Category: Stupidity

Yeah, do we get tasers and tear gas?

Via Boing Boing here’s a video of police officers dealing with a naked man at the Coachella music festival. (Link only because the video contains nudity.) The man seems under the influence of something. There is also a large crowd surrounding them defending the naked man. The situation could descend into chaos. These are important caveats suggesting a quick, definitive resolution will be best. They begin with the most reasonable, least problematic solution by giving the man clothing. Only when it’s clear he will not cooperate, they escalate. They’re doing their job.

Once it becomes clear that some level of exertion will be necessary, however, the video shows that the cops opt instead for the Taser. The video demonstrates they chose the lazy route, and they use it – and other harsh techniques – before fully attempting to subdue the individual. At approximately the 2:30 mark, the police wrestle the man to the ground. He continues resisting. Some level of force is necessary and what they’re doing isn’t enough. Their actions become unacceptable at this point. Two officers struggle with him while another officer stands around holding the garment the man refused to wear. There is no obvious reason this officer should stand idly by. It’s clear the man will not voluntarily cover himself, and he’s involved in an active struggle. One of the two officers struggling with the man gets up and prepares his Taser. The previously idle officer now joins the struggle by pouncing on the man, driving his knee into him. Then, the previous officer tasers the man multiple times. They subdue and cover him.

I’m willing to assume they avoided wrestling with him as long as they did because the man was naked and not because they had an urge to ultimately rough him up. Neither is flattering to the police because dealing with this is their job, even if he’s naked. But it’s understandable. Yet, to avoid the physical effort required by their job once they’d committed to arresting the man, they used unnecessary force (repeatedly). And, although they did not trigger crowd involvement beyond words, they pushed the situation closer to what they tried to avoid in the beginning than they should have. This is an example where police used the Taser as an alternative to effort rather than as an alternative to deadly force. They wouldn’t shoot the man for not cooperating. They shouldn’t have tasered him.

Do Children Have Any Rights?

Any point in the long line of events leading to the Supreme Court hearing a case on the strip search of students by school officials demonstrates that we’ve collectively lost our minds. It’s easy enough to shout “Will no one think of the children,” and I will. Will no one think of the children? Not as an emotional plea, although that is valid. This is a demand for recognition that children are individuals, as well, with the same complement of rights protected by the Constitution. We can debate the degree to which they are fully vested versus held in “trust” (e.g. free speech), and that’s a useful debate. This is not that.

None of the lawyers had a particularly easy time of it. Matthew W. Wright, representing the school district, said that intimate searches should be allowed even for the most common over-the-counter drugs.

“At some point it gets silly,” Justice David H. Souter said. “Having an aspirin tablet does not present a health and safety risk.”

Mr. Wright did draw the line at searches of students’ body cavities, but only on the practical ground that school officials are not trained to conduct such searches. Mr. Wright said there was no legal obstacle to such a search.

Mr. Wright, and the government, may have a legal point on this topic using strict semantics. But the moral question is clear. These children own their bodies. They are due the same respect and dignity we offer to adults. (We violate the rights of adults. The point is that we violate the rights of children more.) Anyone who would propose that school officials could legitimately perform a body cavity search on a student if properly trained has lost his way.

I know enough to understand that the questions asked by Justices are not necessarily indicative of the eventual outcome. With that caveat:

Without intimating a view on the ickiness of what Mr. Wolf had described, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested that the law might treat different undergarments differently. “The issue here covers the brassiere as well,” he said, “which doesn’t seem as outlandish as the underpants.”

Not as outlandish, perhaps, but according to whom? The student, or does her (or his) opinion not matter? I know, DRUGS!@#$!@!!!. But, is there any room for the consideration that the person searched might find exploring her brassiere outlandish? If we extend this to even younger students, as a ruling in the school’s favor surely would over a short period of time, would a female student who develops breasts earlier than her classmates be self-conscious of this fact? Could it be mortifying to have her brassiere searched? Is there a “breast-no breasts” exception to the Fourth Amendment, or just a general view that children have no rights?

“My thought process,” Justice Souter said, “is I would rather have the kid embarrassed by a strip search, if we can’t find anything short of that, than to have some other kids dead because the stuff is distributed at lunchtime and things go awry.”

Notice that Justice Souter states what he would rather have when comparing the strip search of a minor and an event that has no verifiable examples. This is the same idiocy that states that pre-emptive, legalized torture is acceptable because there might be a ticking time bomb. What is done is subservient to why the actor does it because DRUGS!@#$!@!!!.

Radley Balko sums it up best:

It’s a little troubling to see how comfortable these old men (Ginsburg isn’t quoted in the article) seem to be with allowing school administrators access to the genitalia of school children based on nothing more than a hunch that they might be “crotching” some ibuprofen.

At this point, the drug war really can’t be parodied, can it?

This is madness.

John Cole offers a good summary of this case, titled “I’m Not a Lawyer or a Constitutional Scholar”:

And as such, will probably not understand the legal intricacies of this case that was debated in the Supreme Court yesterday. However, I can state that as someone with an IQ over room temperature, the fact that we are debating whether it is appropriate for school authorities to strip search kids is a sure sign that something has gone horribly, horribly wrong with this country and our sense of perspective, and I blame the war on drugs.

That’s succinct to the point of perfection.

**********

I got the Balloon Juice link from Doug Mataconis at Below The Beltway. I no longer read Balloon Juice, even though Mr. Cole provides excellent commentary like the quote above. His update to the post reminds me why I no longer read. After an excerpt from a linked summary he introduces with “Government by old men afraid of advil is disgusting”, Mr. Cole writes:

Where is the outrage? Oh, yeah. They are too busy protesting the fact that Bill Gate’s taxes are going to go up 3%! Tyranny!

Link to examples, if they exist. I’m sure they do. But it is shrill and unfair to mock – out-of-context – someone’s opposition to another issue and imply that agitating for one issue makes having a coherent position on another topic is impossible. This is common, as I’ve experienced, but it’s a pathetic tactic in any context. If someone has made up his mind on a topic, that’s okay. I have, for example. But that person should be prepared to defend himself if he brings up the topic. If not, don’t bring up the topic. Doing so is the sign of an incurious, closed mind.

Ron Paul is still not a libertarian.

Timothy Sandefur explains how, based on Ron Paul’s recent statements on Texas Governor Rick Perry’s thinly-veiled call for secession.

Excuse me, Congressman, but the United States did not “secede” from Britain. The nation had a revolution. The difference between secession and revolution is, of course, one which paleoconservatives like Paul insist on ignoring, but it is a crucial one. Secession is the notion that a state may unilaterally leave the American union, consistent with the Constitution of the United States. Obviously since the revolution occurred in 1776, eleven years before the Constitution, it can’t be called “secession.” And perhaps that’s why the word was not used by the founding fathers when they engaged in the revolution or even afterwards.

The rest of Mr. Sandefur’s entry is worth your time.

Circling All Multiple-Choice Answers

I do not discount the possibility that a beauty pageant contestant can be informed on any given topic. I discount the possibility that a beauty pageant is a forum capable of generating an interesting discussion of any particular topic. What Miss California has to say about same-sex marriage is rather irrelevant to the debate.

That said, I find the outcry amusing. From FOX News:

Miss California Carrie Prejean, blasted by a Miss USA contest judge because she opposes gay marriage, may have grounds for a discrimination lawsuit herself — against the Miss USA pageant, a legal analyst says.

“If she really feels some tremendous stress as a result of losing — and I’m certain she’s probably devastated from what happened to her — she can articulate a viable claim for monetary compensation for psychic injury,” said FOX News legal analyst Mercedes Colwin.

I’m not an attorney, but I’m certain this is preposterous reasoning. Rule number one: Never take legal advice from a cable television news program. Even if I didn’t understand this rule, reading the article tells me enough. Nowhere does the (unnamed) reporter quote Miss Prejean’s response to Perez Hilton’s question. If you haven’t heard it, she said:

PEREZ: Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?

CARRIE: I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage and, you know what, in my country and my family I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anyone out there but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman.

Perez Hilton gave her a zero for her answer. If I thought a judge’s vote on an answer to a question in the Miss USA pageant could justify a lawsuit, this still isn’t that. She didn’t answer the question because she said it’s great that we can choose to marry a partner of either gender but we shouldn’t be able to choose any marriage other than one man and one woman. The possibly-accidental inclusion of great generated her predicament, not her dismissal of a civil right because she was raised to believe her opinion is as valid as logic.

Link via Timothy Lee’s Twitter feed.

**********

Now for a snarky answer: She can’t articulate a viable claim because she couldn’t articulate a viable answer.

Who Needs Evidence?

I don’t think much of Men’s Health magazine after its recent, flawed article on male circumcision. This entry on the Men’s Health Life blog still managed to disappoint. The author describes having his sons circumcised, yet manages to work in this sentence without any apparent awareness:

The beautiful, fragrant flesh of a newborn shouldn’t mix with steel blades unless absolutely necessary.

And yet, he and his wife hired a doctor to unnecessarily take a steel blade to the “beautiful, fragrant flesh” of their newborn sons. Should anyone expect more throughout the rest of the article? After implying that the risk of severe complications is the only risk involved in circumcision, and comparing that to the risk of an individual getting hit by a rogue asteroid, the author attempts to defend his action with this:

Much more likely is the scenario that that beautiful boy grows up, is considered beautiful by another of our species (male of female), and begins expressing that attraction through sex. And that’s when the superfluousness of the foreskin morphs into a decided health threat. …

His foreskin is only a threat if he engages in unprotected sex with infected female partners.

Notice, too, the inclusion of “superfluous” to describe the foreskin. That’s a subjective word. The foreskin has sexual functions, so its removal changes his sexual experience. Does the male himself consider his foreskin superfluous?

In the U.S., then, circumcision can be regarded as a worthwhile precaution against debilitating STDs later on in life. …

The findings on circumcision involved voluntary, adult circumcision. I have no problem accepting that voluntary, adult circumcision can be regarded as a worthwhile precaution against anything, down to the owner’s revulsion at his anatomically-normal body. That is not what the author is suggesting. His perception of the risk of STD for his sexually inactive sons is enough for him to make their decision. That’s ignorant.

… In Africa, where AIDS runs rampant and garden-variety STDs are a contributing factor to transmission, circumcision is a humanitarian issue. …

That’s a very convenient reframing that ignores the actual epidemic in Africa. Unprotected sex with multiple concurrent partners is the problem. Circumcision status is possibly related only to the extent that individuals regularly ignore safe sex practices. Who wants to put confidence in that as a long-term solution?

If a small bit of skin is the only sacrifice needed to stop a humanitarian and health crisis, I say off with their heads!

When the person who makes the sacrifice and the person who makes the decision to sacrifice are different, the decision is unethical. Of course, as I mentioned regarding safe sex, circumcision is clearly not the only “sacrifice” needed. But call it a humanitarian issue and the circumciser becomes noble.

Still, this is the key paragraph:

But the N.O.C.I.R.C. people will be after my own head, now that I’ve joined the anti-foreskin forces. And listen, I understand their emotion. The penis is a sensitive body part, and babies are a very touchy subject. Combine the two, and people’s forehead veins begin to bulge. But N.O.C.I.R.C.’s bellicose attitude toward the debate is pushing aside rational consideration of the evidence, and scaring parents into making decisions that are against the best interest of their babies. And society at large.

The only person pushing aside rational consideration of the evidence is the author (and every pro-infant circumcision advocate). Here is the proof:

The beautiful, fragrant flesh of a newborn shouldn’t mix with steel blades unless absolutely necessary.

The child is healthy at birth. No indication exists for surgical intervention. Therefore, no intervention is justified. The only guarantee from routine/ritual infant circumcision is the child’s exposure to surgical risk. That is not in his best interest.

If we didn’t follow this, any intervention on children could be excused based on scientific studies on adult volunteers. The author claimed to believe that evidence matters, but he dismissed the fundamental evidence that was inconvenient to what he wanted to do. That is pushing aside rational consideration of the evidence.

Uganda Epidemic != United States Epidemic

I’m slow getting to this story, but the United States loves irrational fears when it comes to the foreskin, so it’s still as relevant today. A re-evaluation of one of the studies used to claim that (voluntary, adult) male circumcision reduces the risk of female-to-male HIV transmission suggests that (voluntary, adult) male circumcision reduces the risk of herpes transmission by 25% and HPV transmission by 30%.

To the extent that adult males want to volunteer for these reasons, so be it. Everyone is entitled to his own decision. Personally, I’d rely on safe sex, not surgery. But that’s not how the data are being used in the U.S. Here, it’s predictably OMG 25% 30% OMG YOUR SON IS GONNA DIE A SAD HORRIBLE PAINFUL DEATH IF YOU DON’T CIRCUMCISE HIM BEFORE HE HITS THE DOCTORS HANDS IN THE DELIVERY ROOM OMG! OH AND WOMEN PREFER CIRCUMCISED PENISES WINKWINK. From one of the researchers involved:

Dr Judith Wasserheit went on to say: “All providers who care for pregnant women and infants have a responsibility to assure that mothers and fathers know that circumcision could help protect their sons from the three most common and most serious viral sexually transmitted infections, all of which cannot currently be cured.”

Again, notice how easily Dr. Wasserheit dropped voluntary and adult from the study’s results. If voluntary, adult circumcision was enough to protect the men involved in the study, surely the exact same is capable of protecting American males. Maybe she wants to suggest that the American STD situation is more dire than the situation in Uganda to justify dropping voluntary or adult?

But to her point, all providers for infants have a responsibility to assure that mothers and fathers know the objective status of their son’s foreskin health. Almost always that will mean a statement that no intervention is indicated or warranted. There is no defensible reason to impose surgical risks for a surgery that is a) not needed and b) can be postponed until the child can choose. That was the ethical standard applied in the study. American public health officials have not explained why American infant males should be provided fewer ethical protections.

As the BBC journalist shows, it’s possible to find different views. First, the key point that everyone forgets in the hysteria:

The reason why a foreskin might increase the risk of infection with various viruses is unclear.

Whatever the data reflect, this should not be forgotten. It’s reasonable to consider the possibility that there is a methodological flaw, for example. What if improper controls existed? What if the timeline was too short? This should not be ruled out, which further highlights the already clear ethical flaw in pushing these results as an excuse to circumcise infant males. And what if the mechanism suggests that some level of female genital cutting would also reduce risks? Would the current advocates endorse that research, or are findings like the current re-evaluated study merely a solution in search of problems?

Dr Colm O’Mahony, a sexual health expert from the Countess of Chester Foundation Trust Hospital in Chester, said the US had an “obsession” with circumcision being the answer to controlling sexually transmitted infections.

He said: “Sure, a dry skinned penis is a bit less likely to contract HIV, herpes and possibly genital warts but it will get infected eventually.”

That’s what I mean by a flaw in the timeline. If a male has unprotected sex – the only way circumcision could provide protection – with HIV-positive females, he will become infected. The choices are condoms/monogamy/circumcision or condoms/monogamy. Circumcision is superfluous and unnecessary, so infant circumcision is indefensible.

Keith Alcorn, from the HIV information service NAM, also warned against a knee jerk reaction.

He said: “We have to be careful not to take evidence from one part of the world and apply it uncritically to others.

Given the U.S. reaction, it’s too late for that.

“Male circumcision will have little impact on HIV risk for boys born in the UK, where the risk of acquiring HIV heterosexually is very low.

The same applies to the United States.

More Spending Increases for the Non-Rich?

The Washington Post makes the same mistake in an editorial that I criticized on Tuesday.

AT A TIME of soaring deficits and growing needs, the Senate is weighing whether the wealthiest of wealthy Americans should get a tax break worth some $250 billion over 10 years. …

If you guess that there’s no discussion of not spending so much money, or even an explanation of growing needs, you’ll be correct. Even though the Post’s editors tell us this tax “would hardly be punitive”, they justify themselves by saying “[w]hy in the world should these folks get more of a tax cut?”. Perhaps we should consider the idea that our government should treat everyone equally rather than picking a politically-convenient minority to act as the nation’s ATM-of-last-resort.

Not that we should be surprised. The editors conclude the first paragraph with this:

… aren’t there better uses of hundreds of billions of dollars than reducing taxes even further for the tiny sliver of Americans subject to the estate tax?

Who gets to decide what better uses exist? Those who have the money (that was already taxed as income in some form)? Or those who vote to take it from them? This is a test of whether or not one believes that central planning is more effective and more legitimate than individual choices. I do not think it is, on either front.

Nor am I convinced by the Post’s evidence-free implication that lower estate taxes will harm charities. Such social engineering is hardly justified, even if the Post offered convincing evidence. What people do with their property is their business alone. But our history is full of examples of the wealthy leaving their estates to philanthropic ventures rather than leaving their heirs with every remaining penny they saved.

New Jersey Worries About Body Hair Removal

I’ve seen this story floating around for a few days, from multiple sources.

Things could get hairy in New Jersey this summer for women who sport revealing bikinis or a little bit less.

The painful Brazilian wax and its intimate derivatives are in danger of being stripped from salon and spa menus if a recent proposal to ban genital waxing is passed by the state’s Board of Cosmetology and Hairstyling.

Before I get into my brief take, I’ll stress what I think explains this, which is what Brad Warbiany pointed out at The Liberty Papers:

[Cherry Hill, New Jersey salon owner Linda] Orsuto said that the proposal may be the state’s way of diverting a long-established salon procedure “perfected by aestheticians” to the medical community, where hair can be removed via laser treatment by dermatologists.

As Mr. Warbiany stated perfectly:

Follow the lobbying money.

Those four words explain most government actions, no?

**********

My take: If this passes, it will be illegal in New Jersey for a woman to have her pubic hair waxed from her genitals, but she will still be free to have her son’s healthy foreskin surgically removed for any reason she can imagine. We have a long way to go before people understand individual liberty.

Linkfest

LINK: From the April issue of reason, Matt Welch addresses the ongoing topic of “liberalterianism” and how it’s doomed. The heart of his argument, which I agree with completely:

It is certainly no surprise that any party, let alone the Democrats, would want to use that fancy government once it held the awesome reins of power. Unified Republican governance this decade should disabuse even the most gullible from the notion that either of our two major parties is ever going to enact a small-government agenda, especially during a perceived crisis. But already during Obama’s first 100 days we’ve seen how quickly liberals will turn against libertarians once they’re no longer swinging at the same piñata.

Small-l libertarians will never find sufficient common ground with anyone interested in maintaining partisanship at the expense of ideas.

LINK: Also from reason Ronald Bailey discusses a free market approach to health care coverage proposed by University of Chicago economist John Cochrane.

So how does health-status insurance work? As Cochrane explains, “Market-based lifetime health insurance has two components: medical insurance and health-status insurance. Medical insurance covers your medical expenses in the current year, minus deductibles and copayments. Health-status insurance covers the risk that your medical premiums will rise.” Cochrane offers the example of a 25-year-old who will likely incur $2,000 in medical expenses in a year. His medical policy component would thus cost about $2,000 per year, plus administrative fees and profit. For purposes of illustration, Cochrane then assumes the 25-year-old has a 1 percent risk of developing a chronic medical condition that would increase his average medical expenses to $10,000 per year. In that case, he would be able to buy medical insurance for $10,000 per year—which is a big financial hit. That’s where health-status insurance comes in: It insures that you can be insured in the future.

I’m not fully convinced that this would work, but I’m not unconvinced, either. I don’t know enough. However, the idea seems to be based in personal responsibility. Life is unfair, so some of us get sick. There are costs involved. It’s unfortunate if medical costs cause financial distress. We should mitigate that, but provide individuals the options to do that for themselves. That is the right approach.

Mr. Cochrane also discusses how his plan would help separate health insurance from employer provision. That will be a feature of any responsible health care reform. (Transferring the incentive from employer to government does not qualify as that type of responsible reform.)

LINK: Harold Meyerson is an incurious propagandist:

But in the United States, conservatives have never bashed socialism because its specter was actually stalking America. Rather, they’ve wielded the cudgel against such progressive reforms as free universal education, the minimum wage or tighter financial regulations. Their signal success is to have kept the United States free from the taint of universal health care. The result: We have the world’s highest health-care costs, borne by businesses and employees that cannot afford them; nearly 50 million Americans have no coverage; infant mortality rates are higher than those in 41 nations — but at least (phew!) we don’t have socialized medicine.

Universal education is not “free”. The minimum wage costs jobs. Financial regulations overlooked obvious warnings of Bernie Madoff. “Nearly 50 million” uninsured is not true. Infant mortality is more complex than a quick comparison can demonstrate.

He also wrote this, so it’s clear that he’s interested in his narrative more than facts.

Take it from a democratic socialist: Laissez-faire American capitalism is about to be supplanted not by socialism but by a more regulated, viable capitalism. And the reason isn’t that the woods are full of secret socialists who are only now outing themselves.

We do not have laissez-faire capitalism. No amount of stating preferred explanations will make them true.

LINK: Steven Pearlstein defends President Obama’s budget in a way I don’t fully understand.

In the meantime, the federal government is one of the few entities that is still able to borrow in the current environment, and given the perceived safety of buying government bonds, the cost of that borrowing is about as low as it has ever been. From a purely cash-flow point of view, substituting 18 percent credit card debt with 3 percent Treasury bond debt is a positive development for the grandchildren.

The 18 percent credit card debt makes no sense here. Government borrowing isn’t replacing that. And my hypothetical grandchildren do not have any debt right now. Adding more, even at 3 percent, is hardly a positive development for them. The administration intends to grow the debt, not refinance it.

Refinancing costs are relevant, too. If the so-called positive development of new debt at 3 percent interest helps us, what will this new debt look like at 4, 5, or more percent when interest rates rise, as they will? Maintaining the apparently-permanent interest payments is a cost.

He continues with a bit about how infrastructure creates lasting economic value without defending it. Would the Bridge to Nowhere have justified its cost? Doesn’t matter, it seems. He reassures:

Strange as it may sound, there are times when it’s necessary to make things worse in order to make them better. Fighting a war to achieve a lasting peace. Making a patient sick to cure his cancer with radiation or chemotherapy. And, yes, taking on more debt to help get the country out of a debt-induced recession.

Unlike chemotherapy, where doctors eventually stop dosing a patient, what evidence do we have that politicians will ever believe we’ve reached the “ideal time for the government to deleverage and put its financial house in order”? The new deficit spending is permanent. The only open question once the budget passes is who will pay for it. Right now, the answer is “the rich” and the Chinese. Eventually, it will be the middle class, including all of our grandchildren.

LINK: Wanting an iPhone does not mean a consumer is entitled to an iPhone with the carrier of his choice.

The Consumers Union, the New America Foundation, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, as well as software provider Mozilla and small wireless carriers MetroPCS (PCS) and Leap Wireless International (LEAP), are lining up in opposition not only to the Apple-AT&T partnership, but to all manner of arrangements whereby mobile phones are tethered exclusively to a single wireless service provider.

Apparently a voluntary contract between two parties means nothing if it means a consumer has to then make a choice that she doesn’t like. I want an iPhone with Sprint, but I can’t get it. My response is to decide which has more value and act accordingly, not whine to the government.

More Consumers Union nonsense here and here.

Ron Paul is still not a libertarian.

Too many libertarians pounced on the promise of having a libertarian candidate for president. Hence, Rep. Ron Paul generated significant support from libertarians last year. He still receives many kudos. Unfortunately, Ron Paul is not a libertarian. The few labeling him as such harms us all. Yesterday Andrew Sullivan linked to a story about Rep. Paul with this introduction:

Even libertarians get their pork:

The story:

Rep. Ron Paul vehemently denounced the $410 billion catch-all spending bill approved last week by the House of Representatives.

But although the libertarian-leaning Republican from Lake Jackson cast a vote against the massive spending measure, his fingerprints were on some of the earmarks that helped inflate its cost.

Paul played a role in obtaining 22 earmarks worth $96.1 million, which led the Houston congressional delegation, according to a Houston Chronicle analysis of more than 8,500 congressionally mandated projects inserted into the bill. His earmarks included repair projects to the Galveston Seawall damaged by Hurricane Ike and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.

Rep. Paul is touted as Dr. No because he votes against what he believes to be beyond the legitimate powers of the federal government. That would earn my endorsement, except he behaves without principles. Yes, that money is going to be spent somewhere else if Rep. Paul doesn’t request it for his district. That does not mean he has to request it. He requests it, repeatedly, because he figures it might as well go to his district. His actions legitimize the illegitimate expansion of the federal government. He harms the credibility of libertarianism as a political philosophy.

This reminds me of something I posted early last year when the Ron Paul newsletter mess was in the news. It’s a quote from Wirkman Virkkala:It is an odd thing, trying to be a civilized person in the libertarian movement — or in modern society. You have to keep some independence of mind. You cannot allow yourself to become part of any cult. For all the leaders will betray you. All the prophets will prove false. All the gems will prove brummagem.

As libertarians do we really need to keep repeating this lesson? Shouldn’t we understand this by now?

**********

More from the Houston Chronicle article:

Earmarks, said Rep. Ted Poe, R-Humble, “allow lawmakers to have a say in how taxpayer dollars (are) spent.” His nine earmarks included $712,500 to mitigate airport noise at George Bush Intercontinental Airport.

“It is in the best interest of the taxpayers,” Poe said, “to have their member of Congress secure funding for local projects than to leave it up to unaccountable and un-elected bureaucrats in Washington.”

It is in the best interest of the taxpayers to have them make their own funding decisions for projects they endorse and deem necessary. Don’t act pious because you redistributed my money rather than a bureaucrat. Taking my money and giving it to someone else is still taking my money. Why should I pay to repair the Galveston Seawall, which is more than 1,400 miles from my home?

Prior Ted Poe nonsense here and here.