Political Correctness deemed bad for children

So you think Dennis Kucinich is the right man for the White House? Or maybe Ron Paul is your choice? Do you honestly believe that Rosie O'Donnell is right about 9-11? Chances are you watched too much Sesame Street.
According to this article in Sunday's New York Times Magazine, the show that was known for spreading the message of political correctness to youngsters has been deemed "suitable for adults only."
That is the warning printed on the packaging of the new DVD release of the first two seasons of the venerated PBS children's program. The PC police have pointed out several problems with the show that they did not notice as children. Oh my God, were they actually drinking whole milk? Why was Oscar the Grouch's obvious depression untreated? These are questions that would never cross the mind of the four year old watching the show, but it was right there on the television! Never mind that the characters were imaginary, or that they were portrayed by puppets, but a gay couple like Bert and Ernie living in a decrepit apartment sends the wrong message, according to the PC police. They should know, they grew up watching the show and look at them now.
So, whether it's an oxymoron or a self-fulfilling prophecy, the message to liberals now is don't let your children grow up to be like you.
Or, as Tyler Grey of Radar Online writes:

Why, Gen-X'er, did you become a flannel-wearing faux liberal, trusting (in theory) of the good will of your Socialistically like-minded fellow citizens but actually rendered cynical by a much grimmer reality you encountered in adult life?

Sesame Street. It totally f***ed you up.

Veteran's Day

In Honor of those who have served their country, and in tribute to those who have given their lives in service to their country:

The Atrocity at Home

You're driving down the highway, and, up ahead you see flashing red and blue lights. The traffic slows to a standstill, and you wait in line, wondering if there are prison escapees or other criminal fugitives in the area. When you finally get to the roadblock, a man with a badge and a gun approaches your window, and says "Show me your license and registration, please."
As you collect the required documents the "public safety" officer takes a visual look around inside your car, and you realize that it is you they are looking for.
What, you may wonder, is the reason for this detention and search? Where is the probable cause?
The government charges that the probable cause is that you are driving a car, and that you might, therefore, be driving while intoxicated, under the influence, or that you may be using or transporting illegal or illicit substances in the passenger compartment of your vehicle.
Of course, the government may find probable cause in everything you do. If you are walking down the street, you may be eluding arrest, because, if you have nothing to hide, why aren't you driving a car? If you are living by yourself, you could be a social deviant. If you are living and breathing, you might plotting to kill someone. There is plenty of probable cause, when the criteria are so vague.
In the states--all but eleven--that utilize these sobriety check points, the ratio of actual DWI offenders to innocent detainees is approximately less than one in 800, according to Barry Noreen of the Colorado Springs Gazette.
Noreen comments on the questionable constitutionality of sobriety check points:

In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that sobriety checkpoints are constitutional, and that remains the law of the land, even though the Fourth Amendment supposedly protects citizens from being detained without probable cause.

Is it conceivable the high court could be wrong? Remember, a unanimous court once upheld the internment camps for Americans of Japanese ancestry. In Plessy v. Ferguson, it created the “separate-but-equal” justification for racial segregation.
Sure, the Supreme Court could be wrong again.

In 1990, the court defended checkpoints where the average delay for innocent citizens was 25 seconds. Today, the Colorado Springs Police Department’s Web site says three minutes is an acceptable guideline.

It’s hardly reassuring that the Bill of Rights will be suspended for just three minutes.

The return to the State harvested from the sobriety check points is too low to justify the cost in time and money. Law enforcement resources are being mishandled in manning these check points.
Wouldn't it be easier to catch DWI offenders by patrolling traffic and looking for such tell-tale signs as excessive weaving, erratic turns, speeding, excessively slow driving, or running stop lights or stop signs? Just because a person is in a car, doesn't mean that he or she is irresponsible for his or her actions, any more than living and breathing means that we could commit a crime.

A must read--unsolicited review

I apologize to my readers for the lack of posts over the last few weeks. I have no excuse--there is plenty to write about, plenty of arguments to present, and lots of ideas to throw around.
I have come across an excellent blog titled "Interdisciplinary World" by Dr T. This is a blogger who I see as very like-minded to myself. His latest posts, on sexuality and politics and on fanaticism are very well written, and bring up some points that will give the reader some substantial food for thought.
Dr T. backs up every statement with well researched references, and his writing is articulate. Best of all, he posts every day, covering a myriad of subjects.
What sets him apart from other Libertarian bloggers can be seen in the statement of purpose in the header of his blog, which reads:

It is time we had an interdisciplinary world. It is time we created a society where all levels of thinking and society can work together – so the individual psychologies can live together in a more integrated society. Interdisciplinary thinking tries to promote environmentalism, capitalism, religion, heroic individualism, and families simultaneously. Beauty, truth, and ethics are united.

In every item he posts, Dr T applies this statement of purpose, tying every example to the community. He is, what we might call an "Objectivist," that is, an activist in the philosophy made popular by the late author Ayn Rand. Objectivism is a viable, important, and necessary alternative to socialism. He presents objectivism in a practical manner, in integrating it into the idea of an "interdisciplinary world."
This is a must read for anyone who reads and writes blogs, as well as anybody who is interested in ways to repair society. Whether you agree with him or not, Dr T will allow you to think about what you do believe.

Congress or Community?

It is a basic tenet of Libertarian philosophy that the best government for the smallest community is the smallest community. In the wake of the tragic California wildfires, we are seeing the truth of this belief in the evacuation centers, such as QualCom Stadium. In dealing with the misery of losing property and belongings, and of being displaced, we see a wonderful example of the human spirit and the power of the community coming together.
When a crisis arises in a community, it is human nature that the members of that community pull together, to help each other out. This is what happened at QualCom, in San Diego. Clowns and pets entertained the children, and people went out or their way to give children crayons and paper or coloring books to keep them busy, and to help lift their spirits.
The atmosphere was described by one reporter as being like a "street festival." People were helping people keep their minds off of their predicament, and spreading friendship, sympathy, and empathy. The citizens of the community took personal responsibility to do their part in making sure everybody found as much comfort as possible under the circumstances.
It wasn't a government agency that donated food, clothing, water and other items of need. It was that "evil corporate slavemaster," Wal-Mart/Sam's Club. Not only did they deliver goods to all of the evacuation centers, but they also donated one million dollars to the Red Cross for relief operations.
Nor was it a government agency that thought about the needs of the pets. Petco, another "Capitalistic oppressor," sent truckloads of pet food, snacks and medicine to the evacuation centers, ensuring that the beloved companions of the displaced families were taken care of as well.
Not to say that FEMA and the State of California didn't step up. Even while Senator Barbara Boxer was complaining that the War in Iraq prevented sufficient aid from being given where it was needed, California National Guardmen were being reassigned to State duty from their posts on the US-Mexico border, to aid in the firefighting and evacuation effort. FEMA obviously learned lessons from its mistakes during the Katrina disaster and was very efficient in implementing and coordinating the emergency actions operations. The day after Boxer blamed the forest fires on the Bush Administration, as any good Democratic Party politician should do, she ate her words, saying that the manpower and equipment available to the State of California was "sufficient."
Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid decided to do his part in helping the victims of the disaster by declaring that the wildfires, which have been fueled by the "Santa Ana" winds every year in the history of humankind, were caused by global warming, and that he would make sure that Congress would pass legislation dealing with the issue. This did give some comfort to those who refuse to admit that it may not have been a wise choice to build or buy a home in the fire prone area, for now they can blame their poor judgement on the natural cycle of the warming and cooling of the Earth. Even if we assume that industrialization is responsible for the acceleration of the natural cycles, Senator Reid is fifty years too late in promising legislation that, even if enacted this very minute, won't do much to help those who lost personal property and jobs in the fires. One might ask Senator Reid if it might have been a better idea to offer tax incentives to energy companies that research alternative fuels and energy, rather than taxing them out of the money needed to conduct such research.
When offered a choice, when needing help, between going to Congress or going to our neirghbors, the answer seems fairly obvious. The government has never given anybody the help they need in times of crises.

This doesn't surprise me

Your Political Profile:

Overall: 60% Conservative, 40% Liberal Social Issues: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal Personal Responsibility: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal Fiscal Issues: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal Ethics: 0% Conservative, 100% Liberal Defense and Crime: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal

How Liberal Or Conservative Are You?

This puts me, overall, close to what the media refers to as a "Centrist," a label with which I could live happily, as long as socio-economic politics can be viewed on a two dimensional chart.

Liberal<----------------------Centrist----------------------->Conservative

On such a chart, there is no room for "Libertarian" or its extreme opposite, "Statist." "Statist," a euphenism for "Authoritarian," could be the label applied to anyone who scores an overall rating of 100% as either a "Liberal" or a "Conservative", because such a rating either way implies that the quizee would place either the economy or personal choice completely in the hands of the government.
A more accurate political quiz could be found on the Advocates For Self Government page titled "The World's Smallest Political Quiz."
If the results obtained in the "How Liberal/Conservative Are You" quiz are similar to the ones displayed at the beginning of this post, they would be displayed in the "World's Smallest Political Quiz thusly:

This is called the "Nolan chart" devised by Dick Nolan, a co-founder of the Libertarian Party, as an illustration of what a Libertarian is compared to a Liberal or a Conservative.
I recommend taking both quizzes, you may be entertained, confused, dismayed, or surprised by the results, but, after all, it is educational.

Beware the Neotarian

There seems to be a large number of American dissidents who blog under the category of "Libertarian," while sounding more like the "Radical Left." They focus not on Libertarian principles such as the repeal of the Federal Income Tax, getting out of and banning the UN, freedom of choice and personal responsibility, but rather on the single concept of initiation of force. That is, their own perception of initiation of force.
They support their views by ignoring historical fact, by twisting fact, and by manufacturing their own facts. For example, they will repeat endlessly that we are engaged in an "illegal," as in "undeclared," war even with this declaration of war sitting right in front of them. The measure, which became Public Law 105-338 when signed by President Clinton on October 31, 1998, listed twelve reasons to depose Saddam Hussein, and included details on the overthrow of Saddam and the reconstruction plans for after the overthrow.
Yet this law is ignored by the Neotarians, who claim that President Bush manufactured Saddam as an enemy of the United States.
They also come very close to the conspiracy throrists, who, without any factual support, claim that "9-11 was an inside job"
But their agenda has little to do with Libertarian thought. They consider the works of such great Libertarian figures as Natan Sharansky, or Andrei Sakharov as being "neoconservative." They are merely finding another direction from which to protest the war.
There are many Libertarians who are against the war, mostly for the huge amount of government spending it takes to run the war, and there are others, such as Neal Boortz, (and myself, for that matter) who believe the war is necessary to ensure free enterprise and the freedom of our own country, by drawing the line before it gets to our own shores. At any rate, most Libertarians agree that the war in Iraq will most likely be a non-issue by election time next year. Most Libertarian bloggers are busy addressing such issues as freedom of choice, freedom of expression, true free market, and prohibition, issues which we feel we can actually do something about in a practical manner.
Neotarians, on the other hand, continue to make things up in support of their own brand of reality.