Action: Stop the Patriot Act

Act now to stop the renewal of the Patriot Act. Check out
this post at Hammer of Truth for step-by-step instructions on what you can do to block the Patriot Act.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...still angry...

There Oughtta Not Be A Law: Airplane Toilet Edition

Christopher Elliott writes in the New York Times about the fact that there is not a law requiring all airplanes to have a working restroom.

Unbelievable as it may sound, the only apparent law on the books that requires an aircraft to fly with a working restroom, the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986, applies to planes with more than one aisle that were delivered or refurbished after April 1992. That's a huge loophole, given the number of jets that are older or have just one aisle. Plus, federal law seems to be mum when it comes to the all-important passenger-to-toilet ratio on a plane.

Oh my God, whatever shall we do? I mean, if there's no law, it's merely a matter of time before airlines force their passengers to "hold it" for the duration of the flight. Emergency session! Pass a law now, before there's stinking planes full of piss and shit flying around our fair country!! Oh noes!!

Or maybe it's not such a big problem after all, because airlines don't want to piss off their passengers.

Of course, airlines don't exploit this regulatory lapse. United, like other domestic and international airlines, operates all its planes - no matter their age or size - with a full complement of working restrooms. Most of the time. "If a lavatory is malfunctioning, we will close it down and refer customers to an alternative one on the plane," said a United spokeswoman, Robin Urbanski. "If more than one lavatory is malfunctioning, we typically divert the plane."

As Derek was saying to me, "I think there are people who believe basic physical forces would cease to function if the American legislature did not enact a regulation requiring them to occur. So of course airlines wouldn't put washrooms in just to keep their passengers happy and using their airline..."

Next time someone suggests a law to fix a non-problem, just remind them of the idiocy of toilet regulations for airplanes.

Hat tip: Nick Gillespie at Hit and Run

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...not dead yet...

The Grey Lady Catches Up

As mentioned here back in July, IJ is winning the New London war, even though the Supreme Court ruled against them.

It looks like the New York Times figured it out today. My favorite passage:

"We need to have some positive things happening so that every lender and investor I go to doesn't say, 'I want to be 100 miles away from here,' " Ms. Jones said. "Eminent domain in Fort Trumbull has been on the front page of every newspaper in the country, and it has not put New London in the most positive light."

Despite losing in court, the holdouts have gained political leverage, largely through the public relations effort led by the Institute for Justice, Mr. Joplin said.

Scott G. Bullock, a lawyer for the Institute for Justice who argued for the resistant property owners before the Supreme Court, said, "We might have lost the battle, but the overall war is really going in our favor."

"What developer is going to want to build on land that was received through probably the most universally despised Supreme Court decision in decades?" Mr. Bullock asked.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...vindicated...

Do you have a permit for that satire?

Looks like the White House is suing The Onion for the use of the Presidential Seal without "official approval."

Hammer of Truth has come up with their own...umm...use of the the Seal. Wonder how long it'll take to get approval for that. Given how far the Administration has stretched the collective ass of the country, it should be a no-brainer.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...tee hee...

D.C. Council Fixes Mistake

Props to the D.C. Council for repealing their 'zero-tolerance' DUI law. Too bad it took a lot of people getting arrested for having a single glass of wine to make 'em do it.

"D.C. is once again open for business," said council member Carol Schwartz (R-At Large), principal author of the legislation. She said visitors "can come in and have a glass of wine and not be harassed or intimidated."

The changes would place alcohol levels from .05 to .079 in a "neutral zone" that would require other factors, such as sobriety field tests, to establish a driver's impairment. The changes would bring District law in line with that of Virginia, Maryland and other states.

It still remains to be seen whether Mayor Williams will sign the legislation.

Before yesterday's vote, Williams wrote the council a letter in which he questioned the need to change the law and said police are "not unfairly targeting drivers who have a drink at dinner." After the vote, he issued a statement that criticized the council's action.

Williams noted that six people in the District died last year in alcohol-related crashes in which the driver's blood alcohol level was less than .08.

"The fact that people are dying on the road is reason enough for us to think long and hard about undoing years of federal and local public safety messages that stress: 'Don't Drink and Drive,' " Williams wrote.

How disingenuous can the Mayor be? Six people died last year justifies arresting people who have had one glass of wine? Not hauling people to jail for having one drink is 'undoing years of federal and local public safety messages'? What a tool.

Maybe Mayor Williams just hasn't been teased enough at parties yet.

Members said they are concerned that the story was making headlines across the country and portraying the District as the last refuge of Prohibition. Ambrose said she attended a wedding in Maine this weekend and was teased about it. Council member Vincent B. Orange Sr. (D-Ward 5) said participants at a recent business meeting were jokingly warned not to have a glass of wine lest they be carted away.

"The press is killing us," Orange said.

Note to press: Please keep killing them.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...drinky drinky...

Irony Translates Well

Check out this post about ambivalent Spanish honoring of George Orwell. I'll bet he's spinning in his grave right now.

Hat tip: Samizdata.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...who watches the watchers...

Fuck MADD, Fuck 'Zero Tolerance,' and Fuck Asshole Cops

Dear All,
This very special episode of the the Angry Libertarian Alliance is brought to you by the latest abuse of government power by the DC Police (and DMV). As this WaPo story relates, Debra Bolton had a glass of wine with dinner and ended up in jail for blowing a .03. Let me repeat that for emphasis, 'point oh fucking three.' Most of you are probably thinking that that's well below the legal limit, and it is. However,

Bolton, 45, an energy lawyer and single mother of two who lives in Alexandria, had just run into a little-known piece of D.C. law: In the District, a driver can be arrested with as little as .01 blood-alcohol content.

As D.C. police officer Dennis Fair, who arrested Bolton on May 15, put it in an interview recently: "If you get behind the wheel of a car with any measurable amount of alcohol, you will be dealt with in D.C. We have zero tolerance. . . . Anything above .01, we can arrest."

Bolton fought the charges and got them dropped (prosecutors apparently have better things to do). Annoyance over, right? Oh hell no! Time for that bastion of abusive bureaucracy, the DMV, to get involved. Even though the charges were dropped and there was no conviction, the DC DMV "warned that it would suspend her driving privileges at the end of this month unless she went through an alcohol prevention program."

Corey Buffo, the DMV's general counsel, explained that the agency drops its procedures only after a case goes to trial and is dismissed on its merits. "Our burden of proof is lower" than the Superior Court's, he said. "Not enough evidence for them may be enough evidence for us." Yesterday, the DMV decided not to suspend her privileges and issued her a warning instead.

Does anyone else smell a violation of 'due process' rights, because I sure do. Suspending someone's driving privileges based on an arrest alone looks like it's ripe for a Constitutional challenge.

Lesson of the day: Don't drink in DC. At all. Ever.

From today's follow-up story, it looks like MADD, the DC Council member who sponsored the law in the first place, and various other interest groups are backpedalling on this piece-of-shit, nanny state law.

Even D.C. Council member Carol Schwartz (R-At Large), who has sponsored legislation to lower the legal limit for drunken driving, said she was not aware that police officers are arresting drivers who have as little as .01 percent blood alcohol content -- less than from drinking a glass of wine or beer -- in their systems. Nor did she think that such a policy was a good idea.

...

D.C.'s zero-tolerance policy goes back about seven years. In 1998, at the same time Schwartz introduced an amendment to lower the blood alcohol limit for intoxication from .10 to .08 with much media attention, then-Council member Sandy Allen introduced a provision that lowered to .03 the level that a driver could be presumed impaired by alcohol. Both measures passed.

Gee, maybe people should be careful before passing stupid laws. Fuckers.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...grrr...

UPDATE: If you want to do something about it, then contacting the DC Council would be a good start.

Public Service Announcements We Can Get Behind

The PSAs linked over at mychoice.ca provide some great tips for people who might feel that government has too much control over their lives.

They cover important topics like recycling, water conservation, and the issue that started the ALA, obesity.

"Your government...let us do the choosing."

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...free to choose...

We're down with CLC

Check out College Libertarian Central, another resource for the angry libertarian.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...keeping it real...

Compounding Government Mistakes, Nuclear-style

Steve Gordon over at Liberty for Sale, notes that a draft policy doctrine put forth by the administration would authorize pre-emptive nuclear strikes against an adversary "adversary using or intending to use WMD against US, multinational, or alliance forces or civilian populations."

Woo fucking hoo! Now, instead of just getting a bunch of ground troops stuck in a tar-baby of a war under false pretenses, we're gonna up the ante by nuking the shit out of countries that talk trash about WMDs. Really, does this seem like a good idea to anybody? Bueller?

Read the whole post, it's quite good.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...nukyoolar...

Sauce for the Goose

According to the Christian Science Monitor, North Korea and Iran will continue their nuclear efforts, claiming that peaceful nuclear energy development is their right.

'Rogue nation,' 'axis of evil,' and other diplomatic perjoratives can be translated as 'country that doesn't play by our rules.' The United States is particularly hypocritical in trying to refer other nations to the UN Security Council for violations of rules that we never have, nor ever will, respect.

Freedom is the one thing one cannot have if one is unwilling to give it to others. This applies to states as much as to individuals. By attempting to prevent the self-determination of other countries, we create security threats that make us less free.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...back from the dead...

The Libertarian Party is No Longer a Membership Club

Steve Gordon reports that the Libertarian National Committee has passed the Squyres proposal for zero dues. That's right, boys and girls, our little party is growing up. No longer will your LP bona fides consist of whether or not you sent the Party your $25 this year. Rather than requiring you to pony up the dough to be a member of the party, we're going to use the voluntary approach of encouraging you to pony up the dough, with such libertarian tactics as guilt and shame.

Hey, it works for those other parties.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...pleased...

Libertarians, get off your principled asses!

Nothing makes this Libertarian angrier than the radical elements of the party who would rather lose without compromise than acheive a small victory. This phenomenon has caused more people to give up on the LP than probably any other single factor.

J. Daniel Cloud wrote a great editorial in LP News that gets right to the heart of this problem.

I want to see some Libertarians get off their principled asses and do something to enact those principles in America. And I’m ready to do something myself. That’s why I helped write — and proudly signed — the Exit Plan for Iraq. It ain’t perfect. But it shows Americans that the LP wants to see U.S. troops leave Iraq. It shows that we’re tired of the killing. It shows that we are willing to accept incremental change, so long as change occurs. It shows that we are capable of thinking in terms of “transition” instead of “revolution.”

The party spent more than 30 years trying to change American politics from the outside, with philosophical purity in place, and we failed. If you are one of those who think Libertarians shouldn’t be politicians, feel free to continue sending nasty e-mails complaining that the Libertarian Party is “compromising” too much, that we’re settling for incrementalism.

Hear, hear. Thanks to Tim West for drawing this to my attention.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...stfu and do something...

IJ: Even When They Lose, They Win

Major props to the good folks over at the Institute for Justice. Not only did they not miss a beat after the loss of the Kelo v. New London case, ratcheting up efforts of The Castle Coalition to protect private property rights for eminent domain abuses, it looks like they managed to derail Connecticut takings:

The largest organization of Connecticut municipalities said Monday that a suggested moratorium on seizing private property is unnecessarily broad.

A spokesman for the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities said towns and cities using eminent domain laws for traditional public uses, such as building schools and roads, should be able to proceed.

Lawmakers suggested the moratorium after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last month that New London can seize homes for a private economic development project. They want time to consider changing Connecticut's laws to provide more protection for property owners.

The upshot is that, even though the SCOTUS has ruled that these takings are constitutional, the publicity has made them unpopular enough that they're going to be delayed, hopefully indefinitely.

It just goes to show that the sort of government abuses that are specific to local government are extremely vulnerable to having the light of the public eye shined on them.

Rock on, IJ!

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...supporter...

Something to chew on

...over the weekend.

"I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for
this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually." -James Baldwin, writer (1924-1987)

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...blogging light...

Good quote

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. -Thomas Jefferson, third US president, architect and author (1743-1826)

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...nothing to add...

Take Heart

In light of recent blows to liberty brought down by the Supreme Court in Raich and Kelo, it is wise to remember the words from the Ballad of Sir Andrew Barton:

'Fight on, my men,' says Sir Andrew Barton,
'I am hurt, but I am not slain;
I'll lay me down and bleed a while,
And then I'll rise and fight again.

Join the Castle Coalition today and rise and fight again.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...still here, still angry...

First They Came For The Smokers...

...and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a smoker. Now they're coming for the drinkers. (Hat tip to Boozie).

More and more states are considering higher alcohol taxes after years of raising cigarette rates.

This year, Kentucky and Washington state hiked their liquor tariffs. Montana, Indiana and North Dakota rejected higher beer taxes.

Texas is still considering an increase, which would go to help pay for public schools. And Ohio lawmakers must decide what they're going to do before the new fiscal year starts July 1.

Now we at the ALA can understand things like gas taxes going up to support highway repairs, or even property taxes going up to support schools (as long as the money's not wasted). In those cases, the tax increase is related to the service provided. But here, as with cigarette taxes, it's just taxing the minority because they can't fight back.

Excise taxes, sometimes called sin taxes, are a more palatable way to raise revenue for states than a broader tax, said Bert Waisanen, fiscal analyst for the Denver-based National Conference of State Legislatures.

Part of the reason is the moral message. The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington-based nonprofit, contends that hiking alcohol taxes is a good way to fight alcohol abuse.

"Tens of millions of dollars a year already are spent marketing alcoholic beverages to underage consumers," George Hacker, director of the center's Alcohol Policies Project, said in a statement posted on the center's Web site. "Lower taxes and lower prices will only further entice young people to drink."

"Moral message," my pasty white ass. The neo-Puritans who would turn our country into a place fit only for children should be stopped dead in their tracks. Don't let them splinter the smokers from the drinkers from the gamblers. Sinners of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your persecution.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...avid drinker...

Remember Who The 'Real' Enemy Is

Over at Liberty For Sale, there's a healthy dose of 'stop bickering about bullshit and start fighting the real enemy' medicine.

Pro-Life Libertarians are not my enemy, Pro-Choice Libertarians are not my enemy, Pro-War Libertarians are not my enemy, Pro-Peace Libertarians are not my enemy, Christian Libertarians are not my enemy, Muslim Libertarians are not my enemy, Jewish Libertarian are not my enemy, Atheist Libertarians are not my enemy.

The list goes on, and on, and on…

Another Libertarian with a slightly different view on an issue than me, is not my enemy.

My enemy is the Democratic and Republican Parties!

Read the whole thing.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...still angry...

Freakin' Lasers!

Remember David Banach, the New Jersey man indicted for pointing a laser at an airplane?

Banach, 38, faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted of interference with pilots of an aircraft "with reckless disregard for the safety of human life," a provision of the USA Patriot Act passed following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Now NORAD is planning to setup lasers around D.C. to point at airplanes that enter restricted airspace.

Officials from the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) said the visual warning system is designed to quickly warn commercial, government and private pilots of planes and helicopters by shining alternating red and green lights at their aircraft.

Private individual endangers a pilot by pointing a laser at his eyes? Go to jail. Government does it? They're protecting D.C. It's insane.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...sauce for the goose...