Archive for the 'Philosophy etc' category

Washington DC gun ban is unconstitutional

BJ| June 26, 2008 12:57 pm

The Supreme Court handed down the 5-4 ruling that the Washington DC gun ban is unconstitutional. It also affirms the individual right to keep and bear arms. Read the decision here.

It’s all over everything so I’ll refrain from posting a hundred links to reason, Andrew Sullivan’s blog, Cato, and everywhere else. I need to go check and see what the kossacks think about it.

Libertarians, less anarchist than you might think

BJ| June 11, 2008 12:46 pm

There’s a great article in the latest reason magazine that has Ronald Bailey looking for a solution to global warming. As a reason magazine science correspondent he’s about as libertarian as you can get.

It was neat to see the author of Eco-Scam: The False Prophets of Environmental Apocalypse to then say this in 2005.

Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up. All data sets—satellite, surface, and balloon—have been pointing to rising global temperatures. In fact, they all have had upward-pointing arrows for nearly a decade.

You can read the full text at reason online.

Obviously they believe the private market should solve the issue, but there’s no real reason for them to do so. Their proposals, spoken through clenched teeth it seems, are either a cap and trade system or carbon taxes.

The only true effect of all this is to make a competitive market and begin to quanitify the negative externality of climate change as related to greenhouse gas emissions by energy producers. I suggest reading the article.

The Economist on Barr

BJ| June 1, 2008 10:07 pm

This weeks issue of the economist has a write-up on the Libertarian candidate for president Bob Barr. They came to roughly the same conclusion I did regarding his ability to act as a spoiler for McCain.

The article also perfectly sums up the problems Barr has regarding his personal record, not that any of that matters as much during a third party presidential run. In this case, his spotty personal history and close ties to traditional conservative values increases his chances of greatly affecting McCain.

Just a funny note. The Libertarian party is pretty much nuts. As expected of a group that puts individualism above any sort of collectivist mindset, you get a bunch of disjointed single issue voters willing to vote for every conspiracy theory known to man. It’s sad the party seems so crazy on the surface, since the CATO institute has the basic economic and social theory down without the frilly nuttery. Libertarians get the pot-smokers and government alien cover-up followers, while the republicans are stuck with AIPAC, the religious right, and hawks. Democrats don’t really get to have any pet issues though. Lieberman, Harry Reid, Kucinich, and Hillary Clinton all share a (D) but not much else. The problem is that the Libertarian convention makes the Reps and Dems look sane. Maybe one day they’ll stop appeasing the chaff (truthers) and just ignore the truly insane.

To the spoiler goes the win

BJ| May 27, 2008 3:03 pm

Bob Barr secured the Libertarian Party nomination at the LP convention in Denver over this past weekend. For those who don’t follow third party politics, the Libertarian presidential nominee in 1988 was Ron Paul. He basically had the same platform then that he did during his current primary run. Bob Barr was probably picked by the delegates specifically because he has similarities with Dr. Paul. Don’t expect me to start evangelizing his name though. Mr. Barr was a short sighted Republican until recently, and even before that was a short sighted Democrat. He has shifted his rhetoric on most of the LP talking points, but in the end find himself on the hilarious side of opposing things he used to chair. He was the anti-drug coordinator for the Department of Justice (libertarians are usually pro drug legalization to some extent). He promoted the idea that the practice of Wicca should be banned in the military (restricting religious rights would be a big libertarian no-no), and he is generally hard on immigration (a position he happens to share with Ron Paul). With this background he doesn’t have the practice to back up the rhetoric he’ll use, but at the same time he’s likely to win most of his votes from lapsed traditional conservatives.

Barr has hired a political strategist who worked on the Ron Paul campaign and another who worked on the Perot campaign. He’ll be stealing votes directly from the traditional conservative Republican base, the same base that is unhappy with McCain’s nomination. I’ll predict right now that he’ll have as much if not more impact than Nader did in 2000. If you want Obama to win in November, send some money to Bob Barr… seriously.

I’ve discussed this issue previously with friends and family but I really think Obama is going to have a tougher time in November than many people believe. Around 15% of democrats over the age of 65 voted for Obama. This November more people will vote. More people over 65 will vote. Democrats traditionally think of themselves as progressive… yet only 15% over 65 voted for Obama in the primaries. Imagine what will happen among the general electorate. If the older Democrat is any indication, Obama’s race will be more of a hindrance this November than it ever was in the primary. Bob Barr’s nomination might help things for Obama if enough votes can be shifted from McCain to Barr.

On that note, I’m voting for Barr in November. A protest vote? Maybe. He might not be a libertarian in action but the man is a small government conservative through and through.

Wired pushes buttons on Global Warming

BJ| May 20, 2008 10:25 am

I’ve written similar things before, but like any discussion on global warming I’d like to frame my personal stance. I believe humans have a drastic affect on the environment. From straight pollution to the destruction of habitat to global warming, the existence of man has a significant effect on the world around us. I think we’re causing global warming, but I disagree that it’s in humanity’s best interest to fight it using the currently proposed methodology. I feel there are other concerns to human life that are more important. Disease, war, hunger, and poverty should all take priority over global warming. These are tangible things with easily verifiable statistical results in the longevity of humans.

In my arguments I appear to be a global warming denier. I’ve mentioned before that global warming is a red herring, and I stand by that assertion, but I also firmly believe that humans are causing it, or at the very least exacerbating it. Yesterday the new Wired was deliverd to our door, and in was an article on how to combat global warming. They obviously framed the article as a straw man, but the article makes a wonderful point in subtext, coincidentally it’s the same argument I have made in the past. Give it a read. And go through each of the different sections to see what they surmise as to be the best ways to combat global warming the quickest.

The comments are getting pretty crazy on the wired page. Evangelical environmentalists are up in arms, and they seem to be missing the point. The article is a straw man that is trying to point out what’s wrong with the current discussion of climate change. Rather than focusing on man as a part of the world, environmentalists are rallying behind something specious in the grand scheme of perpetual human inhabitation of the Earth. Ecological footprint is the discussion we need to have. Global warming is just an aspect of our ecological footprint, and not even the worst one, but it is being sold as the whole deal.

It does however miss the quickest way to control global warming. Kill off 2/3s of the world’s population… they get credit for mentioning the black plague though.

Read the Article at Wired.com

Neo-CONNED

BJ| May 19, 2008 10:19 am

EDIT: Please note that any ads that appear on this blog don’t necessarily represent the feelings of Heather or I on any particular issue. In a hilarious moment… mentioning Ron Paul apparently triggers google to start showing McCain ads.
Last week there was an article on digg leading to a youtube video of excerpts from a speech made by congressman Ron Paul in the House of Representatives. The video also contained quite a bit of anti-semetic imagery put there by the creator of the video, as such it’s not as effective as the original speech made July 10, 2003. I’m sure people are sick of hearing about Dr. Paul on our blog but he is truly unique. He might be a little loony compared to your average politician, but it’s only because he doesn’t know when to spin, he just says what people need to hear. This speech explains the neo-conservative movement and names names of those involved. You can find the original transcript here.

I’ve posted the entirety of the speech after the jump.


Show me more… »

District of Columbia vs Heller

BJ| May 6, 2008 11:34 am

For those not following the case, here is a summary from wikipedia.

District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290, is a case pending before the Supreme Court of the United States. It is an appeal from Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007), a decision in which the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit became the first federal appeals court in the United States to rule that a firearm ban was an unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the second to expressly interpret the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right to possess firearms for private use.

The stepping stone to the case was a security guard who filed for permission with DC to keep a firearm at home for the purposes of protection. The denial of and subsequent ruling by the DC district court is the impetus to the current Supreme Court review.

On March 18th the Supreme Court heard oral arguments. If you’re at all interested in this case I suggest listening to the audio and/or reading the transcript here.

Here’s where I make an ideological argument, but honestly, I can’t be bothered. It usually just devolves into anecdotes and doctored numbers that purposely ignore all the motivations for violence. In that frame of mind, I’ll just post some anecdotes from some interesting sources, that conveniently support my own view.

Wow, Barack Obama’s “More Perfect Union” speech

BJ| March 19, 2008 12:03 pm

I’m going to reprint the text of the speech in it’s entirety. I believe his methodology to correct the issues he addresses in the speech to be wrong but his sentiment is spot on. Here’s the speech in it’s entirety as found at the huffingtonpost.

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama
“A More Perfect Union”
Constitution Center
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

“We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.”

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America’s improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation’s original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution - a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part - through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign - to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together - unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction - towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.

The rest after the jump:


Show me more… »

District of Columbia v. Heller

BJ| March 17, 2008 11:52 am

For those not in the know this is the case that will be reviewed by the Supreme Court, beginning this week, to determine the constitutionality of the DC gun ban. Here’s some snippets from the Washington Post in this article.

Despite mountains of scholarly research, enough books to fill a library shelf and decades of political battles about gun control, the Supreme Court will have an opportunity this week that is almost unique for a modern court when it examines whether the District’s handgun ban violates the Second Amendment.

The nine justices, none of whom has ever ruled directly on the amendment’s meaning, will consider a part of the Bill of Rights that has existed without a definitive interpretation for more than 200 years.

Regardless of your individual position on gun rights, you should read this article to know what is being decided. There are so many arguments for either side in the quesiton of gun rights that I’m not going to comment very much, as it would amount to yelling into the wind.

I believe them to be instruments of equality and revolution, and fundamental to true freedom from oppression in any sense of the word.

God made men, Samuel Colt made men equal.

Obama WINS

BJ| March 5, 2008 11:21 am

Well, at least he wins the Atchley home phone call record of the Presidential candidates.

  • 5 total calls from Obama or supporters
  • 3 total calls from Ron Paul or supporters
  • 1 call from Clinton

I spoke with a live person from Obama and Ron Paul campaigns, or at least a supporter cold calling.

I’m still holding out for a general election Mormon showdown between Mitt Romney and Harry Reid in 2016.