To My Apparent Superiors and Caretakers at the Washington State Patrol‏

And especially to the officer that pulled me over yesterday for talking on my cell phone while driving:

I have seen officers in your employ driving down the road at 20 miles per hour over the speed limit, while typing on the keypads of the laptop computers that are mounted in your cars, while keying the hand-held (NOT hands free!) radio in your car and writing down an address on a piece of paper at the same time, and yet you are going to try and tell me that I am a danger to myself and all those around me because I am having a conversation while driving (something I can do all the time, and legally, by the way, with people who are in the truck with me – I fail to see the difference).

I don’t care if you think that your training makes you capable of doing these things while my apparent lack of training does not. I’ve seen the basic training of patrol officers. In fact, I’ve participated in it through the “explorer” program back in the days when I thought being a gun-toting government enforcer might be a good career path. None of your training prepares you for distracted driving any more than my apparent lack of training does me. I’ve been talking on the phone while driving for almost 15 years, and you are welcome to look up my driving record to see how many accidents I’ve been in and how many infractions I’ve been issued. To save you the time, I will fill you in:

I’ve been in one traffic accident in 15 years, in which I was rear-ended by a driver who could not stop in time. I was aware that this was about to happen, had searched out all escape routes, found none, and managed to pull ahead as far as possible to dampen the collision before it came and yet still avoid hitting the car in front of me.

I’ve had one speeding ticket in 15 years, the circumstances of which I still feel make it fully excusable.

As long as you are willing to consider yourselves my better and not subject to the same laws that I am, I am not willing to follow whichever ukases you choose to not follow yourselves. I have no plans to endanger my family or those around me, and assure you that having a conversation while driving in no way does either.

Until one of your myrmidons catches me driving recklessly as a result of distraction from having a phone conversation while driving, and until you, too, choose to live up to the standards that you are empowered by the people to enforce, I hereby respectfully suggest that you get fucked.

That is all.

The Place of Gubmint

Because these are people that no sane person would willingly wish into their lives, we must demand that they effect our lives as little as possible. As I’ve said before and I will say again – the valid functions of Federal Government include:

1. Regulating commerce between the states and foreign interests. Not dictating. Regulating. As in, settling disputes and laying the ground rules on fair trade. This means commerce, as in, monetary transactions where goods and services change hands. Not the commonly-used definition, which is “anything that effects commerce at all” which is to more clearly say “everything”.


2. Maintaining a military for common defense.


3. Building the Interstate Highway system (the “Post roads” described specifically in the Constitution).


4. Coining money.


5. Ensuring that all states provide a republican form of governance (no, I don’t mean the Republican Party, you ninny, get an education).


6. Collecting taxes from the various states, NOT THE INDIVIDUAL, to pay for the above.

The valid functions of State government are:

1. Regulating commerce within the boundaries of the State. Not dictating. Regulating. Basically, setting up the UCC.


2. Building and maintaining state roads and highways.


3. Protecting the commons within each state from exploitation in whichever way is deemed most expedient.


4. Collecting taxes from the individual, including those taxes that will be passed on to the feds. This allows the state to act as an intermediary between the feds and the people to check federal power.


5. Setting about laws and codes, sticking to malum in se as much as possible, and malum prohibitum as sparingly as possible, to regulate the actions of those citizens who would not self-regulate without rule of law, and to punish those who choose to not abide by these rules.


6. Provide a state-wide police force, restricted in power to only assist local police forces with technical needs when requested, investigate local police action if needed, and with no direct police powers over the people, themselves, except for over the local police.


7. Protect private property rights and defend the individual citizen from all violations of his rights.


8. Setting educational standards to be met by schools.

The valid functions of local (county, city) governments are:

1. local codes and ordinances, including zoning, land use, and so forth, but heavily restricted to only the most basic, common sense rules. No factories in residential zones, and so forth.


2. Provide a police force that is the only force that has direct power to police the individual, whose power is checked by the state police, and who’s mission statement, to serve and protect, not to discover and punish, is drilled into their heads every single dy, and fire anyone who does not fall into lockstep with this creed.


3. Providing schools by whichever means is most practicable, with the caveat that vouchers for taxes paid for public schools shall be issued to whomever wishes to opt out of public schooling and use private schools, instead.


4. Provide for local roads and maintenance.


5. provide for utilities, water, sewer, etc by whichever means is most expedient.


6. Lay taxes on the people to pay for all of the above.

On the USAPA

On the conservative blogs on which I routinely commented prior to the creation of this little crap blog, and prior to the election of Barack Obama, I was constantly taking flak for being staunchly against almost every provision in the US PATRIOT Act. I told them that the Department of Homeland Security would become the Department of Homeland Tyranny, with no hyperbole intended. I told them that getting the Federal Government involved in airport security would not increase security, only offenses against innocent travelers and additional hassles (seriously, watch the whole thing. PLEASE!) and bureaucracy. I told them that the wiretapping provisions in the act would only be restricted to terrorist uses as long as the definition of “terrorist” remained inside the realm of reason, which it did, for about three months after passage. I warned them that all manners of violations of rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights could begin, unrestricted by any oversight whatsoever, as soon as they branded you a “terrorist.” I was right.

Of course, they told me I was an idiot for assuming that George Bush would ever see me as a terrorist. I asked them if they thought George Bush was going to be the president forever. They shut up quickly.

Now, we have Janet Napolitano using the PATRIOT Act against “right-wing terrorists” who the DHS defines as people with right-wing bumper stickers on their 4-wheel drive trucks, and returning veterans. It is being used to wiretap baby food smugglers in Maine (note that they said he had terrorist connections, but never backed that up. Convenient, right?). It is being used to deny US Citizens their due process and their constitutional rights simply because they are decided to be terrorists. It is being used to justify warrantless searches and seizures of property, in direct violation of the 4th amendment, simply because a person has been branded a “terrorist” by the loosest interpretation of the term possible.

If there is some chance that someone, somewhere might fear you, then you are a terrorist. I cannot find the link to the old news story about the drug dealer in Oklahom who was denied his rights under the 4th and 5th amendements because his neighbors were scared of him. I can guarantee that there are people in San Franscisco that would fear me and my beliefs, so I am a terrorist. Imagine that. I was right all along.

My Stance on Abortion

I was reading my own blog (I know, lame…) the other day and realized that I had made statements on the Dr. Kermit portions of the blog that would have people believing that I am anti-abortion and pro-governmental restriction on abortion, and that has prompted some to claim that I am a hypocrite and not a true libertarian.

I think I need to clarify a bit.

My stance on abortion is more nuanced than being strictly “for” or “against”. I will start by stating emphatically that I do not believe that the government should be involved in the decision at all, until 25 weeks. It is a valid function of the government to protect an individual from harm by another individual. At 25 weeks, the baby is viable and can live outside the womb, and so should be treated as an individual and protected against being murdered just as the government would protect any individual against being murdered. There is no issue with the baby trampling the mother’s rights at that point, either, because the mother is the one who made the decisions that got her pregnant, and is living with the consequences of HER choices, not the baby’s infringement on her rights.

Before 25 weeks, however, abortion is none of the government’s business.

My personal stance on abortion is that I think it should be avoided at all costs, whenever possible. There are other options, and I think that we could virtually eliminate it as a problem by teaching our children differently about sex and its consequences. The problem is that many people want to ONLY teach our kids about abstinence, and then we teach them about how their lives will be ruined – RUINED, I say! – by an unwanted pregnancy. This stuck with my wife for so long that we were thirty before she even wanted to try and have kids, because she was convinced that a baby would ruin her life by the after-school specials and the darkened-face “horror” stories told by her health teacher in High School.

If we were to throw out abstinence only education, and welcome an education that teaches that there are ways to keep from getting pregnant in the first place, and failing that, alternatives to abortion, like adoption, which are more upstanding and less destructive to life, then abortion may not be so prevalent. If we were to let our kids know that there is support, and a pregnancy won’t ruin your life (just change it), and it may be a blessing, well, then, abortion might just become quite a bit more rare. What I’m saying is that instead of scaring the hell out of these kids, lets educate them, so that they aren’t as apt to get pregnant (my wife and I lived together for 12 years without getting pregnant, and did not get pregnant until 4 months after we chose to do so – it is possible!) in the first place, and if they do get pregnant, they aren’t so scared by the prospect of it that their first reaction is to kill their unborn child.

My suggestion is that parents stop having these unrealistic expectations that their sons and daughters will remain celebate (did you at their age? Really?) until they are married, and take a more proactive approach, including helping them acquire contraception prior to finding out that they are sexually active, and also by talking with them about the parent’s expectations and what they would like to see the child do, while making it clear that they love them no matter what.

I think that the greatest crime of all is that we have 17 year old kids making life altering decisions out of fear or sheer terror instead of based on rational fact, because they have been taught some perverted version of the truth, and as a result, they will have to live for the rest of their lives with the horrible decision that they made at 17 years old, because they were scared shitless instead of informed.

And finally, no, I do not support any attempts by any governmental fiat, legislation, regulation, or otherwise, to prevent or regulate the provision of abortions to anyone who wants one prior to 25 weeks. It isn’t their place, and they need to be taught their place.

I am TJIC

If you haven’t read the flop about TJIC, a fellow blogger (and the guy who inspired me, indirectly, to start a blog that deals with personal and food-related topics as well as politics and goings-on) who has found himself in a bit of hot water over some pretty crass statements that he made on his blog, then I suggest you link over to Borepatch, who has a done a better job than I of summing up the issue. Also, of note, is Mark Alger’s nice post over at Eternity Road and BabyTrollBlog . Go. Read. I’ll wait.

Done? Okay…

First things first:

1.) I disagreed with TJIC in his comments section over making the comment that he made. It was rude, crass, and if I were Gabrielle Giffords’ husband, I think I’d be looking to punchisize* his face.

2.) I do not think that TJIC broke any laws with the statement. But beyond that, this was a tasteless joke, as TJIC made very clear in a subsequent posting where he stated that he did not support the shooting of congresspeople in 2011, and that it was intended to be a “What do you call 100 lawyers congresspeople at the bottom of the ocean? A good start!” type off-color, tasteless joke. TJIC even made a good argument for his crassness on his blog (which has been taken down so I can’t link) that was basically “They spend their lives dictating my life, infringing on my freedom, and pretending that they are my superiors, which I think is pretty crass, so you’ll forgive me if I, also, am a bit crass.” I can’t disagree with that statement, although I’m not sure I could be that crass when the lives of real people have been so horribly shattered as in Tucson.

3.) The police department told TJIC that if he surrendered his guns, they would not revoke his LTC. He did, and they suspended it, anyway. So, I believe that this was a case of illegal confiscation through deceit, even though TJIC willingly surrendered his guns.

4.) This is proof of what I’ve been saying all along – registration inevitably leads to confiscation. I’ve never heard any hoplophobe** explain to me what the purpose of registering guns is if it isn’t the eventual confiscation of said guns. There is no purpose to registration other than to let the authorities know where the guns are, so they know which doors to knock on the instant they get their first totalitarian impulse.

*Punchisize - I like to make up words - sue me.

**Hoplophobe - I didn't make this word up. I promise. Look it up. I like the word hoplophobe. It works much better than “anti-gunner” or “person who is against 2nd Amendment rights”, or any other convoluted method of naming them. The word means “one who fears weapons” and is broken down as such. “Hoplo” is from Greek origins. It has come to mean “weapon” but started from the root word “hoplon” which was the term used to describe the shield used by Greek heavy infantry starting in about the 6th century, BC. A Greek soldier was then known as a “Hoplite”. “Phobe” is of obvious origins. I hope I don’t need to explain that to you.

Poverty

There is no excuse for being impoverished save one: mental illness. Any other excuse is just that; an excuse; window dressing; a way for a man who has subconsciously realized that he is a lazy do-nothing to justify his ways. If a man wants to work less than his neighbor, that is fine, but then he needs to accept his lack of wealth without demanding that his neighbor, who works more than he does, make up for the deficit.

I challenge all readers to come up with a reason for poverty that is of no fault of the impoverished person, and did not result in a conscious decision by that person that lead to his being impoverished (other than mental illness). The formula is simple:

1.) Work 40 hours a week, minimum (again, even if employment isn’t available, you can still work. Fix lawnmowers on the side. Mow lawns, for chrissakes). Show up when you say you are going to, and work until you are finished. Learn a skill on the job if you can, but if not, learn one in your spare time and start putting it to work wherever you can.

2.) Put off having children until you can afford them (and really, in this day and age, is this really that hard?).

3.) Spend less than you earn, and eschew the use of credit except for major purchases like cars and housing (and even then, use it smartly and sparingly).

4.) Ensure that you insure. Life insurance isn’t strictly necessary unless you have dependents, but what is necessary is good disability insurance and a health insurance plan to cover care above and beyond routine checkups. That way, if you get hurt, or sick, you don’t fall into poverty as a result.

Four steps. That’s it. If you do these three things, you will succeed. I know several poor people, and to a person, they all have the same attitudes. Their jobs are inconveniences that they tend to not show up to regularly, meaning they have a hard time keeping a job, and those jobs that they can get are low paying and typically net low hours (they work an average of 20 hours per week). They use drugs and alcohol to excess, and show up for work hung over, and even drunk or stoned. They spend every moment that they can playing video games, not learning new skills or knowledge. A few of them have multiple children with multiple different women and when they do manage to earn a bit of money, most of it is garnished by the state for back child support. All of these are personal choices that they made. They CHOSE to be poor. I don’t feel sorry for them, nor do I feel a moment’s worth of responsibility to help them in any way.

I, on the other hand, put in 60 plus hours a week at my job and at other vocations and value building activities (like home improvements, for instance). I show up every day. I don’t drink to excess, don’t use drugs, and don’t even own a video game console. I am 30, and my first child is due in March. My life is 85 to 90 percent work and 15 to 10 percent leisure/play, whereas their lives are mostly leisure and play and very little work. Yet, when the final calculations come down, the government says that I OWE THEM??? I guess that is what they mean by “fairness”.

Sick, Wrong, and Gore-ey‏

All of you know who Al Gore is right? He’s the environmentalist guy that lives in a house, by himself, that is big enough to fit four of my houses into, and uses 20 times the energy my house uses (oh yeah, and he has 4 houses like this, too); who jet-sets around the globe in a private jet; and who spends all his time telling us that using energy is evil and should not be done. So, yeah, that hypocrite.

Remember his claim to fame?

No, not inventing the internet. The other one. The Love Canal. How he was all about cleaning it up and saving the poor residents of Niagara from the evil corporations that used them as a cheap place to dump toxic chemicals? You remember? You know the story. It is an Erin-Brokovich like story, where the evil company was trying to save a few dollars by killing everyone that lived around it with toxic chemicals. Remember?

Did you know that that was all a lie? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal

Pretty much everyone has the straight skinny on what really went down, but there above, is a link to a Wikipedia page that sums it up pretty well. If you don’t want to link, here is my condensed version.

Mmmmkay…

So there was this guy named Love who wanted to dig a canal through Niagara for some reason. He started it but didn’t finish it. In the 20’s, 30’s, 40’s, and 50’s, the government used the unfinished, dry canal as a place to dump chemicals and waste products from military/industrial sources (including waste from the Manhattan Project, sooooo, yeah, probably some pretty nasty stuff). In the late 40’s, and early 50’s, they started allowing other companies to dump there. A chemical company named Hooker got a permit to dump there, and created a clay-lined, haz-mat landfill per standard practice (this is still more or less the standard practice for these things, even today), and with government permission also dumped a bunch of stuff there. By the late 50’s, they were finished dumping there, and backfilled the landfill to essentially reclaim the site. It became a big field, with no leaks, and no problem. Oh, yeah, and also by this time, they were the sole user of the site, and had somehow by then also become the owner of the property.

The local government became avaricious in regards to the site. They wanted it to build a school or some shit. Hooker told them that it was unsafe to use the site for anything because of all the stuff, both known and unknown, that had been dumped there over the last 50 years. The school district, replete with their avarice, told them that they did not care, that they wanted the land, and would take it via eminent domain if necessary. After months of arguing with them and warning them that it was not a good idea to use the land for anything, the school district stood by their guns, so Hooker agreed to sell it to them for $1, with the caveat that the school district sign a piece of paper holding them harmless for damages caused by the school district messing with the property, and also strongly recommended that they not build on the land.

The school district built on the land anyway. In the process, they breached the integrity of the clay lining of the landfill, and a spill occurred. Bam. Love Canal is national news.

Now, here is the real gasper. Hooker was held liable for the mess. That’s right. Hooker. So let me lay it out for you in summary:

1.) Hooker was LEGALLY using a government dump site with permission from the government to do so.
2.) The government signed rights for the site over to Hooker, who continued to legally and safely dump there, per the permit that they had to do so. The dump site was contained and built to the standards necessary to contain such a dump site.
3.) The government demanded the property back to be used for development, which Hooker advised against strongly, and only allowed it to happen with their protest and after the government released them from liability for any spills.
4.) The government, not listening to Hooker, dug and breached the landfill, and created a horrible mess despite Hookers warning that just such a thing would surely happen if they didn’t listen to them.
5.) after all of this, Hooker is held responsible (when it cant even be proven that the waste that was released was even Hooker’s waste to begin with – remember, the government dumped there for years, too). This AFTER it was established that dumping there was completely legal, done in a manner that was to the standards of the time and safe, and that the site was rememdiated and left in a condition where it would not leak if someone didn’t f^&* with it. The government f#$% with it, and now it is Hooker’s fault.

How does that work again? Why would anyone want to start a business in their country when you can operate legally for 50 years, then have everything you did get undone by government meddling, and then get blamed for it?

And you people want these people to have control over your healthcare? What the hell?

What Does Liberalism Have to Show for 50 Years?

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=557701&p=2

Awesome. Go and read.

Facists Just Can't Quit

Goddamned busybody people. Look, if you don’t want your kid to have a Happy-Meal, then don’t buy him one. How f-ing hard is that? I think that this entire push towards stopping marketing to kids is because parents are sick of their kids bugging and begging for things they saw on TV, and can’t say no. If you are a shitty parent, don’t come crying to me, and don’t go around trying to prevent a private enterprise from doing something that is completely legal and entirely ethical (unless it is marketing to kids, period, that bothers you. Are you going after Mattel next?) just because you don’t like it. When are you going to learn that just because you don’t like something does not give you the right to say it can’t be done? http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-12-15/mcdonald-s-happy-meal-toys-assailed-in-lawsuit.html

And they call us “cons” the fascists, when they would love nothing more than to give the government a say in everything that every business does. I can’t think of a more clear definition of a fascist at the moment – can you?