Smaller Government. Lower Taxes. More Freedom
Several weeks ago, when the Republican Party announced Gov. Palin’s selection, I remarked to a few folks that this might be enough to pull me back to the party.
I had previously announced to some of those same folks that I was voting Libertarian this year. I have come to the realization that the 2 leading parties are entirely too similar to each other, and that most members of those parties are more interested in beating the other party, than in what’s best for the country. The federal government has grown too large to be effective, and both leading parties are more concerned with how to maintain and grow that power than they are with trying to lead the country.
In 2004, I had also announced to friends that I was voting Libertarian. I panicked at the last minute though, and voted Republican. I said at the time that while I wasn’t sure that Bush was the best choice for the country, I was sure that Kerry was wrong, and I was concerned about Ohio going to Kerry.
This year, I thought I was in a similar position. I feel that neither Democrat nor Republican is what’s best for the country. Both tickets have issues. If I were pressed to choose from those two parties, I’d vote for McCain/Palin. I think they’re less wrong for the country than Obama/Biden.
But voting for what’s less wrong is still voting for the wrong thing. We’re paying far too many dollars in taxes to support a government with far too much power. The Libertarian Party best represents my feelings for what’s right for the country, so I’m voting Libertarian this year.
There are those who say that I’m throwing my vote away, or wasting it, and that the Libertarians have no chance of winning. Yet, this year, they are on the ballot in enough states to take 270 electoral votes, despite efforts to keep them from the ballot, or ignore electoral laws in favor of other parties.
Take a look at the Libertarian platform. See if you agree with the planks there. Decide if you want to support a government that is increasingly intrusive in our lives, or if you want to support a government that remembers who it works for.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Sugarmann
H/T FAP list and Arms and the Law…
A Federal Firearms License (FFL) is the license issued by the BATFE that allows a person to engage in the business of manufacturing, importing, or dealing in firearms.. Lots of people have them–some 50,000 or so at last count.
Josh Sugarmann is to guns as Fred Phelps is to gays. Sugarman founded the VPC, and used to be the communications director for National Coalition to Ban Handguns. He’s the guy who is popularly credited with developing and publicizing the term “assault weapon.”
What you now have to ask is “Why does someone like this have an FFL?” What possible justification would someone like Sugarmann come up with for having a federal license to buy and sell the thing he abhors so much, and wants to ban from pulbic ownership? Or does he think he’s special, and that only “certain people” should be able to own guns? To see his license for yourself, go to the EzCheck website, and enter 1 in the first field, 54 in the next, then 00725 in the last field.
It’s interesting to note that there’s no trade name listed on his FFL, which seems to be a violation of BATFE regs. One should also note that the premise and mailing addresses are the same as the business address for the Violence Policy Center.
I wonder if the District of Columbia allows gun dealers within the District. That would be ironic, given the ban on gun ownership that exists. Maybe Sugarmann is just getting ready to go into business when the ban is repealed?
Any comment from the VPC?
Red’s Trading Post has done some research into the zoning regs on Rhode Island Avenue NW. Seems like someone official should be looking into this. I’m sure it’s just a minor oversight.
Of Needles, Guns, and Electricity
SCOTUS recently decided to hear arguments over whether lethal injection violates the 8th Amendment’s prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment.
Lethal injection was developed due to concerns about other methods of execution, including hanging, electrocution, and shooting. Currently, 18 states use only lethal injection; 20 other states offer it as an option, to electrocution, firing squad, or electrocution. The concerns stem from a number of areas. Several executions have been delayed due to extreme difficulty in finding suitable veins; the condemned persons quite often have abused IV drugs in their past, causing issues with their circulatory system.
There is also a concern over the drugs typically used in the execution. First, an anesthetic is administered, then a drug to paralyze the condemned, and finally a drug to stop the heart. Several inmates have filed suit alleging that the anesthetic may not function completely, leaving the condemned aware of what’s going on around them, and unable to communicate.
Medical professionals have also expressed concern over taking part in executions, feeling that those who do so are violation the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm.
Throughout history, there have been issues with the manner of capital punishment. Hangings have accidentally decapitated the condemned or slowly strangled them, when the drop and body weight haven’t been figured properly. Firing squads have missed the target (the heart), causing the condemned to bleed out over several minutes, instead of dying a supposedly relatively painless death. Electrocutions have failed, sometimes spectacularly, causing fires, massive bleeding, or both. Even beheadings have had their share of problems, where the head of the condemned has seemed to remain aware even after the cutting, with the eyes looking around and blinking.
There is no perfect solution here. There are those who would order the condemned to die the same way they killed their victim, no matter what. In particularly heinous events, that may seem to extract some “extra” justice. But can there ever be “extra” justice? Such an idea confounds the definition of the word. A just punishment is exactly that: no more and no less than what the condemned deserves. I’d suggest that “making the punishment fit the crime” would itself be cruel and unusual, aside from impossible to implement. There are many people who claim to be willing to “pull the switch themselves,” but I suspect many of them would balk when push came to shove, or pull, as the case may be.
The punishment is supposed to be swift and relatively painless; the state is not supposed to be vengeful, but unemotional. Capital punishment is not about revenge; it’s actually admitting defeat in a way. The state is saying there’s nothing we can do to rehabilitate this person.
A firing squad is personnel-intensive. It currently typically requires four to eight people with particular training; not everyone who can shoot can shoot well. Not everyone who can shoot well can shoot dependably in such a situation. It would probably be possible, using current technology, to create a laser-equipped, semi-automated gun system that requires only one person to engage the system. The system could be designed such that the laser is the aiming point, and the gun barrels are servo-driven. The executioner would, once the condemned is in place in a chair, or against a post, use the laser to aim the system via remote control, then press a button to allow the system to fire in X seconds. To ensure rapid and complete execution, perhaps two barrels could be used, with one aimed to the head, and another aimed to the heart.
Given the personnel requirements for the other systems, and the potential of error that those personnel introduce, this system seems to be the easiest to implement. But what company wants to be known for the system?
Finally, in researching this article, I discovered another method being proposed: death by nitrogen asphyxiation, which seems technologically easier than my automated gun system, and probably more humane.
Keith Ellison, the Bible, and the Koran
Dennis Prager has written a scathing indictment of Representative Keith Ellison, D-Minn. Apparently Representative-elect Ellison wants to use a Koran for his swearing-in ceremony, instead of a Bible. Prager is outraged, and now the AFA is calling for Christians to floods Congress with demands for a law requiring the use of the Christian Bible during oaths of office for federal officeholders.
Hmm.
Yes, well, as soon as Mr Prager and Mr Wildmon can get around the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution(You know, that pesky part about “making no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof), they’ll have to deal with Article VI, which states in part:
no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States
Go on all you want about how this nation was founded by Godly men on Christian ideals. I won’t argue much with you.
But the keystone for this country’s founding was freedom, not faith. The founding fathers wanted to be free to things they weren’t allowed to do under the King’s laws. The Pilgrims were seeking the exact same thing: a place to practice their faith in freedom, without fear of persecution.
In looking at Representative-elect Ellison’s website, I certainly wouldn’t have voted for him. But I support his right to use whatever religious text he chooses for his swearing-in. Remember that he’s not swearing or affirming to uphold the Koran. He’s swearing or affirming that he will uphold the Constitution.
Thanksgiving Proclamation
This Thanksgiving Proclamation by Abraham Lincoln is the origin of our modern-day holiday orgy of meals, shopping, and football.
This was posted at Global Affairs (Thanks, Sarge), and as I read it, I was struck by the tone of the proclamation. Can you imagine the uproar today if a president wrote such piece? And I mean any president, not just President Bush.
No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.
(Emphasis added).
Wow. How our world has changed. A government official who invoked God in such a way today would be ridiculed by the opposing party (and perhaps by their own party), sued by the ACLU, and publicly berated by most non-Christian religious leaders. But then, there was no question of acknowledging God’s hand in our lives.
I don’t know how atheists and agnostics felt at the time. It would be interesting to explore that idea. So often today as Christians, it seems we are under attack for publicly expressing our beliefs. I’d be curious to look into how things were in that regard so many years ago.
Don’t Believe Everything You See
There’s a saying about only believing half of what you hear, and none of what you read. In relation, Robert Orben said “Smart is when you believe half of what you hear. Brilliant is when you know which half.”
In support of both of those comments, I give you this explanation of photography, editing, and captioning, and the video below. Both should be eye-opening.
Outsourcing Of A Different Color
So, who owns the road you’re driving on? (That’s a sort of rhetorical question. I hope you’re not driving while you’re reading this.)
Most of the time, you’d think it was the state or municipality where you’re driving. If you’re on the Indiana Toll Road, also known as I-80/I-90, well, you’d be wrong. An Australian-Spanish partnership recently paid $3.8 billion to lease the route from Indiana. The same group last year bought a 99-year lease on the eight-mile Chicago Skyway for $1.83 billion.
As far as I can tell, the government is still responsible for upkeep (snow plowing, maintanance, etc. So what’s the benefit? The governments receive immediate cash for other projects. But they lose the ongoing income that the tolls would provide. Granted, the federal highway fund is projected to be empty in about 5 years, so states are looking for ways to raise highway funds. But is this fiscally safe?
Orange County, California built a road in 1995 in conjunction with a French company. When OC realized they needed to expand their roads, they were blocked by the terms of the lease, so they had to buy out the lease. For $207.5 million.
This Fox News article goes into great detail. I’m not convinced outsourcing roads to a foreign company is the right thing to do. Libertarians often talk of private companies building roads and outsourcing other government functions. It’s probably not a bad idea, but let’s be careful how it’s done.
One Way To Get Out The Vote
Mark Osterloh believes a chance to win $1,000,000 will get Arizona residents out to the polls. In 2004, voter turnout was about 77% of all registered voters in Arizona. In 2002, when Osterloh ran for governor, it was 56%. Osterloh thinks the shot at a million bucks will get more people out to vote. He might run up against federal or state laws. One federal statute prohibits
making or offering to make “an expenditure to any person, either to vote or withhold his vote, or to vote for or against any candidate; and whoever solicits, accepts, or receives any such expenditure in consideration of his vote or the withholding of his vote.”
There is a similar state law already in place as well. But Osterloh and the former state solicitor general who helped him write the initiative both say their idea is not in conflict with the intent of existing laws.
It’s a neat idea, sort of, but do we really want people coming out to vote just for a chance at money? It suggests to me that they won’t be well informed voters, and that could cause much more harm than good.
Issue 31- SWCS Levy
Issue 31 is the proposed property tax levy for the South Western City School District. It’s a touchy issue around here. It’s a 9.7 mil proposal, which will add $297 per $100,000 of value. For me, that’s almost $1800. I can’t afford it. Add to it that this is the 3rd time in 7 months they’ve made this proposal, and you’ll see why it is going to be a rough couple of weeks.
Someone at the SW Columbus Area Homeschoolers group on Yahoo forwarded this blog entry, which is a fairly well thought-out pro-levy position.
I’ll pass on my thoughts as well. I’m voting against it. I did the last two times as well.
The board is being obstinate in its position that a property levy is the only way to fund SWCS. The district covers 11 different tax districts, and has some large businesses in the area. Why couldn’t they come up with a combined package? Why couldn’t they combine an income tax, property tax, and increased fees in the school system (including a small pay-to-play fee), to spread the burden out? In fact, the state just passed a bill that I think will allow them to tack on a sales tax as well (I’m not certain on that, but I believe it to be the case). A board member said last week that their hand are tied, and they don’t have any other way to fund the school system. But they do. They just are being short-sighted and unimaginative about it. Four other districts in central Ohio have income taxes. Did they call any of them for advice?
I attended the Choices 4 SWCS rally/meeting last week, and heard from several couples who have lived in the district for over 40 years, and have put a number of children and grandchildren through SWCS. They’re going to have to sell their houses if the levy passes, because they won’t be able to afford the increase. “But it’s only $300!” That’s per $100,000 of value. For a $200,000 house, that’s $600. “Well, if they can afford a $200,000 house, they should be able to afford another $600 in taxes.” But that house is paid for now, because they’ve owned it for 40 years. The value has gone up, but they’re on a fixed retirement income now.
Why are a majority of the positions to be cut those of teachers, and janitorial staff? Why is the district so top-heavy in administrators? Why aren’t some of the purely administrative positions being cut? SWCS is in the business of teaching. Why are they going to cut teachers? Why are they going to cut their production workers, the ones who make the product they’re selling? What layoffs are planned from district staff? Any?
Why hasn’t the board come up with a different plan? The November issue went on the ballot about 6 months out from the election, if I recall correctly. They’ve had then about a year to deal with the levy issue, and the best they can come up with is to ask us the same question we’ve already said no to twice? What have they been doing for the last year? Why didn’t they have a contingency plan in case the levy failed? Even my young children understand that if they ask me for something, and I say no them twice, they’d better come up with a different way to ask me. “Well, ask them again. They didn’t really mean no,” is not a contingency plan.
The scare tactics are more than annoying as well. The campaign chairman screaming at (Franklin) township trustees, when they rightly say they should not take a position on the levy? Trying to tell me that 21,000 student will be out on the streets unsupervised, and it’ll be my fault? I’m sorry, but I’m only the father to 6 kids who live in the district, so those are the only ones I’m directly responsible for. The parents of the other 20,994 can take care of their own. That number sounds more than a little inflated as well. Is Mr. Saxton assuming that the kindergartners will be out terrorizing the neighborhoods on their trikes and Big Wheels?
Come up with a better plan, and I will likely support it. But I can’t support something like this, that will hurt too many people.
The Chicken or the Egg?
Which came first? Jobs that don’t pay enough to live on, or the workers to do them?
Open immigration proponents say that illegal aliens do the jobs that most Americans don’t want to do, because of the low wages attached to those jobs. They claim that if the illegal aliens weren’t doing those jobs, then the wages would go up, and that would increase the costs of those goods (typically farm produce, fast food restaurants, or janitorial positions).
Is it true that most Americans don’t want the jobs due to low wages, or are the companies that employ illegal aliens paying the low wages because they can, because there are people who will work for little money?
As I follow the immigration issues being discussed at Global Affairs, and at various blogs around the net, it has occurred to me that there are real problems, and no easy solution. But until we admit that foreign governments are helping their citizens violate US immigration and drug laws, we’re not going to get anywhere. If that’s not tantamount to an invasion, I don’t know what is.
Does that mean I support a military response to Mexico’s actions? Not yet. But the Waite House needs to recognize and admit there’s a problem down there, and accept the help that its citizens are offering instead of calling those citizens “vigilantes.”