in almost 7 percent of all traffic accidents (NHTSA). While I would like to avoid government involvement in this area as well, if the trucking companies cannot demonstrate the ability to properly maintain their fleets, I think federal regulations concerning periodic inspections and weigh stations should be tightened, with heftier fines for violators.

Finally, we have the drivers themselves. In both of the incidents mentioned above, it has yet to be determined whether criminal charges will be filed against the two drivers. Certainly, we are all human and we all make mistakes. However, some mistakes are simply the result of poor judgement and could be avoided. Truck drivers make bad decisions from time to time. Whether it be the decision to exceed the speed limit to make up lost time, or the decision to try to outpace a train at a crossing, these drivers need to be held accountable. Especially when one considers the damage that can be done by a 40-ton vehicle moving at speeds in excess of 60 miles per hour. The drivers need to realize that their vehicle is a hazard to those around them, and drive accordingly. We do not hesitate to punish a school bus driver who is caught endangering the lives of his precious passengers. But when a tractor-trailer driver behaves in a reckless manner, it is viewed as just being a part of highway driving. I believe that truck drivers involved in serious accidents should lose their licenses to drive big rigs forever. Furthermore, I believe that all of us have a role in policing our highways. When you see a truck perform a dangerous maneuver, report them. Many trucks have toll-free telephone numbers displayed for just this purpose. Use them.

I would love to see our highways completely rid of trucks one day. It's possible (the subject of a future essay perhaps), but not very likely. But the suggestions above would go a long way towards improving the situation and making it easier for cars and trucks to peacefully coexist on our nation's highways. In the meantime, all you truckers out there: slow down, get over in the right lane where you belong, and stay the hell out of my way!

¹ In 1996, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, in 379,000 crashes involving large trucks, there were only 621 driver fatalities.

² More information (in PDF format) on large truck brakes can be found here.

Oh yeah, like I needed another freakin' reason to hate trucks. Good Lord. The death toll has finally been set at 11, with scores injured. And what took so long Amtrak? Hello? Do you not even keep track of your passengers? What a mess. And what's that dripping sound? Why it's the sound of 10,000 salivating lawyers between Chicago and New Orleans, of course. Let the lawsuits commence.