Quote of the Day

"I don't know whether aluminum bats are more dangerous or less dangerous," Bloomberg said. "But I don't think it's the city's business to regulate that."

~Mayor Michael Bloomberg

Unfortunately, this bit of reasonable thinking will be short-lived. The very next sentenced from the article where I found this quote states:

It appeared, however, that the City Council would have enough votes to override a veto.

I'm sure it'll be done for the sake of the children. Long live the nanny state! I wonder what the punishment will be for using a metal bat to play the Great American Game.

Double-Edged Pens and Tinfoil Shields

It occurred to me while reading Bush Paves the Way for Martial Law: 2007 National Defense Authorization Act overturns Posse Comitatus Act that there may be an even more sinister plan afoot. Let me explain. From the article, we read:

In October 2006, Bush signed into law the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. Quietly slipped into the law at the last minute, at the request of the Bush administration, were sections changing important legal principles, dating back 200 years, which limit the U.S. government's ability to use the military to intervene in domestic affairs. These changes would allow Bush, whenever he thinks it necessary, to institute martial law--under which the military takes direct control over civilian administration.

Now imagine this President--or any future president--declaring martial law. What good would a declaration of martial law be if the only troops you had to send had no experience on how to conduct themselves in an urban policing environment? It would literally be chaos. That's when I had an epiphany. What better way to ready military troops than to send them somewhere on the globe to conduct a "dry-run" of urban policing to better hone their tactics. Iraq and Afghanistan have proven a perfect environment for this purpose. Think about it. If they can learn to police an unruly group that has shown little respect for laws and authorities, how much easier will they find Americans to be? It would be a cake walk, I'm sure.

Harassing Life and Liberty

The other day, I read an editorial by Fred Foldvary titled U.S. Judges Kill the Ninth Amendment. Mr. Foldvary claims that by it's ruling, the Ninth Circuit has made the Ninth Amendment null and void. I sent an email to Mr. Foldvary and requested a link to the case so that I could read it for myself. I'm glad I did. The conclusion he reached concerning the Ninth Amendment was a little dramatic, in my opinion.

Most of Mr. Foldvary's editorial hinges on the argument that Angel Raich has a common law right to use marijuana to help with her medical conditions. In reading the court papers, I discovered that the court said that she, in fact, does have standing to bring a case seeking injunctive relief... if she'd been charged. Unfortunately, she has not been charged with violating any federal laws under the Controlled Substance Act, therefore she has no standing to seek injunctive relief from the court. In other words, it's the wrong argument for this type of case. Strange as it sounds, she would have been better off if the DEA had arrested and charged her with possession of a controlled substance.

So, where does this decision leave Angel Raich? This is what I imagine will happen: She will continue to need marijuana to maintain her lifestyle. She will either grow it herself or get it from the two John Does referenced in the court papers. The feds will probably show up unannounced at random times and confiscate their marijuana plants in the name of king and country, but will never levy a single charge against them. They will claim that possession of the plants violates the Controlled Substance Act and because the courts have given the federal government jurisdiction under their expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause, they now have the authority to seize these plants from anywhere inside state boundaries.

The court, by not taking a proactive stance against federal overreach, has set up Angel Raich--and anyone else in a similar position--to be continually harassed be overzealous DEA agents. Fred Foldvary was correct to think the government was up to no good. While I disagree with his conclusion that they've gutted the Ninth Amendment, I do agree that the U.S. government has lost its remaining moral authority. This is another clear example of federal authorities harassing and otherwise making private citizen's lives hell, but never going so far as to step over that imaginary line where the courts would be able to step in and make them stop. That's what I think Angel Raich was seeking relief from.

Today's Pet Peeve

An article's headline caught my eye today, and the way it is phrased always irritates me. The headline reads: Video racing games may spur risky driving: study. Once and for all, inanimate objects can't do anything on their own. Without human interaction, they just sit there. The video game does not make you drive recklessly; poor decision-making on your part is to blame. The game doesn't hop into the passenger seat of your car and "spur" you on saying, "Faster, faster!"

This is the exact same misleading headline we see when it comes to gun violence. The typical headline reads, Man killed by assault rifle. So we're suppose to believe the gun sprung from the table and started shooting wildly into the room? I don't think so. Someone killed the man... and he used a gun to do it. Blame the man for his actions, not his tools.

So, what are we to make of this article? What's the purpose of it being printed? I quote Joerg Kubitzki of the Allianz Center for Technology, who conducted the study along with researchers at Munich's Ludwig-Maximilians University:

The question of age restrictions, legally or voluntary, should be discussed not only for "shooter" games but also for this kind of games, which have an impact on traffic safety.

Nice. More regulation. Just what we need: to be saved from ourselves.

Digital Papers Please

Quoting from an article titled Europe seeks to tighten some online laws:

The aim [to outlaw the use of fake information to open e-mail accounts or set up Web sites], analysts say, is to make it easier for law enforcement to access information when they investigate crimes or terrorist attacks. But Europeans have long cherished their privacy, railing against measures that would see personal information stored for commercial use or government examination.

It seems the United States is ahead of Europe when it comes to governments spying on their citizen's internet activities. We're all suppose to give up our privacy because law enforcement claims it makes their jobs easier. If that's the goal then why not shove a GPS tracking device up my ass so my government can keep track of my every move? Mabey a shoulder-mounted camera so they can be sure I'm not looking at anything objectionable, and/or a microphone so they know I'm not listening to subversives?

Orwell would be proud!