Write to James!

All material except cited quotations Copyright (C) 2004-2008 by James Anderson Merritt. All rights reserved.

 
I'd just like to invite all of my friends to check out the website of another friend, Gunter Vorlop, who writes about high tech stock investing. It's open to the public and contains a lot of interesting and useful information for those who want to manage their own portfolios: The RF To Light 100. In addition to a column that surveys the state of the market-segment, Gunter provides facts about 100 high-tech stocks in a detailed spreadsheet, which you can download. It's interesting stuff for those who enjoy that kind of thing. Take a look and see what you think.

Labels: investing, rf to light 100, stock, tech, vorlop

 
WHAT A DI-LEMMA!

A couple of weeks ago, I sent letters to my representative and Senators in Washington, urging them to vote against the proposed bailout of the financial sector, but of course they all voted in favor. Congressman Sam Farr voted "yes" twice! Today, I received an email response from one of the others, Senator Dianne Feinstein. Amusingly enough, my copy of Microsoft Outlook initially diverted this item into the "Junk Mail Folder." That seemed somehow appropriate, as I was sure that the email contained nothing more than a weak and unconvincing excuse for selling out the taxpayer (a prediction that I have since confirmed). To put it back into the regular mailbox, however, I had to use the "Mark as Not Junk" menu option, and believe me, I hesitated! But wait, it gets better! Afterward, Outlook asked me to endorse the completely naive and unwise policy to "Always trust mail from "senator@feinstein.senate.gov." After another long hesitation to consider the surreal absurdity of this sequence of events, I reluctantly clicked the "OK" button, though I didn't believe it was "OK" at all.

Labels: bailout, feinstein, junk, outlook, senate, spam, trust

 
THE PRICE WE PAY

In today's Santa Cruz Sentinel, I read a Letter to the Editor that trotted out the old Progressive mantra, "Taxes are the price we pay for living in a civilized society." The problem is that the level of taxes, and the nature of the civilized society to be purchased by those taxes are not decisions left up to the poor citizens who must pay the bill, but rather to the elected (and often, unelected) elite who get to rule in the name of all. Invariably, these rulers want to pay for more "civilized society" than the ruled can afford. Or, more often, they manage to deliver just the bare minimum of the services of civilization, while the people's money disappears down a black hole, to magically reappear in the pockets and bank accounts of the rulers or their cronies.

If taxes really are the price we pay for civilization, I think we could pay a lot less and get just as much true civilization as we do now. On the other hand, Will Rogers said, "thank goodness we don't get all the government we pay for." In truth, we are paying so much in taxes that we could purchase airtight Big Brother totalitarianism. As a matter of fact, we're well on the way to getting that level of government "service," but luckily for us, the forces of graft, corruption, and incompetence skim off just enough to prevent the government from having sufficient resources and vigor to truly enslave us all. So I guess even crooks serve an important purpose in the political ecology.

Labels: Big Brother, civilization, corruption, progressive, Sentinel, taxes, totalitarianism, Will Rogers

 

IMMIGRATION AUTHORITY: WHERE IS IT? WHO HAS IT?

I read an article in the online Daily Californian recently, entitled "Why Illegal Aliens Are Neither," which inspired me to write and send the following essay to the Daily Cal editors. Maybe they'll publish it and maybe they won't.

In response to “Why Illegal Aliens Are Neither” by Jessica Cerittos and Elena Vilchis, I would like to challenge Daily Cal readers (many of whom, I hope, are attending Boalt Hall) to find in the US Constitution any specific authority for the federal government to prevent entrance to, exit from, or even residence (temporary or permanent) in the United States. For instance, my reading of the document shows that the federal government can “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” or call forth “the Militia … to repel invasions” (Article I, Section 8). The former authority is often cited as the basis for immigration law, but there are many people who come here only temporarily, or who, even if they live and work here for an extended period, nevertheless continue to regard themselves as citizens of another country, with no interest in participating in our civic institutions, and every intention of “returning home” periodically or, someday, permanently. Such people would seem to be neither invaders nor candidates for naturalization, so in which category do they fall, as to be legitimately regulated in their comings and goings by the federal government?

Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution actually enjoins congress from prohibiting the “Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit,” prior to 1808. But this is an odd, “negative authority.” I cannot find any positive language, elsewhere in the Constitution, which specifically allows the federal government to regulate immigration, before or after the 1808 sunset date of the aforementioned restriction on Congress. Can you? The same paragraph does allow the federal government to tax “such Importation” (but not “Migration”) at up to $10 per head; this authority appears to have no sunset clause, but it also seems a far cry from a general authority to regulate immigration. Finally, I find it interesting that this paragraph hints that immigration and “Importation” of persons was originally a matter for each individual State to decide, and not the federal function that so many in the modern day believe it is and always has been.

Amendment X establishes that any authority that the Constitution does not specifically grant to the federal government, or deny to the States, is retained by the States or the people, respectively. In other words, the federal government does not have any legitimate authority that you cannot straightforwardly find in the Constitution. So it is important to demand a good answer to the question, “What authority does the federal government have to control immigration?” This question has actually been considered by the Supreme Court, but I found their key answer to be profoundly without substance and disappointing.

In the Chinese Exclusion Case of 1889, the court said simply this: “That the government of the United States, through the action of the legislative department, can exclude aliens from its territory is a proposition which we do not think open to controversy.” The Justices, then, did not even bother with reconciling the government’s presumed immigration power with the text of the Constitution. The power to exclude foreigners was assumed as “inherent” in the very idea of national sovereignty. I say this answer was “profoundly disappointing” to me because throughout, the Constitution authorizes explicitly many powers that might also have seemed “inherent” in the idea of national sovereignty: The power to tax, for example, or to coin money, or to raise an army or maintain a navy, or to repel invasions.

The whole idea of the Constitution is to move away from notions of “inherent powers of sovereignty” and avoid the danger posed by government powers that “everyone” is supposed to “know,” but nobody has fixed firmly in writing. Clearly, today’s issues surrounding immigration illustrate those very dangers. Rather than inventing “inherent powers” of “national sovereignty” to appease populist sentiment, I think we should admit that Amendment X obligates us to amend our Constitution, if we want the federal government to have the authority to repel or eject any peaceful individual who is not credibly an “invader.” Until then, the matter of immigration (not “naturalization,” the acquisition of citizenship) seems a State concern, at best. Read the Constitution for yourself. What do you think?

Labels: constitution, enumerated powers, immigration, tenth amendment

 
"FUSION" POCKETBOOK POLITICS ON TAX DAY

I recently found a Google video of a talk that the late Robert Bussard, physicist and proponent of "fusor-approach" nuclear fusion (as opposed to "tokamak-approach") gave at the Google campus in 2006, a little more than a year before his death. (It's a little more than 90 minutes. You can see it by clicking the highlighted link.)

Bussard, inventor of the Bussard ramjet interstellar drive concept, former assistant director of the Atomic Energy Commission, and former head of the Los Alamos National Labs, talked about the "Polywell" fusor that he and his team developed on a shoestring budget over the past couple of decades. His basic claim was that all the key physics had been worked out as a result of his research, but that realization of a practical Polywell-based fusion reactor faced numerous challenges in engineering, which would cost around $200M to address.

I am both encouraged and depressed by Bussard’s talk and the supplementary material I found to go with it. Encouraged, because before he died, Bussard was successful in getting funding for his company, EMCC, to go ahead with at least the part of the program that would confirm earlier results, and in putting a team together to carry on his work. I was happy to read that the government approved the follow-on project to create a full-scale (100MW) Polywell fusor, apparently footing the $200M bill, assuming that the results of a less-expensive confirmation project are positive.

But I am discouraged that the relatively paltry sum of $200M is such a political football, and that Bussard and his team have had such difficulties in raising it (and, with economic problems and shifting political will, may have difficulties in keeping it), in comparison with the billions that have been tossed down the bottomless pit of Tokamak and similar approaches.

So why am I posting this on Tax Day in the US? On our tax forms, you are asked whether you wish to donate a few bucks to the Presidential election fund. Money spent in this way will go toward electing a President who is almost guaranteed to keep us in Iraq for at least a few years more, at the cost of billions of dollars and many deaths and horrendous injuries on all sides. Moreover, the thousands of dollars that each person remits in taxes will go primarily toward paying interest on the national debt and running this crazy war, with the largest remaining part going to social security and healthcare entitlements, and leaving some left over to fund the government bureaucracy and various discretionary social programs – the combined annual cost being well over a TRILLION dollars per year. Finally, tens (perhaps hundreds) of millions of people each willingly part with many dollars every day to buy government lottery tickets, which offer infinitesimal odds of winning a huge personal fortune.

I can't help but wonder: What would happen if, in disgust at how the government has squandered the resources and the full faith and credit of the American people, everyone who filed a 2007 tax return and everyone who bought a lottery ticket in 2007 would send JUST ONE DOLLAR to the foundation that Bussard set up to collect private funding for his experiments? Maybe the Polywell approach is flawed, a dead-end. I'm not a physicist and I can't vet the concept to the last decimal place. But the ideas seem worthy and the people working on the project are credible scientists, who have shown promising results already and received international recognition (and prizes!) for their work, so a buck or two would certainly seem to be money as well spent as on lottery tickets, the Presidential campaign fund, or business-as-usual in the Federal government. If we lose our money on this gamble, the individual loss will be almost negligible. But if the full-scale Polywell works as the late physicist hoped and predicted, then we can look forward to getting 100MW of power or more (enough to run 100,000 homes, or propel highway-capable electric cars almost 4.4 TRILLION miles in a year's time) from a reactor as small as eight feet square – smaller than most people’s living rooms – without a fuel shortage risk, without residual radiation or waste-product disposal problems, and without greenhouse gas emissions. That’s a huge, world-changing upside.

Today, I donated $5 to Bussard's foundation (link on the page takes you to a page where you can donate via PayPal). I ask all my long-suffering fellow taxpayers to consider making a similar donation. This kind of research seems to be too important to leave to our government. And as just a matter of national pride: I think it needs to be WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, who lead us into a world where it is never again credible to go to war over access to energy. I believe that, if the people lead, the leaders will follow. So let's lead, already. If you donate, please pass this article along to someone else. Thanks.

 
Homeland Security Violated My Privacy

Lots of things have happened in my life, keeping me too busy to attend to this blog. Since I am probably just talking to myself here, I guess I will apologize only to myself for that.

I just wanted to note for the record that I received evidence today that my privacy had recently been violated by Homeland Security. I love the taste of rum cream, and I can only get that true, original rum cream flavor by importing bottles of Sangster's Rum Cream from Jamaica. (The only domestic rum cream brand I could find, Cruzan, tastes like Double Bubble bubble gum, and nobody -- not even BevMo or specialty liquor stores I have visited -- import Sangster's or any other rum cream from Jamaica or elsewhere.) I have been ordering rum cream from Jamaica, once or twice a year, for some time. (Customs restrictions only allow three bottles per shipment, so don't go thinking that I pick up pallets of the stuff, down at the docks.)

Today's box-o-rum-cream arrived, with tape on it, which declared that it had been opened by the Department of Homeland Security. Inside, I saw that one of the actual bottles had been opened, presumably to verify that it didn't contain a bomb, bomb-making materials, or drug contraband (seeing as the shipment was from Jamaica, after all).

Now, I know that the US asserts the authority to inspect incoming luggage and freight for a variety of reasons, but I don't have to appreciate the violation of privacy. More important, however, is the fact that, once opened, rum cream must be stored under refrigeration and thereafter consumed in short order, to preserve freshness and the drink's proper flavor. By opening that bottle of rum cream, our government agents tainted a third of my shipment, and started its expiration clock ticking, much like the time-bomb they may have been trying to circumvent.

Frankly, I had hoped that this shipment would last me for most of the rest of the year. But now that I have to drink one of the bottles more or less right away, I'll probably have to order again, if I want to have any rum cream for the year-end holidays. Yes, this is a luxury item. But the intervention of Homeland Security has made it even more expensive for me than it otherwise would have been (in view of the usual high cost of shipping, clearing customs, etc.). I'd like to better understand the value we receive in exchange for the inconvenience and additional expense of Homeland Security's intervention. I'm not talking about the value alleged, mind you -- because there will be plenty of empty-headed jingoists who will be horrified that I could even speak of putting a price on "security" -- but the value actually realized.

As I sit down to enjoy a rum cream from this tainted bottle, I will ponder the efficacy and cost of our wars on Terror, Drugs, and the American People's freedom. Raise a glass of whatever you like, and join me, won't you?

 
"JACK BAUER: FEDERAL ZOMBIE" HAS LEGS...???

Since about the third season or so -- whenever it was that Jack Bauer was killed during torturous interrogation and brought back to life for more of the same -- the TV series 24 has been known around my house as Jack Bauer: Federal Zombie. Awhile back, I mentioned this in some fan mail to classical liberal blogger Ilana Mercer; she seemed to like the phrase, mentioning it in her then-current blog entry about 24. Today, many months later, I returned to her blogsite to see that she has quoted me anonymously in a WorldNet Daily column, which she has also entitled with the aforementioned phrase.

I don't need to see formal acknowledgement in print, to enjoy the glow of knowing that something I have said or written has made even a small difference in the world. I get a kick out of seeing my family's pet name for the series being publicized on the internet by no less a personage than Ms. Mercer, whom I count as being among our era's best essayists. But if anyone puts "Jack Bauer: Federal Zombie" on a bumpersticker or t-shirt, then cutting me in on the action would definitely be the neighborly thing to do. Then again, maybe I should pursue the merchandising myself -- the phrase seems to be able to shuffle along, zombie style, on its own two legs. How far can it go? Ker-CHUNK, Ker-CHUNK, Ker-CHUNK.

Labels: 24, bauer, mercer, worldnet, zombie

 
GARY SEVEN SAYS FAREWELL TO THE BOSS HE NEVER MET: BUCK OWENS, RIP

Back in the early 1980s, I was a part-time disc jockey for FM rock radio station KZOZ, San Luis Obispo CA. At the time, it was known as "Z93, " and on its air, I was known as "Gary Seven." This was a minimum-wage job, as most part-time radio gigs in small and medium markets were in those days, but it was regular work, and I appreciated being a part of the music industry, as well as being able to exploit my association with the station whenever I wanted to get into clubs, attend industry events, go backstage at concerts, etc. Z93 had the reputation of being the edgier of the two dominant commercial pop-rockers in the area (the other being KSLY, where I also went to work, eventually, before leaving radio, apparently forever).

The Z93 studios were in a building just off of Highway 101 in Arroyo Grande, near a cemetary and within sight of Ocean View Elementary School, a public institution I had once attended, which perched atop a nearby hill, looking like nothing so much as a minimum security prison. KZOZ shared its facilities with a sister station, a country-music outlet on the AM dial. Both stations were owned by a corporation that had been established and was still controlled by "American music" legend Buck Owens, the chart-topping co-star of Hee-Haw on TV, and head of the so-called "Bakersfield mafia" (as his gang of rebels were once known in the country music industry). I always thought it was a bit strange, to be working as a rock DJ, pushing counterculture sensibilities out over the airwaves, on behalf of one of country music's "goodest" good-ole boys.

Truth be told, I liked Owens' music and I even liked Hee-Haw, corny as it was. I would have said that to his face, had I ever met the man. But, the Big Bakersfield Boss was always a shadowy figure at KZOZ, and he and I were never in the same place at the same time. Perhaps there were Christmas parties, which Buck attended, and to which full-timers at his broadcast outlets were invited, but not part-timers like me. I stayed as long as I could at KZOZ -- it was a good gig as part-time radio went -- but ultimately left when the IRS and Franchise Tax board started attaching my minimum wages to pay a bogus tax obligation. (Don't get me started!) Maybe, had I hung in just a bit longer, I might have encountered the myth, the man, the legend, Buck Owens, in the halls of Z93. But it was never to be.

I read that Buck Owens died today, at the age of 76. Thanks Buck, for establishing radio stations where young people like me could have fun and earn money in the music industry. So long from Gary Seven, the over-the-top weekend DJ at Z93, who never met you, but was very grateful to use your transmitter and cash your checks.

 
THE USEFULNESS OF DEMOCRACY IN OUR SOCIETY

There has been a lot of talk about the importance of "democracy" lately -- especially in the sense that our current US government has endorsed the idea of exporting "democracy" to other countries by means of military force.

I think it is worth remembering that democracy is not the end of our form of government. It is only a tool -- a means to the end of securing our individual rights. The Declaration of Independence says as much:

...to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

In the quote above, you'll find indirect reference to democracy in the phrase, "Consent of the Governed." The voting that we do as citizens is to demonstrate the public endorsement of various measures or candidates for public office -- primarily the latter, as direct popular government was never the aim of the system that was established by the Founders. Our consent enables and legitimizes our government, but the purpose of the government is to secure our rights.

Try this, the next time you go into a voting booth: Vote consistently with the idea that you are going to protect (secure) your own rights, while not infringing the equal rights of those who do you or other people no harm. See if that makes a difference in how and for whom you vote, or at least in your appreciation of the candidates and issues.

 
A DIFFERENT APPROACH TO THE WAR POWERS ISSUE

President Bush has incited controversy, by repeatedly authorizing warrantless government eavesdropping on international telephone calls made by or to people in the United States. An unapologetic -- indeed, a defiant -- Mr. Bush says that this is necessary to prosecute his "War on Terror," and that his War Powers, invoked by the Congressional Resolution made after 9/11, give him the authority to do it. Many disagree. Senator Arlen Specter, for instance, now says that Mr. Bush "may have" broken the law, specifically the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA). Of course, the point of that law was to give the President some wiggle-room in squaring his conduct against the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, which establishes the standard under which "searches," such as wiretaps and other electronic eavesdropping, may be considered "reasonable" under the law: "...no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched."

FISA created a secret court, which could issue warrants without disclosing classified, national security information to the public. It could also issue warrants up to 72 hours after the fact, just in case our NSA had to eavesdrop first, and ask questions later. Frankly, the description of the FISA Court is too similar to that of the Star Chamber, in my opinion. I think the Founding Fathers would have vehemently opposed it, and for good reason. But, in setting up the FISA Court, at least the Congress was attempting to acknowledge and accommodate the Fourth Amendment, if not strictly "honor" it.

President Bush doesn't appear to acknowledge either that 1) the Constitution remains in force, even in time of war, or 2) the only "reasonable" search defined by that document is a properly warranted one. He seems to think that his War Powers certainly trump FISA, and probably also the Constitution.

Unfortunately, we're not technically at war, as Congress never declared it: not against Afghanistan, not against Iraq, not against Al Qaeda. The Congress, the Administration, and their many supporters are pretending that formal war was declared, yet there have so far only been "authoritizations of the use of force," which have left to the President the decisions of how and when to strike -- or whether to strike at all. Mr. Bush asserts that these authorizations empower him to do a great many things, including the suspension of habeas corpus for people designated as "enemy combatants," as well as warrantless eavesdropping, in violation of both FISA and the Constitution's Fourth Amendment. Mr. Bush is getting away with a lot, partly because people seem willing to accept "authorizations of the use of force" as equivalent to declarations of war, and partly because past Presidents have exercised broad powers during our Wars, whether declared or undeclared.

I think that Congress can resolve what seems to be a developing impasse between it and the Executive Branch. First, rescind the authorization of force, upon which Mr. Bush currently relies. At the same time, authorize the President not to make war, but to capture the modern-day pirates who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks. Article I, Section 8, gives Congress the following powers, among others: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water...

It seems to me that the preceding allows Congress a lot of room to chase down and punish Osama and his confederates, without the need to declare war. If, in Congress' resolution, it is made clear that war is not being declared, then the President can invoke no War Powers, can he. On the other hand, the President must then follow whichever rules concerning Captures, the Congress may establish in its resolution.

I was amused to read this evening that some in Congress are considering a constitutional amendment to define the President's war powers more straightforwardly than has been possible in the past. But is that truly necessary? In our present circumstances, and short of all-out, formally declared war, I think that the Congress can arrange to keep the President on a very short leash, if it truly wants to do so. But does it? Personally, I think Congress has shown itself to be fairly gutless. "Deal with the bad guys as you think best, Mr. President," they seem to say at every opportunity. The cynical might believe that Congress is thus insulating itself by passing the buck, along with the full responsibility for failure, over to the White House. Yet, the Constitution is clear about the powers of the President and the powers of Congress. One branch cannot delegate its power to another. So, Congress is misbehaving in attempting to do so. As much as we need to rein in the Presidency, we also need to hold Congress responsible for its enabling of Presidential excess. When they chastise the President, however much he may deserve it, methinks the Congress doth protest too much.

 
ONE IN 1.12 MILLION

Thanks to Jason Benson, who let me know that there were indeed real people out there -- at least one -- reading my blog and homepage. Jason sent me a dollar through the PayPal link at my personal homepage, and also a friendly note to tell me why. This made my day, and gave my wife a laugh, too, when I told her that someone had finally put something in the "tip jar," after only 1.12 million page hits.

On the one hand, I am very grateful to Jason. As I told him in reply this afternoon, I set up the "tip jar" with no expectations of seeing any real income out of it. It was more a social experiment, just to see if anyone was out there. I'm glad Jason was. On the other hand, he has taken a blog topic away from me. I had once imagined I would be writing a column about "all you cheapskate zombies" every few million hits. Now I have to find another subject. On the third hand (i.e., the hand that I saw one of you zombies carrying!), maybe that's a good thing.

Best to you, Jason. Because of you, I've passed a significant milestone. I owe you one, buddy.

 
A MILLION HITS AND A DOLLAR MAY NOT EVEN BUY A CUP OF COFFEE

Sometime early this morning, when everyone was fast asleep, my personal web page attracted its one-millionth hit. I have to wonder who is accessing the page. I have had a "tip jar" button on the page since around hit 30,000. Since this blog has a permanent link to the web page, I expected some of the blog readers to go there, and hoped that some of them would indicate their appreciation for the material by leaving a few pennies -- or maybe even a whole dollar, now and then.

So, over 970,000 hits later, how much do you think I have in my PayPal account, to show for this little experiment?

If everyone had left $1, I would have $970,000. If one-in-100 had left a dollar, I would have $9,700. If one-in-a-thousand had left a dime, I would have $97.00. If one-in-ten-thousand had left a penny, I would have ninety-seven cents.

I have $0.00. That's right. Goose-egg dollars and no cents.

Since the appeal for tips included something about "encouraging" my "behavior," I can only gather that any readers of the blog who went to my personal page and saw the tip button, did not want to encourage my behavior, at least enough to leave any kind of tip whatsoever via PayPal. Only a very small number (countable on the fingers of one hand) even bothered to send free email, just to say "hi," and thereby offer the small but significant encouragement of one human being recognizing the existence of another.

So are you guys all web-robots out there? I can't imagine that hundreds of thousands of real human beings would have visited my personal web page without at least a wave, or the occasionally flipped birdie, in email form. Come on now, I know you're there: I can hear you beeping and whirring, amidst the echoing cricket chirps.

 
WHAT DOESN'T THE POLITE PERSON SAY?

I was in downtown Santa Cruz this afternoon, doing some shopping along Pacific Avenue. I was enjoing the sights and lights of the Christmas shopping season, as well as the sounds of holiday bell-ringers and street musicians playing seasonal music. Then, another sound:

"Excuse me sir. Are you a registered voter?"

"Yes I am," I said.

"Well, we're trying to put a cigarette tax on the ballot. To help pay for more nurses, and healthcare programs. Could you help us out, just so we can vote on it?" He tentatively offered me a petition form on a clipboard.

A woman who was perhaps 10-15 years my senior was already signing her name to the form on another clipboard. She asked, "is it statewide?"

The petition circulator, a white man in his mid-20s, with sandy brown hair hanging down below his shoulders and an earnest expression, tilted his head toward the woman while continuing to attempt eye-contact with me. He informed her that the petition was for a statewide initiative.

I held his gaze for several seconds.

What I wanted to say, was this:

"I'm not clear on the morality of getting a big crowd of people to vote for taking money out of the pockets of a smaller crowd of people, just to give it to an even smaller crowd of politicians and bureaucrats who promise to spend it on good things, but who usually don't follow through on their promises.

"Maybe it's legal, but what gives you the idea it is right to force others to fund your good ideas?

"Why do you think for a minute that something like this should be up for a public vote?

"Does it bother you that you're basically proposing to finance a program on the backs of drug addicts?

"What if the higher taxes were successful in discouraging smoking? Wouldn't that be a blow to the nurses and healthcare programs that would depend on tobacco tax revenue?"

It was the Christmas season, however. The guy probably wasn't a "true believer." More likely, he was circulating petitions to make some extra money for the holidays. The lady who was already signing her name probably didn't want to be challenged -- even indirectly -- about the morality of her endorsement. Nobody needed me in their face. What possible good could confrontation do?

All of this passed through my mind in the few seconds that I locked eyes with the man holding the clipboard. I think perhaps some of it played across my face. He seemed to startle a bit. Or maybe the length of my stare simply exceeded his comfort zone. Anyway, what I finally, actually said was this: "No, I don't think so. But thank you very much."

Had I confronted the guy, he, the petition-signing lady, and I might all have gone away with a very sour taste in our mouths. As it is, I think that only I did. They say that government is a necessary evil, and that taxation is the lifeblood of government. On this occasion, I denied the government my consent for it to augment its "blood supply" by increasing taxes . But I didn't confront the people who were actively promoting the revenue increase, or those who were giving them support. Edmund Burke said that evil can triumph if good men simply do nothing. I feel as if I didn't do enough today to stop the spread of evil, and the taste of that realization is sour and bitter, indeed. But I was polite.

 
DAMNING WITH FAINT "PROPS"

Checking in with Cannabis Culture, to get their take on how the War on Drugs was going, I saw the huge headline, "Denver Legalizes Marijuana 53% - 46%!" This was astounding news. In the name of "balance," I went to the website of the Denver Post, to see their account. The headline? "Denver pot issue passes by thin margin." Although the Post reported even slightly better news about the election results (that the marijuana measure passed by 54% to 46%), the overall tone was to dismiss the public will: prominent in the article was the asssurance by government officials that the Denver vote was irrelevant, trumped by State of Colorado anti-pot laws, which would continue to be enforced.

I never fail to be amazed and disappointed by the capacity of "mainstream media" to marginalize even the most significant developments in an ongoing controversy, should those developments run counter to the establishment-approved scenario. We have seen similar spin in coverage of the War in Iraq, especially coverage that merely parrots the government's own press releases, or is composed primarily of soundbites from government officials.

Mr. Bush won re-election by a margin of only three percentage points, 51%-48%. Yet he was quick to claim a mandate, and was especially proud of being the first "majority vote" President in many years. Proposition 215 (Medical Marijuana), won in California in 1996, 55.6% to 44.4%. This is an 11.2% margin of victory, which was seen as beefy at the time of the election, and has come to be described as "overwhelming" in the nine years since. How is it, then, that an 8% margin of victory is "thin" in Denver, yet an 11% margin was so impressive in California, that it has become legendary? Someone's bias is showing.

I have become convinced that, if you don't have time to actually sit down and read the newspaper articles, or to pay attention to the entire broadcast report, it actually hurts you to only read the headlines, or only take in the "teaser" bullet points at the top of the program. The spin and inaccuracy inherent in so many will poison your world view, and thus it is best to ignore them altogether and save your brain cells for something else. Make a point of actually reading articles; I think you'll be amazed -- perhaps disgusted -- with how often the facts in the body of a report undermine or altogether contradict the impression that is given by the corresponding headline.

In this case, the facts are clear: Denver voters said, loudly and clearly, that marijuana possession and use should not be a crime. The State responded that it remains a crime under State law, which will be enforced. This is just another demonstration that the War on Drugs is really a war on the citizenry, and that we do not have a government "of, by, and for the people." It will be interesting to see whether a similar statewide initiative can get on the ballot in Colorado soon, and whether the State government will honor the public will, should it pass.

 
Commerce Clause Delenda Est

I recently published versions of the following on the blogs of Reason magazine, and the US Libertarian Party. I'm serious about this. Does anyone want to help? Write your Senators and members of Congress!

I guess what the Justices are telling us, in Raich v. Gonzales, is that the plain language of the Constitution isn't specific enough to prevent clever legislators and lawyers, abetted by intellectually perverse Justices, from wriggling free of the legal "chains" that were once forged to restrain the federal government.

The States, whose own medical marijuana legislation was trumped by the Supreme Court ruling, can have the last laugh here, if only they have what it takes to act.

Clearly, we now need a new amendment to the Constitution, which limits the Commerce power. This suggestion is not an overreaction to the present ruling, nor overkill, even if the original impetus were simply to legalize medical marijuana. From dissenting justices on down, many intelligent people are now believing that Congress has no effective limits on its regulatory (or police) powers. Making a ham sandwich in your kitchen with locally baked bread and meat grown and processed in the next county can be considered interstate commerce -- or, at least, subject to regulations on interstate commerce -- so long as there is an interstate market in pre-made ham sandwiches and a comprehensive federal scheme to regulate that market.

This situation cannot stand, and as the Court has declined to rebuke Congress, the States are the only ones who can reduce Congress to its proper role in our federal system. As I read the Constitution, that can only be done through the constitutional amendment process.

Here is my first draft of what the Commerce Clause Clarification Amendment should say. I'm sure that the constitutional mavens out there (especially the ones in DC) can come up with better, but I'm tossing this draft into the ring because we need to get the ball rolling right away. If Raich stands and is used as precedent for too many more years, I can't imagine what the US will be like -- but I bet Orwell could.

If any of you out there can simplify and/or strengthen the following, please do!

AMENDMENT XXVIII

Congress' authority to regulate commerce among the several states shall not include the power to prohibit commerce, either directly, or indirectly, through onerous regulation or the imposition of excessive fees or taxes.

Congress' interest in the regulation of commerce among the several states shall always be to promote commerce, not restrict or prevent it.

Congress shall make no law that regulates commercial activities, to the extent that they occur entirely or substantially within the borders of a single State. The President shall not enforce laws in such a manner as to have the effect of regulating or constraining commercial activities, to the extent that they occur entirely or substantially within the borders of a single State. In making, applying, and enforcing law, the burden of proof is on the federal government, to establish, by a preponderance of evidence, and using arguments that are both pertinent and compelling, the extent to which any particular class or instance of commerce occurs "among the several states."

Activities pursued or goods produced or acquired in avoidance of normal commerce shall not themselves be considered "commercial," or suitable as objects of regulation under the authority this Constitution gives the Congress.

With all deliberate speed, Congress shall examine federal commercial regulation that exists at the time of the enactment of this Amendment, and shall repeal any such law that is found to be in conflict with the letter or spirit of this Amendment. The President shall issue pardons for any convictions that were based on any laws so repealed.

 
I haven't posted in some time because of technical difficulties. Basically, Blogger has for some time told me that there was an error on any attempt to publish; subsequent attempts to troubleshoot have been fruitless. In hopes that the problems were internal to Blogger and would sort themselves out in time, I have busied myself with other things. But I had a thought that I especially wanted to put out into the blog world, so here I am, trying again.

Uncle Sam and Howard Hughes

I am struck by the similarities between the evolution of the United States and the life of billionaire aviator/industrialist and bon vivant (later scruffy, paranoid recluse), Howard Hughes. By all accounts I've ever read or seen, the young Hughes was the kind of brilliant, bold and daring man, whom "men want to be like and women want to be with." And that's even acknowledging that he could be a royal S.O.B. when it suited him. Hughes took on all comers, dared to be great, made some very smart moves to match his luck, and achieved greatness, much as did the early United States. As the stresses of success and the march of the decades did their subtle work, however, Hughes withdrew from direct engagement with the world, using minions and his vast wealth to purchase and influence. In the latter part of the 20th century, Uncle Sam did something similar, letting client states and national proxies fight wars with the clients and proxies of the USSR, but pulling all possible strings behind the scenes to pursue "America's national interests."

(The parallel isn't exact, of course. We did have our own shooting wars, some of which, like VietNam, were quite costly for us on many levels. We also gained an "Ugly American" reputation for directly intervening in the affairs of other nations. Hughes had his run-ins with the real world during the same period -- if you can call FBI surveillance and congressional investigation the "real world." But he seemed to withdraw from public view even as the US seemed to grow omnipresent throughout the non-Soviet world. For all the US was out in public, however, much more went on behind the scenes, as it was with Hughes.)

Eventually, Hughes seemed to be convinced that everyone was out to get him, especially the Federal government and even bacteria. He was reported to be very phobic and obsessive in his determination not to fall victim to germs. Now we see Uncle Sam becoming convinced that anyone who isn't with us is against us -- and that there are billions against us. We discuss sealing the borders shut, and we have just passed the RealID Act, which promises to force everyone to carry what is, in effect, an internal passport, all in the name of keeping nasty terrorists out of our territory. Some of the stories they used to tell about the obsessive Hughes made him seem demented and silly. Personally, I think that Uncle Sam is going down that same road. Like Hughes, he is going to live in a sealed-up, sanitized suite, and perhaps grow his hair and fingernails long. He is going to use every possible regimen to cleanse his environment and body of vicious germs, but his life will be forever changed -- and a lot less fun or productive -- by the discipline. But he will retain his vast wealth and status as global superpower, or so he thinks.

Is it worth it? Do we really want Uncle Sam to morph into the Howard Hughes of his "eccentric billionaire" days? More importantly, do we want to live as cells in the body of such a nutcase -- even a rich and nominally powerful nutcase? I don't know about you, but I don't consider myself expendable, much less anyone's property. I don't want Uncle Sam to throw his weight around the world for my benefit. I want Uncle Sam to keep me and every one else in this country free to throw our own individual weight around if we so choose. Pursing aggressive, interventionist foreign policy that is bound to make Americans less safe, and then responding with a Hughes-like "germ-phobia" toward foreigners and potential terrorists when aggrieved parties push back, is not the way to keep us free, much less the way to affirm the worth of indivdual citizens.

The recent Hughes biopic, "The Aviator," suggests that Hughes made the mistake of stepping on the wrong toes and irritating the wrong people. Rightly or wrongly, they made life hard on him and helped push him toward the fearful hermitage of his latter years. Something similar appears to be happening with Uncle Sam. One wonders whether a more cunning Hughes could have found a way to remain personally active in the world. One wonders, as well, whether Uncle Sam can change his behavior so that he, too, can stay positively engaged with the world, allowing his citizens to enjoy peace, affluence, and liberty.

 
LETTERS, WE WRITE LETTERS: UNCLE SAM TOP CALIFORNIA LANDLORD

Another of my letters saw print in the Santa Cruz Sentinel today. I was moved to write because of all the sturm und drang over the lack of affordable housing and the high cost of land in the Golden State. Here in Santa Cruz county, for instance, the median home price recently topped $700,000. That's because there are many potential buyers, say experts, but "no inventory." I recently found out who has all the inventory, and decided to pass that information along, via the Sentinel's letter page. Here's the text of the letter, as published:

Greedy Uncle Sam

Controversies over housing at UCSC or the former Fort Ord seem laughable.

The U.S. General Services Administration reports that the federal government held 46.7 percent of California’s acreage in 2003. Releasing only 2 million acres for housing purposes, the federal government could retain the lion’s share of California, while providing affordable homes for millions, and driving statewide housing costs lower.

With people in need, we seriously discuss raising taxes on the rich, because they already have "more than enough." When discussing California’s high cost of living and its housing shortage, however, we ignore Washington. Why? When people need affordable housing, doesn’t the U.S. own more than enough of California? When it comes to standing in the way of affordable housing, no greedy, private-sector landlord can hold a candle to Uncle Sam.

Tell me: Which benefits justify federal control of nearly half of our state?

JAMES ANDERSON MERRITT
SANTA CRUZ

 
THE PURPOSE OF LIFE

I haven't posted in a while, despite racking up a lot of material; there's been too much to do and not enough time to sleep or hang out with the family. Today, on the Santa Cruz Sentinel message board, a new thread appeared. It was entitled, "What is the Purpose of Life (Or Is There One)?" I have adapted the following from my posting in that thread:

Purpose comes from intention. Intention can come from a creator or provider, but also from an employer. It may be that the intention of an employer is even more important than that of a creator. Consider: The creator of an open-end wrench may have intended it to turn hex nuts, but say somebody comes along, picks it up, and uses it to pound a nail. The wrench is none the worse for wear, the nail is pounded, and the user is happy he didn't have to find or buy a hammer. So what is the purpose of the wrench? That of the manufacturer, or the one, to which the user has happily and successfully put it?

In my experience, there are two broad classes of human beings: those who believe that humanity has a creator, and who seek to live according to the creator's purpose for our species (or even the individual purposes for their respective lives); and those who, finding no unambiguous evidence of either a creator or a special purpose for humans or themselves, must supply their own purposes (as employers of their own lives) or remain aimless.

For me, the question of this thread comes down to: Do you want to receive a purpose and honor it? Or generate a purpose and fulfill it? If, as a human being, a person truly has free will, then I think that must include the ability and responsibility to choose one's own purpose.

The purpose of each human life is up to the person living it. Another way I have heard that said: "Life is what you make it (so make it a good one)."

I think I'll go make a good day. Join me?

 
THEY DID IT!

Burt Rutan's SpaceShipOne went up this morning, reached an altitude that news sources reported as 368,000 feet (69.7 miles), and returned to earth for a smooth landing at the Mojave Spaceport. It was their second such flight in five days.

Rutan and his ScaledComposites team thus qualified for the $10,000,000 Ansari X Prize, recouping about half of the development costs, the other half being invested by Paul Allen of Microsoft fame.

I note that this is the 47th anniversary of the event that kicked off the Cold War era's government-controlled space race: the launch and first orbits of Sputnik by the USSR, on October 4, 1957. There's some closure in that for me. I was born less than one month before Sputnik, and so, for my entire life, space exploration has been a creature of government, both advanced and retarded by the changing political winds, as well as focused on achieving national prestige and military advantage, instead of generating real, lasting value for humanity. Rigorous training and competition were designed to ensure that only those with the so-called "right stuff" would receive government approval to fly in space; everyone else had to be satisfied to watch astronauts drive lunar dune-buggies on TV. That era ended today. From now on, we the people are in charge, with pioneers (including Rutan and his pilots, Mike Melvill and Brian Binnie) and entrepreneurs (including Allen and Virgin's Richard Branson) at the front of the line and taking us forward, into a future where space is a place to go and live, to work and play, to the extent that those activities offer real value to regular people. Branson's well-publicized plans to offer suborbital tourism at $200,000 per seat aside, I have no doubt that the free market will find an infinity of profitable enterprises, the pursuit of which will draw humanity further into space than anyone would have guessed, sooner than anyone expects.

I would just like to say something to all my esteemed collectivist friends and colleagues out there, in view of our many arguments on various political message boards and blogs throughout cyberspace, concerning whether things like social safety nets, emergency assistance, roads, and other necessary social services can be provided by the private, free market economy. Pardon me if I adapt and repurpose an old expression, but I think it's especially appropriate today:

You'd think that, if they can put a man into space without taxes or government participation, they can solve problems here on earth without resorting to those things, either.

I certainly hope we have the SpaceShipOne team's courage to try. Congratulations to them, and best of luck to us all in the new Space Age.

 
LETTERS, WE WRITE LETTERS: THE RIGHT POLICY TO HANDLE TERRORISM

Another of my letters was published in the Santa Cruz Sentinel today. This one responded to the Sentinel's editorial on the findings of the 9-11 Commission. Here's the text, as published:

Focus on foreign policy

Both the 9/11 commission report and a recent Sentinel editorial seem focused on restructuring government to combat terrorism. Will restructuring save money, eliminate regulation, preserve our freedoms, or de-motivate terrorists? Did anyone ask whether foreign policy changes might leave us safer from terrorist attack without diminishing our liberty?

We’ll never know whether the "humble" foreign policy promised by candidate Bush in 2000 would have prevented the 9/11 attacks, as President Bush never really delivered before 9/11 brought war. Sen. Kerry seems fine with the wars on Iraq and terror, as long as he’s in charge.

Michael Badnarik, Libertarian for president, supports a strong national defense and effective, just retaliation toward anyone who, however motivated, attacks us. Unlike his opponents, Badnarik will pursue a sensible, non-interventionist foreign policy that minimizes the motivations for anti-U.S. terrorism. Badnarik’s priority is defending America, at lower cost and risk than currently policy allows.

JAMES MERRITT

Santa Cruz

Update (200408011005): I submitted this letter via email; in the version I sent, the last sentence ends with, "lower cost and risk than current policy allows." I wonder how they introduce errors like that during the newspaper production process. I wouldn't expect the tacking-on of a gratuitous suffix to occur, if they simply cut-n-pasted from the email into whatever system they use to compose pages. Did they print out my email and re-key it by hand? Did they think I meant to say "at lower cost and risk than policy currently allows," rather than "at lower cost and risk than the current policy allows"? It's a puzzlement.

Another update (200408011025): I passed along the letter text, as published, to the Michael Badnarik activist mailing-list. I've already received some requests to adapt and republish it elsewhere. So perhaps these words will soon be appearing in a newspaper near you! If you recognize this letter in your local media, regardless of byline, please drop me a line!