The Present in Plain Text

Those Who Change the World

Thanks to the LRC blog for finding this Ron Paul You Tube that's been around for a while, but which I completely adore.  It uses that Apple commercial narrated by Richard Dreyfuss to make the point about the moment we may be living through right now.  I wanted to blog this here to remind myself of it in the future, and to be able to look back on it and decide whether I did enough or not. 

At the end of the day, all we can do is look back and review what we've done, and I know, for myself, that I hope to do so with a modicum of pride.  I don't know if I will, but, hey, a guy's gotta have goals.

Ta,

Morality, Not Money

I was surfing around today and came across this article in the Daily Trojan that says students have mixed feelings about marijuana legalization as it relates to the effects that could have on the economy.

Jon Gettman, a longtime policy analyst who holds a Ph.D. in public policy, has published a new study contending that legalizing marijuana would create tax revenue and save taxpayers millions of dollars. If marijuana were legalized and taxed, similar to alcohol and other commodities, those who use the drug would be paying the taxes, he said.

The study found that the United States is losing $30 million to underground marijuana sales and diverting money from the regional economy, Gettman said.

I'm supportive of just about any argument and activism that helps to legalize marijuana, namely because I believe everyone should have a right to smoke or perform any other activity they wish so long as it does no harm to anyone else. However, I'm not so sure the "let's legalize pot because it would be a windfall for the government" angle is the most productive avenue to take here (even though marijuana prohibition does run taxpayers over $40 billion in criminal justice costs and lost tax revenues).

Marijuana legalization should not be contingent upon its perceived positive effects for the economy. This outlook assumes that the state, not the individual, is the arbiter of all that is decent and good in society. For one thing, increased tax revenues would merely result in even more government programs aimed at regulating our lives. And more importantly, using marijuana is either right or wrong based on moral implications, not on whether or not a cabal of bureaucrats can find enough economic benefit to the community. And it is no more immoral for people to smoke marijuana than it is for them to smoke cigarettes, drink whiskey, or eat potato chips.

People are entitled to use and enjoy their property as they see fit. And if people have the right to own their body (their property), they consequently have the moral right to use it in any capacity they choose so long as their actions coerce no one else in the process, either physically or monetarily, despite the self-righteousness or moral indignation of busibodies. Many people believe they have the right to tell others what to do with their bodies because we have a misplaced belief that society should be responsible for paying for all the negative consequences that result from other people's bad decisions. But that's a problem of socialism, not of marijuana -- or of any other trendy vice-of-the-day like cigarettes, trans fats, or diet pills. What should it matter to us what anyone does to him or herself if the government isn't stealing our money to pay for any potential harm that results?

The short answer is, it shouldn't. However, that doesn't seem to stop some people from trying to mind other people's business. Despite our best efforts at trying to impress the virtues of personal freedom and liberty upon others, it always seems as if hysterical rhetoric wins the day over common sense reasoning. To wit:

Edward Newton, chairman of USC's department of emergency medicine, said he believes the country as a whole is not in favor of legalizing marijuana.

"If the government legalizes it, it's kind of an implicit endorsement of its use," he said. "You wouldn't want the pilot who is flying your plane to be stoned."

First of all, even though most Americans may not endorse outright legalization of marijuana, a majority does support the elimination of criminal penalties for adult pot use, and the vast majority of Americans supports the legal use of marijuana for medical purposes. Furthermore, arguing that legalization is an implicit endorsement of its use is ignorance on stilts. Rock climbing, skydiving, race car driving, and wife-swapping are all legal, but assuming that everyone in America would race to engage in all potentially dangerous activities simply because we have the freedom to do so is the argument of a fool.

Moreover, there is absolutely no merit to the argument that proponents of marijuana legalization believe pilots would all of a sudden begin to fly while stoned or that they advocate such activity. Anyone who causes an accident or puts anyone else's life at risk because he's driving or flying drunk or stoned is still civilly liable for his actions. Criminalizing this behavior simply affords the state an excuse to treat all of us like criminals, which is why I do believe it should be legal to, say, drive under the influence even though I wouldn't advocate such practice. But arguing that it should be legal to drive drunk and arguing that inebriated motorists who violate the property rights of others somehow shouldn't be held responsible for their actions are two very different things.

The entire essence of property rights is the idea that we should all be free to do anything we choose as long as it doesn't usurp the property rights of anyone else. When our actions do violate the rights of those around us, we most certainly deserve to face criminal or civil sanction. As for marijuana use, the real crime is empowering the federal government and so many of its state conspirators to harass, arrest, fine, and jail non-violent, freedom-loving Americans who do nothing to anyone but themselves. Try finding the morality in that.

Liv Reminds Us About Nov. 5th

Great Moments In U.S. History - Click here for more free videos

What else needs to be said.  Oh yeah:

Remember, Remember the 5^th of November,
the pledges for reason and gold.
I can think of no treason
like pledging for reason
Worthy of men free and bold.

In Ron Paul did we entrust
to stop the booms as well as busts;
and the wars of endless time, the punishment
without a crime,
The taxes of which rob and fleece,
Both the living and deceased.

Come on Boys, Come on Girls, Join the Revolution!
Come on Women, Come on Men, Remember the Constitution!

Ta,

Why SWAT?

A couple is under arrest in Rochester, NH, for possessing drugs and stolen guns. Aside from the possession of drugs, which should be legal unless they too were stolen, this looks like an above-board arrest. If someone stole my guns, I'd certainly want them back and would want the perps prosecuted.

But here's the part I'm interested in:

During yesterday's raid of the apartment, police and the Strafford County Regional Tactical Operations Unit ... set off "flash bangs," diversionary devices that make a load [sic] noise. Police said they were used to lessen the risk to the community and to officers because of the presence of guns inside the apartment.

I read this report a few times and there was no mention of a hostage or fugitive situation, or anything that could be construed as an imminent threat to the community. So why send the SWAT team? Because there were guns inside? That actually sounds like a pretty good reason not to raid a house guns a-blazin' if you ask me.

This November 5th is Ron Paul Day

Casey Khan at the LRC Blog asked for an update to the doggerel that accompanies the remembrance of Guy Fawkes failed attempt to blow up the Houses of Parliament.  I obliged him, right after I signed myself up for the big event planned by these guys.  He posted it to the LRC Blog this morning (enjambment all wrong, but hey, I'm not complaining.):

Remember, Remember the 5^th of November,
the pledges for reason and gold.
I can think of no treason
like pledging for reason
Worthy of men free and bold.

 

This fund-raising idea got me thinking this past weekend and after ignoring my wife for a couple of hours, I put together an article and submitted it to Lew Rockwell for publication (still pending).  In that first draft I decided to complete the work begun above to mirror the entire song sung on 11/5 each year. So, while Lew can't publish direct appeals for fund-raising on his site, I have no such restrictions here:

Remember, Remember the 5^th of November,
the pledges for reason and gold.
I can think of no treason
like pledging for reason
Worthy of men free and bold.

In Ron Paul did we entrust
to stop the booms as well as busts;
and the wars of endless time, the punishment
without a crime,
The taxes of which rob and fleece,
Both the living and deceased.

Come on Boys, Come on Girls, Join the Revolution!
Come on Women, Come on Men, Remember the Constitution!

We're at 6100 people and climbing.  The goal is 100,000 people on November 5th.  Even reaching 20% of this goal would be quite the achievement, if only a tactical nuke as opposed to a MIRV, to extend the money bomb analogy.  In my mind we can do this peacefully or not.  The choice is ours, and it's before us two weeks from today..

Ta,

Don't Shoot Yourself in the Foot

As I sat in the pediatrician's office this morning waiting to be called for my son's appointment, I realized how fortunate I'd been to read this article by John Lott over the weekend. Lott explained that some doctors have begun grilling children about their parents' legal gun ownership, implicitly suggesting that children are at higher risk of injury and death if parents own firearms and, in some cases, they've even reported parents to local authorities if their kids answered in the affirmative.

The office secretary asked my wife to fill out a questionnaire prior to our meeting with the doctor, and sure enough, about halfway down the page under the heading "Safety Risks" was the question, "Do you have guns in your house?" Given that I didn't see an option for "None of your goddamn business," I urged my wife to answer 'No'. If I don't have guns in the house, well, I suppose our pediatrician doesn't need to worry about my kid getting shot with one of them; if I do have them in the house, however, at least I'll know I'll be prepared to defend my wife and son in the event an intruder attempts to harm them.

Perhaps the doc simply wants to know if her patients live among firearms so she can reinforce to parents the importance of keeping them out of the hands of irresponsible children or teaching youngsters how to handle them appropriately. If that's the case, I'd say she's just doing her job. However, I'm just not willing to take the chance that there are ulterior motives at play, especially since the police state only continues to grow by the day. After all, if I do own firearms legally, they're already registered with the state. I'd hardly need my kid's pediatrician and her proxies in the government meddling in my private affairs.

Questioning anyone's gun ownership is appalling in itself because no one has the right to tell us what we can or cannot own if we mind our own business and initiate no violence against others. And it's especially misplaced considering the fact that there are many everyday household products that are much more likely to harm kids than guns are. In fact, according to Lott:   

In 2003, for the United States, the Centers for Disease Control reports that 28 children under age 10 died from accidental shots. With some 90 million gun owners and about 40 million children under 10, it is hard to find any item as commonly owned in American homes, as potentially as lethal, that has as low of an accidental death rate.

[...]

Over 1,400 children were killed by cars, almost 260 of those deaths were young pedestrians. Bicycle and space heater accidents take many times more children’s lives than guns. Over 90 drowned in bathtubs. The most recent yearly data available indicates that over 30 children under age 5 drowned in five-gallon plastic water buckets.

So do yourselves a favor. The next time someone asks you whether or not you keep guns in your house, you may want to verify their motives before answering. The government will usurp enough of our rights by force; no need to take the chance that we're volunteering our freedoms away, too.

Romney Needs a Bong Hit

Speaking before the Conservative Leadership Conference, Mitt Romney called marijuana a "plague to our country."

"I believe marijuana is the gateway to drug use that is a plague to our children and a plague to our country," he said. "Medical marijuana is a Trojan horse for getting marijuana legalized. That is the last thing America needs. We do not need more drugs in our school [sic] and homes."

I'm just taking a shot in the dark here, but I'd guess that people like Clayton Holton actually need more drugs in their homes, especially when the one that would help him best cope with continuous pain is the one Romney and the current administration are the most hell-bent against legalizing. Anything to retain control over the rest of us, though, right?

It's sad that so many people buy into Romney's banal rhetoric and sensationalism, especially given that he speaks in complete abstractions. Does Romney really believe that drug quality is secondary to quantity? What if a cure for AIDS, heart disease, or lung cancer were to hit the market tomorrow? According to Romney, you ought not take these new drugs because that would mean you'd have "more" in your medicine cabinet tomorrow than you do today.

What a complete buffoon. The biggest problem plaguing the country today is hardly marijuana or any other drug; it's power-hungry politicians who believe they have any right at all to tell peaceful Americans how to live their lives.

Down the Slippery Slope Highway

California has banned smoking in cars with minors. Beginning next year, drivers will be fined $100 if they are caught smoking in a vehicle when anyone under the age of 18 is present.

"Protecting the health of our children is among government's highest responsibilities," said the bill's author, state Sen. Jenny Oropeza, a Democrat. "It is clear that increasing public awareness about the dangers of secondhand smoke is the right thing to do."

Yes, about as clear as a cloud of smoke. I know kids under 18 never smoke, but what happens when a 16-year-old is caught smoking behind the wheel? Is he, like..fined like..double, dude?

Though I oppose these totalitarian bans, I do believe there's room for debate when discussing the property rights of children who find themselves subjected to their parents' secondhand smoke. However, this debate is automatically convoluted by the fact that most roads are the property of the state. Were they privately owned, there would be little question as to the right of the roads' owners to police the behaviors of the drivers on their roads.

Furthermore, whereas the owners of private roads would have to weigh the consequences of such a ban, the state does not. Private ownership assumes that the proprietors of the roads have a vested interest in traffic volume, whether for the benefit of collecting revenues in the form of tolls, drawing consumers to local businesses, etc. The government, on the other hand, has no such concern because it can confiscate money from taxpayers at the point of a gun whenever it feels like it. This lays the groundwork for tyranny.

For the record, whenever I pass someone on the road who's smoking in a car filled with kids, especially with the windows rolled up, I roll my eyes in disbelief that a parent would act so irresponsibly. I know plenty of people who smoke cigarettes, and most of them make sure they don't subject other adults to their smoke, much less their own children. On Sunday, my wife and I brought our newborn son home from the hospital and I would never let anyone smoke in front of him. In short, it should be common sense that smoke that has the potential to harm the smoker at the very least doesn't help others who are essentially forced to breathe it in.

However, this in no way means the government has or should have the moral authority to forcibly impose restrictions on smoking. For one thing, many lawmakers already believe they have the right to prevent adults from smoking in private bars and restaurants, even though no bar owner can force someone to patronize his establishment. Therefore, it's a little naive to think that politicians really care more about the health of car passengers than they do about simply extending the scope of their activism and collecting more and more revenue in the form of fines as a result of these petty bans.

Moreover, just as taxes on cigarettes disproportionately harm the poor, so will fines that result from cigarette smoking. I wonder how politicians who claim they're "protecting children" with this smoking ban might reconcile their actions with the fact that taking a hundred bucks out of the purse of a single mom consequently takes food out of the mouths of her kids.

The fact of the matter is, there are any number of things that are potentially harmful to children. Should we likewise ban parents from giving kids too much chocolate cake or soda, from letting them stay up too late at night, or from allowing them to play contact sports? More to the point, if it's OK for the government to ban smoking in front of kids in cars, how long before it's banned in living rooms across America? How long before SWAT teams come barging through our front doors on tips that Dad's smoking a cigar on the deck after dinner while he's watching Junior play in the yard?

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.    

CNN's Cafferty: Should We be Listening to Ron Paul?

Hit tip to the LRC Blog for this and the e-mail address:

CNN's Jack Cafferty just gave a wonderful report on Ron Paul, and has asked for his question of the day:

"Should more people be listening to what Ron Paul has to say?"

Tell him: [email protected]

I did just that.  Here's the e-mail I sent, please do something similar:

Mr. Cafferty,

Absolutely.  We ignore him at our own peril.  Dr. Paul is the only presidential candidate willing to speak truth to power and the only one with the answers to most of our problems.  With humility, dignity and keen analytic skills he's the embodiment of what we should seek out in a public servant.

If we want to see Ron meet his fund-raising target of $12 million for the 4th quarter, it'll only happen if we build on the momentum created by the last $5 million.   

Ta,

5 Million? The Ron Paul Revolution wants $100 million!

So, the 3rd quarter fundraising numbers are in and the Ron Paul Campaign took in just under $5.1 million.  That's an eye-popping number that has the MSM all a-flutter as to how something like that could conceivably happen. 

I mean, they didn't donate to his campaign after all, which, in my mind, is a very good thing.  Personally, most all of them aren't invited to the R-EVOL-ution, notably Chris "Oh God!" Matthews, who got whacked by John Stewart recently,and this Nora O'Donnell at BSNBC, who couldn't look less thrilled if she'd just found out her daughter was a stripper. 

In response to the very successful end of the quarter fund-raising campaign which drew in $1.2 million in 7 days, the Paul Campaign has raised the bar again, to $4 million per month for 3 months, so they can have a solid war chest on hand for the early primary states. 

Personally, I gave $100 of that $1.2 million last week, and am prepared to donate more during this next quarter as funds make themselves available.  But, on top of that I have signed this pledge to raise $100 million by January 1st.  The pledge is simple...

"I will donate $100 but only if 1,000,000 other people will do the same."

As of this writing the number of pledges stands at 967, but that rate is beginning to increase.  If the response from the news of his 3rd quarter totals is anything like the response from the 2nd quarter, I think the campaign will reach their fund-raising goals with ease.  If this pledge drive is successful, well, it would seem to me that the MSM and their masters will be the only ones not participating in the revolution.

Ta,