Recently in Legal Inanity Category

I stumbled past a local news broadcast last night involving a women who had dropped her baby during an alcohol related incident. Aside from the information that one could drop off their baby for five days with no questions asked somewhere, what stuck me were the comments of the seventeen year old witness. Citing her account of the awful event off camera, she said the mother was basically a good person, but unless or until she attended some parenting classes or alcoholic anonymous she probably should wait to get the baby back.

Now it may be that the mother is overwhelmed or unsuited for the job. Certainly it was a bad situation. The length of the report and the sensationalism of flashing a baby's bloody head on screen over and over again is questionable. A lot a people may in fact identify with a similar situation that did not involve a 9-11 call and news report. But when a seventeen year old witness starts calling for classes for the errant mother, is it any wonder that certain college presidents are calling for a lowering of the drinking age ? At what point is the line crossed from childhood to adult ? While the state prohibits certain behavior, it also encourages opposite behaviors during a control freak bout of insistence and cool reassurance.

I would submit that biological age is not sufficient anymore and that a certification should be given to the presumptuous thirteen year old or the bumbling twenty-nine year old. Of course that range can be adjusted as we get data about the implementation and suitability of the test.

Dave Ridley has some decent advice about how to deal with cops if you have to. It never is good to provoke the folks with guns and a presumed monopoly on local or 'state' power. This is especially true at the outset of a special family trip. Fifteen years ago I didn't back down when the trooper told me I had a suspended license and shouldn't be driving to a Red Sox game. Fortunately my 'client' (the reason I considered it work) flashed his license and volunteered to drive after realizing we might miss the game if I didn't back down quick.

A couple weeks ago, I backed down because I didn't want to disappoint my wife and son as we set out for a game this summer. I always slow down when I enter East Chatham because I too, live in such a small hamlet just over the hills. In fact, the trooper who passed just before this one, didn't have cause to stop me in the village proper as we passed. Apparently the one who sits right at the sign that changes it to 55 did, as I naturally increased my speed leaving the village down the straight away. As we were pulling into the house right there, he flew past and had to turn around at the Cottage Diner. It was enough time to shuffle everyone inside before the incident continued. While I'm no Dave Ridley, my limits of respect and caution are honed enough to know the limits of my rights and his presumed authority over me. I was none too happy about being told to get back in the car and he knew it.

Somewhere in the bowels of the Albany bureaucrazy a satisfied group of middling freedom apostates will be studying the effect of violent video games on children. This little piece of legislation was recently signed by New York Governor David Paterson. Given Mr. Paterson's age and visual disability I highly doubt that he has any understanding of modern video gaming. He doesn't seem the type to spend an all nighter with buddies at a LAN party or partake in the satisfying camaraderie of online companions exploring the World of Warcraft.

As someone who has been associated with computer games their entire life, I would submit that the violence of the state is a far greater risk to our society than the blips that pass before us on screens that elicit nothing more than an active imagination. A video game has never bombed a third world village, never drafted young people for war and never imposed a tax with the threat of violence behind it. As these folks gather in plush conference rooms with hot coffee and fresh pastries, starting a flurry of communication to tackle the project and justify their violence based salaries, I would submit that labels and other niceties that will be affixed to these products will do nothing to slake the thirst of gamers for their free market products that hurt no one but the occasional bruised sensibility that passes for the modern, effete progressive on a high horse.

One wonders if the old 3D Caveman game applies in this situation. After all that was a world premised on survival and violence. And while it probably has passed it's life cycle in the real gaming world, it's still violence right ? I'm guessing the anti-statist world of Grand Theft Auto is the target of this inquisition, not the cuddly metro cavemen we see on the Geico commercials.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The problem with the Constitution is that a priesthood took it over about two hundred years ago. That order comes in two flavors, red & blue. While many on both sides of the 'guns' issue will have a field day of discontent and celebration, any cause for such has long been lost in a ghastly display of reason based on hierarchy and plain old power.

Seems to me that the average folk throughout the ages can easily interpret the second amendment as simply " Well, we had to take up arms against Britain, you never know. So let's not abridge the right to do so." That's now called 'originalism' (though its doubtful that any current justice in that camp would deign to come down to such prosaic and simple language or justification, they still have to hang out together), and while its often rendered quaint by the devious and cunning brutes who feel their relationship to power entitles them to decree, it has become the last weak stand by those who counter the blue players on the board near check mate time.

I can never understand why my fellow citizens run to their elected officials in order to enforce common sense and decency.

This last Monday I mentioned to my wife after going swimming with the kids, that I should go down to the Town meeting and see what my fellow citizens have in store for me. I regret not going now after copping out about heat, time and other previous wasted efforts of energy that is government and its muted participation. It seems like governmentis has creeped in the form of a 'noise' ordinance however and July 14th is on my calendar now.

Late one Friday afternoon last Fall my father and I jumped into his van to get my car down at the dealership. It was a fairly decent week as far as business goes and we were happily discussing the weekend's plans and not paying very much attention when the State Trooper SUV flew by us around the Elk's club. Of course when he wheeled around and stopped us for simply not having our seat belts on, he had our undivided attention. While my Dad may be getting too old for the fight, I snarled back at the cop that " I don't believe in the law " for the reason I wasn't wearing mine. While I usually just buckle out of habit anymore, occasionally I do get stopped for forgetting. This might be due to the exponential growth of the police state in the northern part of our sleepy little county, but I still can't forgive Papa Cuomo for this horrible law.

This upcoming week New York has once again decided to sweep its citizenry with the insidious demand that they protect themselves from the potential medical costs the state might incur if they were injured in an accident because they were not wearing a seatbelt. Last year there were over fifty nine thousand tickets during this time. If at least fifty thousand were successfully prosecuted at a hundred bucks a pop, that's a cool five million in local and state coffers. The jury's still out whether it saves any lives.

But there has never been any question that this law was one of worst rationalizations to continue the machinations of the nanny state and so many others that have followed. Is saving a single life from itself worth the cost of abandoning the principles of individual rights and self ownership ? While this is the crux of libertarian values, few recognize it as such any more. What we did to the cop that day is kind of funny.

I've had a lot of conversations with people about this SCOTUS case from DC. I'm perfectly happy arguing the merits and typically let others do it who have a passion for that type of thing.

This last conversation went a little differently and touched on certain issues differently. While the actual script would look vastly different here's a shell of the feel of it for me.

After the jump.

I haven't had enough time to develop this thought, but the government has taken it in their hands to ground some of the SouthWest airplanes for not complying. Apparently the FAA missed the proverbial boat on this too. If SouthWest can be fined for failing to conform with the 'rules' what is the recourse for the FAA ?

I've worked at an aviation group in the past as an IT guy. My experience was that every mechanic and technician was completely aware of the need for the constant Zen and the Art attitude it takes for safe flying. Here's a blog comment, presumably from a mechanic that I found just after this incident was revealed.

After the jump.

Dear Mr. Paterson,

I know the pressure is immense for you to step in and fill the void that Mr. Spitzer's alleged and apparently acknowledged actions seem to be taking us New Yorkers. I have always had a respect for your even handed and honest approach to politics in New York.

While I believe that taxation is theft and war is the health of the state, there are certainly times when leadership, any leadership, is better than the current mess that we are in. As you know, Senator Clinton is fighting for the nomination of your party for the office of President. I urge you to ask Mrs. Clinton to suspend that effort and to jointly declare that reform in New York is as important for the world as it is New York.

With your enlightened approach in this matter, the nightmare of the current race and scandal in NY could unite us back into a common front for virtual socialism, fascism and legal tyranny, to say nothing of the undemocratic mechanisms which prevent good people from running for public office.

Sincerely,

John/Jane Q. Public 99

In his great requiem, East of Eden, John Steinbeck points out both the advantage and despair of the brothel in the formation of the American West. The character and real life 'monster' Cathy, describes University professors willing to have toilet water splashed in their face for the right combination of trick. The other brother, Cain, simply utilizes its services on occasion and is satisfied the need enough not to bother or hurt anyone with sensibilities like love or caring when it comes to the physical and evolutionary need to breed.

If prostitution were legal Governor Spitzer would not be wasting our New York minutes (I calculate approximately two and a half dollars a minute). Instead he may spend weeks defending himself in a very public manner in what was a very private matter. Of course when old Bill Weld accepted our nomination in 2006, many were up in arms about the Libertarians stance on prostitution. Ain't nobody calling us hypocrites today.