|
Up to the minute notes on the current state of free thinking and free living: Kentucky moonshine - original analysis and reporting from MoreThings, and all round pop culture museum of sight and sound - photo galleries, mp3 and video downloads.
Al Barger and MoreThings - getting people's goats since 1998.
Live free or die!
----
|
November 08, 2002
More things to be grateful for
On this day in history, November 8, 1789, Elijah Craig of Bourbon, Kentucky took some corn and distilled the first bourbon whiskey.
posted by Al at 11/08/2002 10:40:00 PM
Strange love
Mike Hendrix at Cold Fury points out the final thing missing from the sweet, sweet joy of watching the Democrat party implosion in the elections: we haven't heard from Barbara Streisand. We're still waiting for this cherry on top of the delicious electoral sundae. We've got the crushed nuts of many deserving Democrat candidates, but we need Babs to top it off. She's holding out on us. This isn't right.
Babs, we beseech you:
Come on Babs, don't hold out on us. It's been SO delicious watching the Democrat party writhing in agony, but we're all waiting on you. You are the soul of the Democrat party, and we need to hear from you.
Rebuke us with a hysterical rant. We've got it coming. Tell us how wicked and evil we all are for not electing your preferred America hating commies. You know we've misbehaved. Give it to us hard. Bray your indignation with all your might. We need it real bad. We deserve it. Oh, it's going to be a gusher!
Even as I write, she responds...
Ah, what kind of crappy response is this? "It is a sad time." This is what we've been waiting for? What a rip off. I'm anticipating an orgasmic blast of fury, and all we get is itty bitty hurt feelings. She might as well have titled it "Not tonight, I've got a headache." I feel used.
Damn. I guess I'll just go have a cold shower now.
posted by Al at 11/08/2002 10:11:00 PM
Reforming the UN
Meryl Yourish has a nice, pithy addition to my comments criticizing the UN: "No dictatorships allowed voting privileges. You want to vote? Well, you'll get one when your people do."
This would be an outstanding and eminently fair reform. Wouldn't be much of a UN left, though.
That'd suit me just fine, too.
posted by Al at 11/08/2002 11:13:00 AM
November 07, 2002
Al = Tom Jefferson?
Well, it's nice to think that I match the results I got on this quiz [link below].
I can sort of see me in this- in somewhat the same way you might see Elvis Presley in Andy Kaufman.
posted by Al at 11/07/2002 01:07:00 AM
November 06, 2002
I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.
Here's a Thomas Sowell quote from one of his "random thoughts" columns that really jumped out at me:
What are bond issues on the ballot except taxes on future taxpayers who cannot yet vote? It is taxation without representation.
Straight up! He's absolutely correct. This should become a staple argument for everyone opposing any ballot initiative- or any other form of deficit spending. It won't, because this would be called "radical" or some such. Truth is typically not considered a legitimate defense.
posted by Al at 11/06/2002 02:27:00 PM
November 05, 2002
Mixed feelings about democracy
"Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods. -HL Mencken"
As any thinking man might, I've got very ambivalent feelings about democracy, which naturally come to a head on election day. They're all confused and running together, so let me just toss a few contradictions and ambivalences your way. Maybe some of y'all can tell me if I'm sensible or just a fool.
I don't really much believe in democracy. There's no special dispensation from God or Rand that makes the Will of the Majority sacred. Yet it's the best thing we've got to work with. As the saying goes, democracy is the worst form of government there is, except for every other kind.
I never agreed to any "social contract." I feel no inherent moral obligation to obey a law just because some idiots had a vote. I do not submit my liberty to a popular vote. Can anybody reasonably refute Lysander Spooner's point? [Natural law, or the Golden Rule is a different issue.] Yet I'm constantly and sincerely arguing politics based on constitutional law.
I don't think that one person's vote makes any difference, because it doesn't. Indeed, I would generally prefer to discourage voter turnout. I think there are way too many people voting. [See below.] Yet, I wouldn't miss a chance at voting. Moreover, however much I mask it, I can't help but feel contempt when someone tells me they don't vote.
Politicians disgust me. I regularly have to restrain myself from throwing things through the tv when congressmen are on. Yet I'm totally fascinated by the game, as other men are by sports. Election day, as they say, is like the Superbowl and the World Series rolled into one.
Even within the general bounds of majority rule, I say the deck is severely stacked in a hundred ways against any true expression of the will of the people. Yet, I enthusiastically engage in third party politics, setting up fair booths and writing pamphlets and fliers, running for office.
I consider government and politics to be largely a contemptible criminal enterprise, yet I never feel so much a part of the community as when I'm politicking. Last Saturday, for example, I was walking through a neighborhood in Brookville, Indiana, kicking through the bright fall leaves at their peak of color. I was campaigning door to door for election as county tax assessor, passing out my fliers and feeling at one with the world.
My heart burns with feelin'
Oh, but my mind is cold and reelin', uh
Is this love, baby
Or is it-uh, huh, just, uh, confusion? "Love or Confusion" by Jimi Hendrix
posted by Al at 11/05/2002 02:58:00 PM
Dedicating this one to Saint Paul Wellstone
With another election upon us, let me recommend a great song for the day. The song is called "Selling My Birthright." Download it HERE. [Find more of this artist.]
This acoustic jam comes out a tough country song, a catchy acoustic apocalypse by Orwellian metaphor.
Selling my birthright for corn and hay to feed my sacred cow.
You should definitely have the refrain of this tune echoing in your head as you pull them levers.
posted by Al at 11/05/2002 09:42:00 AM
A challenge to the Libertarian Party
If I can be blunt about it, when did the Libertarian Party become such a bunch of cheap pacifist fools?
I issue this challenge with love. I was passing out Ed Clark propaganda before I even turned 18, and before I had even met another party member. I am currently chairman of the Franklin County party in Indiana, and a Libertarian party candidate for tax assessor. I have never in life voted against a candidate of the Libertarian party. Yet for the first time, I find myself significantly uncomfortable with the party.
I'm not real thrilled about it, but I'm for military action against Iraq. Hussein is a menace, and we aren't behooved to wait till this jerk gets nukes before we deal with him. I can see where it looks somewhat questionable, but this clearly IS an issue of self-defense. "No blood for oil" was a convincing argument last time around, but not this one. Oil ain't the point.
There are bunches of evil sumbitches working against us in an asymmetrical fashion. There's not a country with a government openly declaring war and sending guys in uniforms. That obviously wouldn't get them far. Nonetheless, we are under attack, and against civilians in our own territory, and clearly facing the very real possibility of stuff much worse than 9/11. There's a nasty nest of poisonous snakes hissing at us, and trying to bite us- and succeeding most famously last year.
Proper application of libertarian theory would say that we're not looking for a fight, but if you threaten and attack us, you're asking to get destroyed. "Don't tread on me" and all that, you know. We've been hit, and plans continue afoot for more hitting, of much worse varieties. Therefore, anybody or any governments or societies that support this in any way are asking to get squished.
The party is WAY out of line on this issue. Our leadership frequently puts out press releases and columns relentlessly opposing any US military response to terrorism past the invasion in Afghanistan- and they considered even that controversial. Hey, guys- protecting the nation from attack is the main one legitimate function the government is supposed to perform. I fear that we are foolishly opposing that.
Frankly, I've seen some nonsense from the LP with this that makes me cringe. For example, our US senate candidate in Montana (the infamously silly Blue Guy- what an embarrassment to the party) managed to actually get into the televised debate, which opportunity he used to explain that US bombing in Iraq and Afghanistan was "the worst terrorism." I've never voted against a candidate of the LP in my life, but I would write in Mickey Mouse before I'd vote for this fool. We also have some ignoramus running for senate in Missouri got herself arrested blocking access to a munitions plant. Again, Mickey Mouse starts looking good.
You could legitimately be against attacking Iraq on balance. I can imagine some reasonable arguments, and I've heard one or two. Prudence dictates asking tough questions before we start killing people and overthrowing foreign governments. Fair enough. There are some arguments against it, but we have come off way on the wrong side of this. Many of our arguments have just been stupid, like the worst puky communist-excusing nonsense of the olden hippie days. Makes us look like irresponsible children.
Also, I don't think the party at large is nearly as unanimous on this topic as our national office would make it appear. Most of the libertarians I've been reading on the net are pro-war in this case. If not total support, my people in Franklin County seem to be considerably more sympathetic than the national party appears. Who exactly was it that decided that our official party position was to be pacifist pussies? I don't recall voting on this, and I was a delegate at the national convention in Indianapolis.
Many folks in the party are really misinterpreting libertarian principles. Non-aggression makes fine principle, but it doesn't mean we can't defend ourselves. There are a bunch of fools in the Arab world intent on killing us, and destroying our society. Some libertarians seem to think that we have no right to deal with them unless we can prove in a court of law exactly which individuals in which governments funded exactly which splinter group in which attack. Otherwise, see, WE are aggressing and WE are the bad guys. At some point this ceases being a reasonable application of principle, and becomes simply a bunch of lawyerly nonsense.
Just contract with some third parties and blur the tracks. That way you can screw with the US all day, but they won't be willing to respond. This is perhaps merely stupid when we're dealing with retail attacks, simple car bombs and snipers. As these evil savages seek access to chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, however, this liberal [NOT libertarian] foolishness goes from being stupid to being suicidal.
Nor would I think most of our basic intellectuals and founders would be taking this pacifist line. Robert Heinlein sure wouldn't. I strongly doubt that the author of The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress would advocate pussyfooting with Arab terrorists and thugs. Ayn Rand would vote to blast these savages off the map. Not looking for a fight, but Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were practical men. I don't think they'd be too concerned with waiting until these sumbitches killed 50,000 people in NYC with nerve gas before they'd have some MFs whacked.
One more thing about this from a "libertarian" perspective: Consider that aggressive action in the Middle East where this nonsense is originating will take a lot of pressure off from the perceived need to play loose with our constitutional liberties here at home. If we whack a bunch of these bitches in their lairs back home, there won't be as much pressure for national ID cards, and similar nonsense here. We can and are doing things to improve a whole range of physical security issues in the US. However, we can't begin to protect our open society from every wicked thing these people can imagine. We have to stop them on the other side.
I don't believe in empire building, or throwing our weight around just because we can. I'm also real skeptical of throwing the military at things to serve our "national interest," largely because this can all too easily turn out to be using government force and taxpayer dollars to promote private business interests rather than actual American security. This is basic libertarian stuff.
However, neither do I take the position that some principle says that I have to wait for the likes of Hussein or some Iranian mullahs to start nuking us before doing something. I never signed up for any nonsense like that.
Moral principles are supposed to represent ground rules for the preservation and furtherance of life. Thus, self-defense and self-preservation form the basis of morality. Philosophical and party labels aside, I'll support destroying anyone who gives me cause to think they are interested in killing my family or me- and the blood of any innocents they try to use as human shields is on their own heads. Anybody who has any supposed moral principles that say anything different needs to watch some of the 9/11 tapes again, and re-consider.
posted by Al at 11/05/2002 09:29:00 AM
Thank Rand for small favors
Here's some encouraging news for the beleaguered citizenry: the IRS doesn't have quite the awe inspiring omnipotent reach that they'd like you to think. According to the New York Times:
Over all, the I.R.S. gets a budget of 41 cents per tax return, 10 percent less, after adjusting for inflation, than in 1997. Yet during those five years many sophisticated new techniques to evade taxes have come onto the market, sold by the nation's largest accounting firms and others. And Congress has enacted 293 changes in the tax law, imposed complex rules protecting taxpayer rights and demanded the diversion of many law enforcement resources to functions like answering telephone calls from taxpayers.
Outgoing Commissioner of the IRS Charles Rossotti says "This is systematically undermining one of the most important foundations of the American economy."
Rossotti strikes a particularly hilarious note there. Apparently this bureaucrat thinks that his agency's ability to loot and pillage keeps the economy going, rather than being one of the main things holding it back.
A more intuitive outlook, on the other hand, might take it that citizens creating businesses and going to their jobs create the wealth of society. In this view, the political class largely do little but drain away the wealth of society. The IRS does the primary job of extracting the wealth from those who created it in order to pass it on to those who didn't.
From this perspective, any subversion of the the ability of the IRS to extract wealth from the taxpayers looks like a net gain for liberty and prosperity. On the one side, the political class screams for more money for Very Important Programs. On the other side, the taxpaying class resents having their money taken- and the heavy handed encroachments of their privacy involved in doing so. Of course, often the political class and the taxpayer class are- schizophrenically- the same people.
In any case, this NYT story suggests that the taxpayer side of the equation is gaining some ground at the moment, which is a blessing for the whole economy- and critical to our re-emergence from recession. The congress wants to spend every nickel they can get hold of, but fear the wrath of taxpayers too much to give the IRS the full authority and resources that would be necessary to really enforce the tax laws that are supposed to extract that money. Thank Rand they lack this will, or they'd really wreck the economy.
Not that this will provide much comfort to those whom the IRS does manage to find the resources to target.
posted by Al at 11/05/2002 05:56:00 AM
November 04, 2002
Prophetic Libertarian Ken Krawchuk gets it right: Good gun violence
A nasty serial rapist has been running crazy in Pittsburgh. Police have had little to go on to stop him, other than a typical composite drawing.
That was the case in early October, until Daniel Wesley picked the wrong chick. Charmaine Dunbar turned out to be an off duty University of Pittsburgh security guard. When Mr. Wesley came after her on with a rifle in hand, he caught a couple of slugs from a .357 in his evil guts. Unfortunately in this case, Ms. Dunbar did not kill him, but he's done and off the streets- which is the most important part.
Just to give some idea of what she stopped, consider some of the experiences of his six known victims:
According to a police affidavit, he told one victim, "I'll chase you down and put 17 in your head," referring to a full clip of a semiautomatic handgun.
The documents say Wesley, 25, raped a 14-year-old girl and then stole $2 from her back pocket before sending her on her way to school.
He told her if she called police, he would "go on the run, find her and then kill her by shooting her," the affidavit said.
It's too bad Ms. Dunbar couldn't have been close by during some of the early shootings by the DC snipers. She might have saved some lives.
It takes a few minutes for every big tv network in the country to report ad nauseum from the scene when an innocent citizen gets killed by guns. Which is only fair, after all, since this helps highlight the pressing social need to confiscate everybody's guns.
Mr. Wesley was stopped October 10, several weeks ago. It takes a little longer for word to seep out when citizens use guns to protect themselves from assailants. These stories don't get the same emphasis, as they might send bad messages to the citizenry.
Stories like this could, for example, give women the idea that police can't be everywhere all the time and that they have to take steps to protect themselves. As Ken Krawchuk, Libertarian candidate for governor in tomorrow's election, prophetically said in a debate "A handgun is a girl's best friend."
posted by Al at 11/04/2002 01:57:00 PM
November 03, 2002
Yet another argument against democracy
Voters are stupid. On this day in 1964, American voters choice Lyndon Johnson by a wide margin over Barry Goldwater in the presidential election. This constitutes one of the worst choices in the history of American politics.
Words to consider as you decide whom to vote for, from his nomination acceptance speech at the Republican convention:
Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed. Their mistaken course stems from false notions of equality, ladies and gentlemen. Equality, rightly understood, as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences. Wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.
Fellow Republicans, it is the cause of Republicanism to resist concentrations of power, private or public, which enforce such conformity and inflict such despotism. It is the cause of Republicanism to ensure that power remains in the hands of the people. And, so help us God, that is exactly what a Republican president will do with the help of a Republican Congress.
It is further the cause of Republicanism to restore a clear understanding of the tyranny of man over man in the world at large. It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the illusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression - and this is hogwash.
Would that the Republican party of 2002 had any resemblance to what Goldwater described. [Insert Al Gore sigh here]
In fairness though, Dubya does seem to at least halfway get the point of the last paragraph, about avoiding that illusion of conflict just magically resolving itself. It's a start.
posted by Al at 11/03/2002 02:41:00 AM
Link Soup
morethings master
photo gallery index
MP3
new album
releases
lyrics
sammy davis
little richard photos
buddy holly pictures
fats domino images
chuck berry pictures 01/
02/
03/
04/
05/
06/
07/
08/
09/
10/
11/
12/
01/
02/
03/
04/
05/
06/
07/
08/
09/
10/
11/
12/
01/
02/
03/
04/
05/
06/
07/
08/
09/
10/
11/
12/
01/02/
03/
04/
05/
06/
07/
08/
09/
10/
11/
12
01/
02/
03/
04/
05/
06/
07/
08/
09/
10/
11/
12/01/
02/
03/
04/
05/
06/
07/
08/
09/
10/
11/
12/08/
09/
10/
11/
12/
la
24
lucille ball images james
blunt photos
clint eastwood pictures lena
horne images team
america pictures
robert mitchum photos
bruce springsteen pictures
mariah carey pictures
ann coulter photos
george clooney images
loretta lynn pictures
beatles pictures
white stripes pictures
andy griffith pictures
kill bill pictures
beverly hillbillies pictures
robin williams
frank zappa pictures
jerry lee lewis pictures
richard pryor photos
june carter johnny cash pictures
vic mackey shield pictures u2 photos
four seasons images
james cagney images
elvis presley pictures
country music
blog
dolly parton pictures
olsen twins photos
tom petty photos
tori amos pictures
joaquin phoenix images David
Bowie photos
Quills movie images
reese witherspoon pictures rolling
stones photos
fiona apple images kim
novak images ray charles photos marx
brothers pictures
prince rogers nelson pictures blazing
saddles images
sinead o'connor images
eddie murphy photos aretha
franklin photos
south park pictures homer
simpson images
bob dylan pictures elizabeth
taylor photos madonna
images
saturday night live pictures willie
nelson images hee
haw pictures james
brown images pete
townshend photos
tina turner pictures
dixie chicks photos
margaret thatcher photos
guns
n roses pictures
paula abdul pictures
jodie foster photos
amy winehouse
eminem
frank sinatra photos
van
halen images
satan
blondie photos
joni
mitchell pictures
merle haggard
images
rocky horror pictures
monty
python
|
|
