Boortz makes a good case for getting rid of the DOE

Not that I have been agreeing with Boortz's move towards populism lately (that's my characterization of it - though others are free to disagree). However, he makes another really good point about Federally funded education. I'm all for getting rid of the Department of Education we keep throwing more and more money into a system that is rigid and inflexible, expensive, ineffective and that benefits teacher's unions and education lobbyists more than it benefits "THE CHILDREN."

RUSSIAN EDUCATION INDOCTRINATION

Russia's Ministry of Education has created a series of updated, pro-Putin textbooks for all of its little government subjects ... I mean students. Here are a few lessons from the new Russian history textbook:

1. The abolition of directly elected regional governors was a good thing because Russians cannot govern themselves.

2. The re-privatization of Yukos means Russia no longer has oligarchs.

3. Georgia gave up its independence in 2004 with its presidential elections and is now illegitimate.

4. Stalin was an "effective manager," taking Russia from the plow to the atomic bomb in just a few years. His repressions were necessary to mobilize for war and industrialize Russia so quickly. Same goes for Brezhnev. Krushchev, Yeltsin and Gorbachev on the other hand were bad because they were weak.

Doesn't that make you feel better about government education in our country? It shouldn't. It should scare you. It's the same concept, folks.

If you don't believe that this same type of skewing of history isn't occurring in our public school system right now, albeit arguably less blatant, you are naive at best.

How the Government Stole Our Airwaves and why the FCC Sucks.

I'm so tired of hearing the FCC whine about the status of television. It has so little regard for free speech, free expression or just plain common sense, that I must admit I revel in the recent decision by the courts that prevents the FCC from fining stations when someone accidentally lets slip a bad word on live television.

The FCC isn't necessary at all. Frequencies should be owned by individuals. The only way the government should intervene is to enforce the property rights of the owners - much like you call the sherrif when someone trespasses on your lands.

Here is a little history of the FCC:

Radio voice broadcasts began in the US in November 1920, and within two years, there were 576 licensed broadcast stations.

In 1922, Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover initiated a series of annual radio conferences, attended by major broadcasters and orchestrated by the Department of Commerce. At the first such conference, L.R. Krumm of Westinghouse complained that it was "perfectly possible to establish a so-called broadcasting station for about $500 or $1000 initial investment." The programming from these upstarts consisted of "nothing but phonograph records, and that sort of station can interfere very disastrously with such a station as we are trying to operate." And just in case his meaning wasn't clear, Krumm added, "I believe 12 good stations, certainly a maximum of 15, would supply most of the needs of the country."

Hoover began to withhold additional licenses, claiming the need to prevent interference among broadcasters. A 1923 federal court case, Hoover v. Intercity Radio, denied him the authority to withhold licenses, but allowed the Secretary to select times and wavelengths so as to minimize interference.

For the next three years, Hoover continued to ration broadcasting licenses by assigning frequency, geographic location, and time of day (in keeping with the Intercity verdict), and even by refusing (in defiance of Intercity) to process new license applicants.

Hoover's annual broadcast conferences continued and in 1925 they outlined a policy agenda in which they advocated a "public interest" standard for licensing.

So you see, the FCC was really created to protect friends of the government from having to actually compete in the market. Read the whole article - it really is insightful and explains how Hoover, when his regulatory scheme was challenged, created chaos by refusing to protect the property rights of frequency owners. Now, the FCC must scream about indecency and about the lack of shows that are beneficial to our children and our national education because, if these things were really in demand, we wouldn't need the FCC (What kind of backwards logic is that?).

Here is a great quote that sums up the attitude of the censors and bureaucrats at the FCC:

If ever there was an appropriate time for Commission action, this was it. If we can’t restrict the use of the words 'fuck' and 'shit' during prime time, HOLLYWOOD will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want."

Wow. That guy really values free speech.

Kid H.

Link via Hit & Run

Germany adopts Stasi scent tactic

No - the entire world is not on a slippery slope to end civil liberties - or, of course, it might be. Check this out:

Sniffer dogs can use the collected odours to pick out individuals

The German authorities are compiling a database of human scents to track down possible violent protesters at the G8 summit in June.

The method, once used by East Germany's secret police, the Stasi, involves collecting scent samples in advance from selected targets.

The scents are then passed to police equipped with sniffer dogs who can pick the individuals out amid a crowd.

Past G8 summits have suffered serious unrest, which Germany is keen to avoid.

A state that adopts the methods of the East German Stasi, robs itself of every... legitimacy Petra Pau, opposition politician

The Interior Minister, Wolfgang Schaeuble, has defended the authorities' decision to use scent tracking, saying it is a useful tool to identify suspects.

Kid H.

Link via Hit & Run

Rudy G in the land of the free

I'm stealing this post in its entirety from the awesome blog Nobody's business. Just wanted you all to see it before you decide to vote for Rudy in any upcoming election or primary.

Every petty dictator should have these Giuliani quotes embroidered on a nice decorative pillow. And every lover of liberty should remind him- or herself that these words were not lifted from Orwell's 1984, but were uttered in all apparent seriousness by a man who is a top contender for the Republican nomination.

"Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."

He might have left it at, stopping short of turning an already dicey sentiment into something certifiably disgusting, but no:

"Freedom is about authority."

I swear that's what he said. Jawdropping.

My previous Giuliani assessment here.

Just thought you guys should know that real freedom is giving up liberty to the government - at least according to Giuliani. Also, if everyone would please compare Rudy's mayoral approval ratings in New York prior to 911 and post 911, that might show you something. Essentially, he benefitted from the tragedy by crying at the right times and calling the right people heroes. I think there are a whole lot of people who could have done that, yet somehow this jerk-off is now one of the leading candidates for the presidency.

Montgomery County, MD is first county to Ban Trans-Fats

Wow. If the city council had only banned idiots first, then we'd never have fun legislation like this.

The Montgomery County Council unanimously approved a ban on partially hydrogenated oils in restaurants, supermarket bakeries and delis yesterday, becoming the first county in the nation to restrict artery-clogging trans fats.

The pride factor of being the first county to ban transfats is probably causing dancing in the streets down in Rockville.

The Montgomery regulation could have a broader reach because of the county's sweeping definition of what it means to be in the business of serving food. Religious establishments, schools and grocery store salad bars are subject to the county's regulation.

Sweet, there goes your local bake sales to raise money. Bye bye scrumptious church dinners. Seriously, how is this supposed to be a real benefit to us? Regular fats, for lack of a better term, aren't much healthier (if at all) than transfats - and transfats might taste better (depending on your personal tastes). Don't think about that question too hard, the government is here to provide us the answer.

Council member Duchy Trachtenberg (D-At Large), the bill's chief sponsor, said she thinks the food industry will be able to adjust. Some Montgomery establishments, such as the Silver Diner and Marriott Corp., stopped using trans fats voluntarily.

"The goal is to protect the public health," she said. "People want to know what they are eating."

What a crock! People probably do want to know what they're eating Duchy (and isn't that name rife with irony). However, you idiots are telling people that it doesn't matter if they know what they're eating - they still can't have it.

Gene Wilkes, owner of Tastee Diners in Bethesda and Silver Spring, said the ban will force him to eliminate certain items, such as lemon meringue pie and chocolate cream pie, which he buys from a supplier. His popular biscuits, made in bulk at the diners from a General Mills mix that contains trans fats, will be a no-no. He said he'll begin making them from scratch, most likely.

Wilkes said he has begun to use healthier oil for deep-frying and grilling. And soon, butter, not less costly margarine, will be on the hundreds of pieces of toast his 24-hour establishments serve each day. But he is annoyed about the treatment of packaged foods.

Wow, it's not like butter is a super-healthy alternative. Plus, this ban eliminates two awesome pies. "Restaurateurs say that it could be difficult for them to find healthy replacements for trans fatty oils and that they might have to use artery-clogging palm and coconut oils or butter."

Listen folks, it isn't about making us more healthy. It isn't about junk science or anything like that. It's about local legislators that must appear to be doing something, anything, to justify their continued existence. When these guys run out of actual important issues to deal with, or they can't find the answer, they always, always, always end up doing something idiotic either for the general well-being of the public (like it or not), or for the children.

Let's start looking at this type of legislation for what it is. It isn't just authoritarianism or nanny-statism (though it is those things). It is something that verges on communism. The ultimate goal is to make everyone the same, only they can't call it communism or even socialism, so they just keep eliminating all our choices and our liberties until eventually the choices we get to make are the same exact choices everyone gets to make . . . and those aren't really choices at all.

You think I'm kidding or maybe going overboard? Well, now you can't have transfats or foie-gras. You can't buy toilets that really work anymore, washing machines are 35% more efficient and who knows how much less effective, CAFE standards mean you can't really get the car you might want, soon you won't be able to buy lightbulbs that don't give you headaches, you can't use ephedra to lose weight (or use in tea like the Mormons), you can't smoke, you can't drink the liquor you want in the way you want, you can't build many types of model rockets, you can't really own and carry a gun. Seriously, I could go on all day. I'll say this, unless you're Bill Gates or Donald Trump, etc., I'm willing to bet that your house isn't big enough to store the entire Code of Federal Regulations - then add in the state and local stuff, yet somehow, you're supposed to know all this stuff and abide by it. And, lest you forget, those codes ain't getting any smaller.

Kid H.

Link via this post at Hit & Run.

Also thanks to commenter John on that post for getting my list started.

PATRIOT Act - the view from 5 years later

Interesting article on some of the failures of the Patriot Act, which I've criticized from day one. I know 911 was a terrible event, and I was all for exacting retribution, but it was painfully obvious that the PATRIOT Act was a naked power grab by the government. Anyway, there were some who criticized it initially and discussed potential abuses. Here is an excerpt from a longer article assessing some of the initial criticisms (they were right).

In March 2007, FBI Inspector General Glenn Fine released a report that undermined that argument. It turned out the bureau had underreported the number of requests for National Security Letters, had issued letters before exhausting other options, and had issued them to Americans who were not the targets of ongoing investigations. In short, the FBI had abused its new powers.

“That vindicated my concerns over that provision of the PATRIOT Act,” says Sen. Larry Craig, an Idaho Republican who had joined Sununu and most Democrats in the 2005 filibuster. “Not because I have reason to believe that FBI agents were acting with ill intent, but it does show that we shouldn’t create shortcuts when it comes to civil rights. Mistakes will, and did, happen.”

That scandal was soon chased from the headlines by something even more incendiary: The White House had fired eight competent U.S. attorneys for, among other things, not working hard enough to prosecute Democrats. Washington State’s John McKay hadn’t dug into claims of Democratic voter fraud in a governor’s race; New Mexico’s David Iglesias, the model for Tom Cruise’s character in A Few Good Men, wasn’t willing to rush an indictment against a Democratic state senator before an election. And the power that let the president replace them with cronies was enshrined in the PATRIOT Act.

Presidents had always set up a revolving door for the U.S. attorneys at the starts of their terms, and they had the right to shuffle them out and nominate new blood at any time. But PATRIOT effectively eliminated Congress’ role in approving those replacements, by removing restrictions on the length of service for interim U.S. attorneys and allowed them to serve indefinitely without confirmation by the Senate. As first liberals, then conservatives started calling for the attorney general to fall on his sword, the Senate voted to strip the president of that power.

It took its time, but the political class has finally lost confidence in its belief that the government had done the right things to secure America after 9/11. As scandal piled on top of scandal, it became harder, then impossible, to deny that the powers granted to the executive could be abused by some corrupt actors or by agencies enamored of their own secrecy.

This impacts the way Washingtonians play out the decade’s big hypothetical scenario: What happens if we get hit again? How will politics change after another 9/11? The thinking had been that politics would pivot right back to the frenzied “whatever my government wants” attitude of 2001. But the validation of civil libertarians’ fears has changed all that.

“This is a case where I can say ‘I was right all along,’ ” says Sununu. “But I am not happy about it.”

KH

Sick to my stomach

I know no one really reads this site. I know I'm not really doing anything by posting here, BUT it makes me feel that way (maybe I am a liberal after all).... but I need to let someone, anyone else know about this disgusting shit the government is doing to us...

A kid builds a 3d map of his school for a 3d game. Teachers find out. Tell the FUCKING POLICE. They arrest him. The find a WEAPON in his house... A FUCKING HAMMER.... Then they ship him off to a FUCKING RE-EDUCATION CAMP!!!!!

IN AMERICA!!!!!!

WHAT CRIME DID HE COMMIT??????

I feel like I'm going to vomit.

Otter

Story was Slashdotted...
Full Text as Follows...

Chinese Community Rallies Behind Student Removed From Clements
by Bob Dunn, Apr 30, 2007, 11 57 am

Members of the area Chinese community have rallied behind a Clements High School senior who was removed from the campus and sent to M.R. Wood Alternative Education Center after parents complained he'd created a computer game map of Clements.

About 70 people attended the Fort Bend Independent School District's April 23 meeting to show support for the Clements senior and his mother, Jean Lin, who spoke to FBISD Board trustees in a closed session.

While an agenda document does not specify details, the board is holding a special meeting tonight to address the boy's actions and the discipline that was meted out as a result, sources close to the matter say. The boy's name was not identified last week, and the district has declined to discuss his case.

Richard Chen, president of the Fort Bend Chinese-American Voters League and a acquaintance of the boy's family, said he is a talented student who enjoys computer games and learned how to create maps (also sometimes known as "mods"), which provide new environments in which games may be played.

The map the boy designed mimicked Clements High School. And, sources said, it was uploaded either to the boy's home computer or to a computer server where he and his friends could access and play on it. Two parents apparently learned from their children about the existence of the game, and complained to FBISD administrators, who investigated.

"They arrested him," Chen said of FBISD police, "and also went to the house to search." The Lin family consented to the search, and a hammer was found in the boy's room, which he used to fix his bed, because it wasn't in good shape, Chen said. He indicated police seized the hammer as a potential weapon.

"They decided he was a terroristic threat," said one source close to the district's investigation.

Sources said that although no charges were filed against the boy, he was removed from Clements, sent to the district's alternate education school and won't be allowed to participate in graduation ceremonies with classmates.

"All he did was create a map and put it on a web site to allow students to play," Chen said. "The mother thinks this is too harsh."

FBISD officials declined to comment on the matter Monday. "Our challenge is, people in the community have freedom of speech and can say what they want, but we have laws" covering privacy issues, especially involving minors, that the district has to respect, said spokeswoman Nancy Porter.

Speakers at the FBISD Board's April 23 meeting alluded to the Clements senior's punishment, and drew a connection to the April 16 shootings at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, in which a Korean student shot and killed 32 people.

The Asian community "faces new pressures" as a result of the shootings, William Sun told board members. "We urge the school and community not to label our Asian students as terrorists."

"We should teach our children not to judge others harshly" and not to target people as being a threat because of their race, said Peter Woo, adding that the school district should lead the way in such efforts.

But Chen said Monday he and other community members don't consider FBISD's actions in the case to be racially motivated, and don't think they blew the incident out of proportion.

"They all think the principal has to do something - but how much? We do understand with the Virginia Tech incident...something has to be done," Chen said. "Someone just made a mistake, and we think the principal should understand that."

Why I won't Vote for Rudy...

9/11 took him into the lime light. His attacks on private ownership of guns and his draconian approach to New York's undesirables should have put made him public enemy number one... Anyway here is a quote from a radio address he made in 2000...

Otter

It's really in your best interests . . . really

If protecting you from terrorists means breaking into your home, copying your hard drive, tapping your phones, maybe even planting a hidden camera in your shower stall, that’s the price you pay for freedom, right? You wouldn’t want your protector slowed down by something pesky like, say, a warrant or probable cause — because then the terrorists win. You do see, don’t you? If not, President Bush's National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell, who oversees all 16 U.S. spy agencies, might be able to arrange a long vacation in a tropical paradise.

McConnell is circulating proposed legislative changes that would give the spy chief’s 100,000 employees the powers to spy on you more easily— for your own good:

Heh. Indeed (wait, is that trademarked?)

Kid Handsome

Otter Hates Hugo Chavez

CARACAS: Many Venezuelans shrug off President Hugo Chavez's calls to create a new man through socialist revolution.

But a decree limiting alcohol sales for much of Holy Week has got their attention.

"Don't Mess With My Hooch!" blared the main headline in yesterday's El Nuevo Pais tabloid.

The Chavez Government says the law is necessary to diminish the fatalities from drink-driving, but that hasn't stopped the protests.

On Margarita Island, revellers and liquor store owners painted car windshields with the words "No to the Dry Law".

The sharp reactions to the alcohol curb is in stark contrast to the lack of interest that greeted corruption scandals over attempts by Venezualan Supreme Court judges to avoid paying income tax on their bonuses, and claims government officials illegally siphoned off millions from state infrastructure deals with Iran.

"I've been in this country 40 years, and this is the first time I've seen this," said Antonio Gouveia, 54, a Portuguese immigrant who owns a bar.

"Holy Week is the best week of the year because people don't work, they go out and spend."

Mr Gouveia described the curb on alcohol sales as "something for madmen".

Mr Chavez, a teetotaller, appears to have touched a nerve with the decree, which initially confused many people and caught them off-guard.

Kid Handsome - link via To the People

Gingrich - the "Romantic Choice"

I like his platform to some extent.

He's also incredibly intelligent. He's proposing cutting-edge solutions to vexing policy issues like health care and the tax code. He's offering a compelling vision for a limited but efficiently run federal government.

Something tells me we are heading into a time when conservatives will be willing to jump in the proverbial convertible and head to Vegas on a whim. Hey, Newt's driving.

But this is a bit much:

The former House speaker from Georgia might be the only Republican presidential candidate, declared or otherwise, who has the potential to be romantic. Other people give speeches; when Newt speaks, the words have music. He's poetic. He's quixotic. He's … dangerous.

Boring more typically describes politicians, but hey, can't fault someone for getting excited about an election.

Kid H.

Eject, Eject, Eject!

"Seeing the Unseen" is the name of the post... it's a couple of months old.

I haven't been to Eject^3 in a while since Bill Whittle has been spending a lot of time writing for projects other than his blog. Out of curiosity I rolled over there this morning.

"Seeing the Unseen part 1" is another example of why this man is one of my favorite reads on the internet.

Give it a read. If you are pressed for time, skip down to his section discusing popular bumper stickers of the left.

Otter

A Question for my Conservative Friends

This excellent post from Jacob Sullum over at Hit & Run puts forth some questions to conservatives that I have always tried to get solid answers to. Ultimately, I want to know what makes you a conservative? Is it that you hold certain specific beliefs, and if so, what are they; what happens if you only mostly hold to conservative beliefs? Is there an underlying philosophy to which you adhere? Anyway, Sullum puts some of these questions out there using specific examples. For instance he writes:

I have long searched for the unifying thread that ties together the seemingly disparate positions typically advocated by people on "the right." Why does opposition to gun control tend to go hand in hand with support for drug control (National Review's editors being an honorable exception on that score)? What does banning flag burning have in common with repealing restrictions on political ads? Why does pro-life on abortion and assisted suicide become pro-death on capital punishment? How does support for freedom of contract jibe with opposition to gay marriage? What do lower taxes have to do with prohibiting cloning? How is support for free markets reconciled with bans on migrant labor and online gambling?

I think he has some serious questions, especially the juxtaposition of the pro-life and anti-death penaly question. It seems to me that these are purely relative positions. The only real thread tying the two issues together is the government authority that allows (in most every instance) people to tell other people what is "good" and "right."

I don't want to violate anyone's copyright, but I hope citing much of this post is fair (or at least acceptable use). Here goes:

"It's impossible to say that conservatives want 'small government' above all," he concedes, "when most of us want expanded governmental efforts to crack down on terrorists, crooks and illegal immigrants. Yes, we generally favor 'less regulation,' but we also want more restrictions on abortion, pornography and desecration of the flag." Is there some theory about the proper role of government underlying those policy preferences? Medved never really says, beyond the idea that the government should foster good things and crack down on bad things.

One of those good things is capitalism, except when it isn't (emphasis added):

We favor free markets and small government not for their own sake but because the profit system represents the best possible means to encourage wholesome, constructive choices. The only way to make money in a free marketplace is to benefit and bless other people: to provide them with a product or a service they choose to buy. You enrich yourself and enhance your own power by providing your neighbors with what they want.

As long as it's not drugs. Or gangster rap. Or pornography. Or lap dances. Or abortion. Or an opportunity to bet on football. Presumably Medved-style conservatives see no benefit or blessing in these activities because they are not wholesome or constructive. (Does that mean no one makes money by providing them?) Yet many left-liberals are willing to tolerate such transactions, even while seeking to ban the sale of handguns, trans fats, harp seal fur, or drinks in smoky bars. Is this because they do not draw distinctions or care about consequences? Or is it because they draw different distinctions and care about different consequences?

Likewise, Medved asserts that "liberals want us to continue to pour foreign aid into the most dysfunctional nations on earth." Like Iraq? No, not like Iraq, because Saddam was evil! The rulers of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia "aren't all that good," Medved concedes, but they're our friends. So much for eschewing moral relativism and making clear distinctions between right and wrong.

Instead of elucidating the differences in values and principles that distinguish modern American conservatism, Medved settles for smugly assuming his own moral and intellectual superiority. The "core of conservatism," it seems, is a dark, mushy mess.

It seems to me that conservatism and liberalism share one common thread - if we believe something is good or bad, we will outlaw it or require it as we see fit. It's ultimately like each is its own populist culture, and the two battle back and forth for the power to determine what is "good" and what is "bad." Unfortunately, what gets caught in the crossfire tends to be individual liberties. The sad thing is that each group really only cares about collective rights. Like the rights of parents, but only to the extent that they don't spank their kids or don't tell them that certain lifestyles are good or bad. It's really rather ridiculous how the views of self-identifying conservatives or liberals will change based on the substitution of certain factors or buzzwords.

Hopefully, someone can explain to me what makes someone a conservative or a liberal because it damn sure isn't a coherent philosophy.

Kid Handsome