The Internet Archive discovers and captures web pages through many different web crawls.
At any given time several distinct crawls are running, some for months, and some every day or longer.
View the web archive through the Wayback Machine.
When does it end, Big Brother has invaded our lives to the extent that we are afraid of doing most things our founding fathers escaped to America for. I have pondered over this for many months about the invasion of privacy and how the governement snoopes into our private lives. Do not get me wrong, I am all for intelligence to apprehend criminals and keep our borders safe. But I too want to be safe from invading eyes. maybe I am living in a utopia that will never be. But I sure would like to be able to practice a my own constitutional freedoms while not under the microscope of the governement. Sure all you conspiracy theorist out there have all your crazy ideas, I am not one of them, just a normal citizen who thinks there is too much snooping into our everyday lives. I recently read an article,[url=http://www.scoop.co.nz/storie...]Big Brother Spying Extended Via Cellphones[/url], where it is just getting out out hand. I ask when does it stop.
After a long absence due to personal matters, I am back to pass upon all my wit and wisdom of the craziness occurring in todays' world. Why would you care what I think? I do not know, however, it will be passed on to all to criticize and ponder at their leisure. While my blog is still under major renovations, I wil still post my daily rants and banter, and there is plenty in this mind of mine. Stay tuned for what sure can be an amusing ride.
The Turk RETURNS!
The face of a pedophile... Will he go to jail? With the prosecution getting ready to wrap up its case this week. I wonder how many people believe he will be convicted or ever serve any jail time for the horrifiic crimes he has committed against children. Will he serve any time? Hell No! Should he serve time...Every minute for the rest of his life. However, in todays' society it has been proven that money can buy you an acquittal. Will it happen this time, I hope not. But history has shown recently that all it takes is money.
What a waste of talent. The worst thing in the world is wasted talent.
"The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live." -[url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/ob...]Ayn Rand [/url]
I was just asked earlier what exactly are my political views. I have tried to summerize it many times but will leave at this: I am a Randian [url=http://www.lp.org/]Libertarian[/url] in most things. I believe government should exist to provide a standing army, to protect the rights of the unpopular and to prevent anarchy. Otherwise, it should butt the hell OUT OF MY LIFE! I believe we are horribly overtaxed, over-regulated and over-nannied by a government that is bloated, incompetent and staffed largely by people who can't find their asses with both hands. Our politicians are whores and our bureaucrats are brain-dead. I suppose I might be called a Radical [url=http://www.individualistvoice...]Individualist[/url] . [url=http://www.individualistvoice...](Individualist Quotes)[/url] Yeah, that's ME.
Another closely related philosophy I subscribe to is Objectivism, first coined by [url=http://www.aynrand.org] Ayn Rand[/url]. Simply stating as she did in on of her [url=http://www.aynrand.org/object...]essays [/url] is that Objectivism, holds the following concepts:
1. Reality exists as an objective absolute ― facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
3. Man ― every man ― is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.
It is not the usual Independece Day here at the homefront. Mostly typing on the computer while my family (yes- all 14 of the in-laws) wait out the rain and thunderstorms. So to pass the time, I will rant on about why we are all here togther again. In other more pleasant areas around the country, cities and towns are filled with parades, fireworks, and barbecues. They will be celebrating the Fourth of July, the 228th birthday of America. But one hopes that―on this third post-September 11 Independence Day―the speeches will contain fewer bromides and more attention to exactly what is being celebrated. The Fourth of July is Independence Day, but America's leaders and intellectuals have been trying to move us further and further away from the meaning of Independence Day, away from the philosophy that created this country. What we hear from politicians, intellectuals, and the media is that independence is pass?, that we've reached a new age of "interdependence." We hear demands for mandatory "volunteering" to serve others, for sacrifice to the nation. We hear demands from trust-busters that successful companies be punished for being "greedy" and not serving society. But this is not the message of America. It is the direct opposite of why America became a beacon of hope for the truly oppressed throughout the world. They have come here to escape poverty and dictatorship; they have come here to live their own lives, where they aren't owned by the state, the community, or the tribe. "Independence Day" is a critically important title. It signifies the fundamental meaning of this nation, not just of the holiday. The American Revolution remains unique in human history: a revolution―and a nation―founded on a moral principle, the principle of individual rights. Jefferson at Philadelphia, and Washington at Valley Forge, pledged their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor." For what? Not for mere separation from England, not―like most rebels―for the "freedom" to set up their own tyranny. In fact, Britain's tyranny over the colonists was mild compared to what most current governments do to their citizens. Jefferson and Washington fought a war for the principle of independence, meaning the moral right of an individual to live his own life as he sees fit. Independence was proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence as the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." What are these rights? The right to life means that every individual has a right to his own independent life, that one's life belongs to oneself, not to others to use as they see fit. The right to liberty means the right to freedom of action, to act on one's own judgment, the right not to have a gun pointed at one's head and be forced to do what someone else commands. And the right to the pursuit of happiness means that an individual may properly pursue his own happiness, e.g., his own career, friends, hobbies, and not exist as a mere tool to serve the goals of others. The Founding Fathers did not proclaim a right to the attainment of happiness, knowing full well that such a policy would carry with it the obligation of others to make one happy and result in the enslavement of all to all. The Declaration of Independence was a declaration against servitude, not just servitude to the Crown but servitude to anyone. (That some signers still owned slaves does not negate the fact that they established the philosophy that doomed slavery.) Political independence is not a primary. It rests on a more fundamental type of independence: the independence of the human mind. It is the ability of a human being to think for himself and guide his own life that makes political independence possible and necessary. The government as envisaged by the Founding Fathers existed to protect the freedom to think and to act on one's thinking. If human beings were unable to reason, to think for themselves, there would be no autonomy or independence for a government to protect. It is this independence that defines the American Revolution and the American spirit. To the Founding Fathers, there was no authority higher than the individual mind, not King George, not God, not society. Reason, wrote Ethan Allen, is "the only oracle of man," and Thomas Jefferson advised us to "fix reason firmly in her seat and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God." That is the meaning of independence: trust in your own judgment, in reason; do not sacrifice your mind to the state, the church, the race, the nation, or your neighbors. Independence is the foundation of America. Independence is what should be celebrated on Independence Day. That is the legacy our Founding Fathers left us. It is a legacy we should keep, not because it is a legacy, but because it is right and just. It has made America the freest and most prosperous country in history.
Forget Edwards, [url=http://www.drudgereport.com/k...]Matt Drudge[/url] says it's going to be Hillary. What do you think? Speculation has it that the announcement will be next week, first via the "millions" on Kerry's e-mail list. My guess, Edwards...Does it really matter?
The common wisdom now is that Kerry is more than a match for Bush on the fundamentals; what he needs most is a personality. That's where sunny John Edwards comes in.
When Edwards launches his "born in a mill town" routine I instinctly check to see if I still have my wallet. He is Slick Willie in a pink bow and dancing heels, multiplied by two; an ambulace chaser and born politician, which is not meant as a compliment. He didn't win a single primary in which he ran.
Still, if this is what it takes to beat Shrub, bring him on.
In times of war, it is easy for those critical of government policy to be accused of being unpatriotic. To that, I could plead either guilty or not guilty, depending on the definition of patriotism. As I've written before, I am a patriot in the sense that I love my home and homeland. I want things to go well here; I want myself and others to live happily in freedom and peace in my own city, state, and country. And I love American food, American sports, American music, American movies. I admire the theological and moral seriousness of many American denominations. I love American cities and I love the American countryside.
Where I would confess to being unpatriotic is in the degrees of affection. I have closer ties, obviously, to family and friends than I do with strangers. The death or suffering of strangers mean more to me, if those strangers are close to someone who is close to me. I don't know any of the victims of September 11, but I know some who were friends or relatives of victims. That brings the tragedy closer to home. No doubt, it's usually true that the death of any American has a greater chance of impacting my life or the life of someone I know.
But the mere fact of being American is neither here nor there to me. That an American soldier died in combat doesn't cause in me any greater grief than an Iraqi child run over by a tank, or blown to bits upon stumbling on a live shell. I can't say that Iraqis who shoot American troops are any more in the wrong than those troops themselves. After all, the American soldiers volunteered to serve, assuming the risk that the government would place them in an unjust and useless war. They are personally responsible for that decision, and for not deserting once the shooting began. But the Iraqis did not consent to an American invasion and occupation. I can't judge the Iraqi resistance, or assume that they are all either pro-Saddam or Iranian-supported Islamic fundamentalists. Many of them probably just want to be let alone.
This leads me back to why I'm glad I'm an American. How can that be after what I've just written? Well, it's because I'm not proud of anything the government has done; I'm glad to be an American for what the government hasn't done. When the United States government decides to do something, count me out. It never does anything good, because no State in history ever accomplished anything good. The State can't, because it brings about social "cooperation" through force, whereas the only good things in life are accomplished through voluntary cooperation.
And that's why I'm glad - proud - to be an American. Throughout most of its history, our government was mostly willing to just leave people alone. The government wasn't good - in fact, it did a lot of evil things. But it did fewer things than the governments of other countries. And that's the key.
It is also the best trait, to the extent it exists, of the American character. Arguably, it is the best trait of character and virtue itself: to tolerate other people and their ways; to leave other people alone. Rose Wilder Lane, a woman of compassionate heart who already knew what American big-city slums were like, wrote that while visiting Budapest in the late 1910's or early 20's, she observed the police as it marched through the slums at night. Every slum-dweller had an employment card which would have been marked by an employer if he or she had worked that day. If a man's card hadn't been marked for a few days in a row, he was hauled into court, guilty unless proven innocent of thievery. And women with unmarked cards were judged to be prostitutes and given a prostitute's card. The men must be thieves and the women prostitutes - otherwise, how could they eat? Such was the logic of the European State.
Lane also recounts the thirty minute ordeal of purchasing such mundane items as buttons in Paris. Napoleon set up an elaborate system that would "protect the consumer" from fraud. Every purchase must be meticulously recorded and signed by the customer, clerk, and third party. Even after the United States had given the Industrial Revolution a second wind, creating far more efficiency and abundance than ever previously imagined, France maintained this apparatus for fear of throwing its bureaucrats out of work.
This was the sort of mischief that the United States avoided for much of its history. This is why people fled to the United States. The United States wasn't, and wasn't supposed to be, like other countries. And that is the United States I love. The land of opportunity. The land of people minding their own business. The land of the Ethiopian cab driver, and of the Amish buggy-rider. The land of tranquil routine (baseball), but also of constant movement (basketball) and risk (tackle football).
For we can't have one without the other. The right of the individual, whether an immigrant or not, to pursue happiness through acquiring financial wealth, is the very same right to let another pursue happiness through simplicity and tranquility. One can not resort to The State to tread on the other. There is room enough for all kinds: sectarian farmers, flamboyant cosmopolitans, intellectuals, journeymen, classically-trained musicians, untrained punk musicians, the bourgeois, the bohemian, the jock, the scientist, the drinker, the teetotaler, the bawdy, the holy, the gambler, the philanthropist.
The United States is where it's at. The United States is loved and admired precisely where it is out of step with the rest of the world, and detested in the very ways that it behaves like the rest of the world. It is still a land of energy and vitality. Yet it still can be a quiet, stress-free place for people who want to live that way. America has it all.
So for our Independence Day I will celebrate what is right about the United States. There are lots of other days to point out what is wrong.
Many are aware of my disgust with the "two-party system" - that is, the two-party monopoly - that rules our country. I can not in good conscience vote for either President Bush or Senator Kerry. From their agreement on McCain-Feingold persecution of dissenters, to Bush's steel tariffs, to Kerry's "national service," to their agreement that America should dominate the world by military might, I find both men's visions and principles, to the extent they exist, to be immoral, repulsive, and unfit for any decent, thinking person.
Most people apparently disagree. Even so, there's been a dearth of support for either guy at the Partial Observer. Yes, some poetry has exalted the virtues of the sitting President while bashing his predecessor, and another regular writer has come about in support of Kerry, mainly because he isn't Bush. But I have leaned toward the libertarian, which is a point of view neither conservative nor liberal, neither Democrat nor Republican. It is rather a position that opposes all infringements of liberty, whether from social engineering, economic interference, high taxation, or military involvement overseas.
But this is not the majority view. Most people apparently have some faith in the two-party system. They will read this, for instance, and might find it interesting but ultimately unpersuasive.
But I don't think there is a forum for the true-blue Kerry believers to make there case for a Kerry Presidency, nor for the true-red Bush believers to state their case for re-election.
Why is this so? I suspect that there is a level of intimidation: No matter how insightful their remarks might be, how logical their arguments, and how well they have written, many are still afraid to publish their comments. It is hard to carefully craft every word, only to see a letter-writer dismissively put it down.
So here's an offer: If you believe that a Bush re-election, or a Kerry Presidency, will be good for the country, write down your thoughts and e-mail them to me. You can trash libertarians in making your case. You can attack me personally.
And here's the guarantee: you will not be made to answer for your errors. No matter how defamatory your article makes out the Libertartarian Party, Naderites, or the Constitution Party, you will be immune from criticism. Fire away, first come, first served. All that we ask is for your real name and a valid e-mail address (which will not be published). This is not a rule we will enforce, but a rule we will force upon your conscience: if you don't do this, you are a jerk and a coward.
My thoughts keep coming, with no way of framing them or structuring them appropriately. So I have chosen to just summarize them here. If there's something you want further elaboration on, let me know:
1. Barbarism is endemic to government, not to culture.
2. The Pat Tillmans are, by design, the exception rather than the rule of the armed forces. By this is not to disparage the character of members of the armed forces, but that intelligent young millionaires like Pat Tillman with limitless opportunities don't normally enlist. Whereas many with far fewer natural gifts and economic opportunities do.
3. "Un-American" means eating dogs, playing cricket, celebrating Boxing Day, and arranged marriages. But moral values and ideals are not affixed to nationalism. America is a country, not an idea or an ideal.
4. This was not an aberration: the USA even has a school in Florida teaching Latin American agents the science of torture. We've known this for a long time. We vote for politicians who fund it.
5. The American public school system has made us a nation of uncritical idiots - and that might be the point of it. Also, the authoritarian mentality of "zero tolerance" is the mentality of maintaining control in Iraq. American schools fail; Iraq is failing. Products of American schools are trying to keep order in Iraq.
6. Proponents of the invasion of Iraq should not be surprised that Americans willfully commit atrocities during war. They also shouldn't be surprised by "insurgencies" or that there were no WMD's. The war is going as well as I thought it would, which is why I opposed it. I am more surprised that more pro-war proponents aren't saying, "these things happen, but we must be patient."
7. It is a contradiction to impose democracy and freedom through outside force. The neo-con mentality that thinks otherwise is essentially an anti-market, anti-individual, communist mentality, that the State with good intentions and enough might, can make right. You'd think that neo-conservatism was the creation of Marxists. Oh, wait, it was.
8. Peace is the beginning of liberty and justice.
9. Americans are too susceptible to "moral absolutes" or universal truths. That is, extremism: the desire for simplistic abstractions to become social reality through force and law. Which explains a whole lot, from the War on Drugs to our invading Iraq in the first place. We are thus not unlike the Islamic extremists we are fighting.
10. I think "defeat," leaving Iraq in a humiliating fashion for waging an unjust war, will actually benefit America. Does this make me "anti-American?"
11. In the very thing the national government is fundamentally supposed to do - provide for the common defense, it severely underestimated the terrorist threat of Al Qaeda, and greatly over-estimated the threat of Saddam Hussein. Why would anyone, of the right or the left, trust the national government to do anything else, like guarantee health care, determine the value of money, define obscenity, or even decide what is right or wrong or good or bad? Why should we trust these guys over anything?
As of July 1st Virginia residents are [url=http://www.roanoke.com/roatim...]entitled to Saturday or Sunday off[/url] . If you have to work you could be entitled to triple pay.
-30-
The linked video is courtesy of Fark.com. this is one of the luckiest persons around. [url=http://go.fark.com/cgi/fark/g...://www.tl1000.com/video/amhangon.avi]Click here to view the link.[/url]
One aspect of liberal culture that is beginning to drive me nuts is the idea of "compartmentalization," which is that human activities can be separated from each other. It doesn't matter what you do after-hours, it's the job performance that counts. It doesn't matter your religious convictions, it is political victory that counts. But body, mind, and spirit are not independent entities, but are constantly working together, and a person's actions reflect all three. Likewise, work, family, church, recreation, and politics are not separate spheres, but are interwoven. Each one affects the other.
Granted, there is one sense in which it is true that what goes on in private - behind closed doors - should be nobody else's business. People should be legally free to do what they want as long as they don't violate another person's life, liberty, or property. If a minister on a road trip orders the adult pay movie in his hotel room, he ought not be thrown in jail for it. And perhaps these things are confidential between the minister and the hotel. So he may be protected by the hotel's legal obligation to guarantee confidentiality, and is legally free to engage in the behavior. But to say that his action is "nobody else's business" is absurd. It is his wife's business, and it is his church's business, and he knows it. Even if no one ever finds out, his relationships with both his family and the church are inherently worse off precisely because the minister has failed in one of his duties and a measure of deceit infects his relationships.
In many other cases, however, the behavior will inevitably become public news, because they involve at least one other person. The head basketball coach at Iowa State University was forced to resign when pictures of him kissing girls at a frat party at another university were made public. The head football coach at Alabama was fired before ever coaching a game after strippers rang up a $1000 room service bill on his university credit card while attending an out-of-town charity golf event. This being about sixteen months after the newly-appointed football coach at Notre Dame immediately lost the job when it was discovered that he had falsified his resume to get his very first break in the college coaching ranks.
Actions do have consequences, and the reason it is difficult to draw lines between what conduct is merely inappropriate, and what justifies firing, is because no such lines exist. The head coaches of the men's basketball and football teams are usuallly the most prominent ambassadors of a major university. That they engage in embarrassing conduct certainly makes their "personal business" or their "long-ago and irrelevent" conduct the university's business. A university doesn't want its athletic program to be the punchline of late-night tv talk show jokes.
There are practical lessons here. Personal life does affect one's job and public persona. What was done in the past, if not repented of or corrected, necessarily becomes part of the present. What's done during off-work hours can affect job performance, whether it be from hangovers to distracting questions posed by the media. Even if you or I think that the case in question doesn't merit media attention, doesn't mean there won't be media attention. The question isn't whether there should be "compartmentalization," but rather whether there really is any such thing. Obviously, there isn't.
But the upside to this is that for the most part, such exposures of embarrassing personal revelations, or long-ago professional misconduct, should provide added deterrents from doing such things in the first place. It isn't good to lie; it isn't good for middle-aged married men to get drunk and hang out with co-eds and strippers. Everyone would be better off if these things were never done - especially the very people who did them.
It's called foresight. What if my spouse, my children, my friends, my boss, the police, or the media found out what I am doing? More importantly, how would my relationships with them change even if they never found out? Is the temporary pleasure I feel now worth the possible to probable trouble ahead?
Often we use words like morality or ethics to assert universal rules of an angry God in an effort to control our behavior. That's really unnecessary. Rational, far-sighted decision-making, based on knowledge and experience, will actually encourage moral and ethical behavior anyway. If there is one summary of both the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule, it would simply be this: Stay out of trouble.
What is s Friend - Read this, it may just put you in a better place today
Yesterday I had the opportunity to speak to a friend of mine. Let me preface this little tirade with my premise for the post. Recently I had a crisis at work and due to internal issues, I left the workplace after 14 years at the job and in a high level executive position. My goal was to leave eventually and finish my novel, however, due to stress and other internal issues that have had me seeing a doctor for the past two years for the stress, I abruptly left possibly in a "hissy" but notheless I left. Well, all of my so-called "friends' who were always coming to me for information, guidance or when they needed something, suddenly have not called. It is strange how these "fair weathered friends" are only around when the going is good. The word friend is often thrown around too loosely, especially on the west coast, but being a naturally suspicious person of people and a very guarded person when it comes to friends, I have always a little distrusting of people.
I pose the question to anyone reading this...What is a true friend. Is it someone who you have known for years or someone you met 6 months earlier? I have been burned too many times by so-called friends. I have adopted a philosopy - TURKS DTA, in short DTA is "Don' t Trust Anyone"
During my crisis, I have heard from one person from my former workplace, however, I did have a friend I have known for three years, our families have common interests with the kids and we have cooked out on numerous occasions together. This friend has shown his true colors and without any expectation of getting anything in return as the others in the past have.
During this past month, which has been the worst month of my entire life, this friend has called everyday and stopped by to go out and talk. He is not from my former workplace and to me has been there to get my mind off of things. He has never wanted anything in return, just to be a friend. Good or Bad he has been there, as has his wife.
With the exception of my own wife they have been a god send. He told me yesterday that if you can count three true friends on your hand when you reach the Pearly Gates, you have life a full life.
We all need good friends to talk to, to get away and to just blow off steam. He has turned into one of them. He was a friend in the past, but has evolved into one of the true friends I can count on. We all have acquaintances who you can call a friend, but I would argue, let something occur or a crisis happen and ask yourself, how many would be there.
I demand loyalty amongst my friends, for I will always be loyal to those who do the same to me. The problem is how many are out there.
I have found a true friend, we have talked, laughed and now after three years of being a "good friend", he is now a "true friend". The others who have not called and have been workplace friends can remain on the outside.
Because DTA come into play with them. In the end, you only have your family, and true friends. Remember when you are old and gray, who will be there to talk and spend time with you. FAMILY and your "few trusted few friends". Ask yourself, god forbid, if you have a health problem and needed someone to change your diaper on a daily basis, who would be there for you. Yes your family, but what "friends" would be there. If you can count three"true friends", you are bessed.
In this jealous world we live in, are you a true friend to someone or just another person looking to get something from your friends. Life is too short to be a phoney. In the end as stated earlier, family and friends are what makes your life a full life. Begin today, "Pay it Forward" do something for someone with no expectaion of anything in return. I have learned a valuable lesson this past month. Love your family and keep your friends close.
On May 24, 2004, President Bush declared, "I sent American troops to Iraq to defend our security, not to stay as an occupying power," yet one year has passed since the occupation began, and no end is in sight. In a new book from the Cato Institute, a special task force of scholars and policy experts document the many reasons why a continuing military occupation in Iraq is detrimental in the fight against anti-American terrorist groups. -30-
[image]Turk_1330117160.jpg[/image] The really sad thing about the admission by the Army that it stage managed the toppling of Saddam's statue is that it was always obvious (even to the journalists who were there) that it was a piece of political theater and yet virtually every newspaper and TV station in the world ran it uncritically as a symbol of Iraqis celebrating their new-found freedom. A handful of [url=http://www.informationclearin...]Chalabi's boys[/url] , aided by Army tanks, threw out the bait and the press swallowed it, hook, line and picture.
I went shopping today with a good friend of mine and fell in love with the 2004 "Slammer". Maybe on Tuesday when I win the Mega Millions I can afford to purchase this beauty and ride off into the sunset..
Over the last few years, the word "libertarian" has been used with increasing frequency in the media. Where once was said "the conservative wing of the GOP is concerned about..." has now become "the conservatives and libertarians in the GOP are concerned about..." People are more apt to use the word to describe their own political philosophy, even if they disagree with much of, say, the Libertarian Party platform. The word is hard to define, which makes misunderstanding it quite easy. Some people think that it stands for selfishness in the worst senses: greed, materialism, and absence of restraints. Some have even mistook our culture to be a libertarian society because they see this kind of selfishness all over the place.
Others associate libertarianism with moral, political, and economic philosophies of extreme personal liberty in both personal and economic behavior. Such views, critics say, just do not reflect reality. They are naive. People will starve. There is too much unchecked greed and irresponsibility. And to even suggest that the government abide by the Constitution can make the critics laugh. Much of the Constitution is filled with anachronisms, they say: it is incapable of governing a modern society. Libertarians ought to grow up.
There are many fallacies with the above opinions, which I have tried to expose from time to time in this column. But I've never clearly stated how I personally understand libertarianism.
In its narrowest definition, it is a moral principle for human action; in its broader sense, it is a vision for humanity's promise.
The moral principle is called the Zero-Aggression Principle. As L. Neil Smith puts it: "... no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advance or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not." That is, while I am justified in defending myself, my property, or others and their property from attacks, I can not attack, coerce, or steal from others to suit my own ends - nor can I authorize other people, or the government, to use force on my behalf. If you want others to respect your rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness, you must accord others the same right. Everyone ought to be free, and respect the equal freedom of others.
Smith goes a bit further - saying that those who do not consistently apply the Zero Aggression Principle "are not libertarians, regardless of what they claim."
I understand where Mr. Smith is coming from, and I agree substantially with him. But the definition might turn off some who believe that some social restraints are needed but are otherwise sympathetic to a wide variety of libertarian causes. Some people believe that government is necessary, and that good government can only be formed by a moral and religious people. Hard-core libertarians disagree, holding that free markets and civil society form their own restraints, holding on to the principle that just because a person is irresponsible and prone to vice doesn't make him unfit for liberty, only unfit for prosperity and happiness. Conservatives believe that immorality leads to tyranny, but libertarians believe that dependence on government leads to both immorality and tyranny.
Nevertheless, libertarianism is the only body of political thought that is carrying on the Liberal tradition of the 19th century, and the Whig tradition of Britain and America before that. F. A. Hayek's essay "Why I am Not A Conservative" bears this out (though Hayek didn't like the word "libertarian"). Many present conservatives, and not a few modern liberals, want to carry on this tradition and have been deceived or kept ignorant of libertarian thought. I think the common element of the Whig-classical liberal-libertarian tradition could be summed up in the words of the 19th century British liberal, Lord Acton: "Liberty is the highest political end of man."
What does that mean? What is "liberty," exactly?
I'm not going to say what liberty is, exactly. I've given up on the idea that moral and political language can be defined with enough precision to be both understood and agreed upon by everyone. But I think if there is one common element underlying what many people understand or feel about liberty, it is the concept of initiative.
If a person has an end in mind to improve his condition (however he defines it: economic, moral, physical, spiritual, social) has discerned the means to achieve those ends, and is free to act toward those ends, then he is living in liberty. A person is free to the extent that his initiatives are not stifled. When they are stifled, when his virtues and productivity are punished, he is encouraged to wallow in short-term gratification. The more the people as a whole are denied liberty, the very fabric of civil society and social progress can crumble. That's why ex-communist states are having a hard time recovering - communism destroyed civil society itself.
It is this freedom of initiative by which civilizations are advanced in arts, science, technology, and health. While 18th century Whigs, 19h century liberals, and the FDR critics of the Old Right preserved some old loyalties to crowns and constitutions, and assumed some government-imposed restraints, none of them were "conservative" in that they wanted to use the government to stifle social change brought about by individual initiative within the civil society. On the other hand, they also resisted the government from imposing social change - rewarding some individual initiatives but not others. Society would build build on, not destroy, the achievements of the past through the free actions of free men, not from decisions by the government.
When liberals of the past advocated liberty but created exceptions, or believed that government was absolutely necessary to make liberty possible, they were honestly expressing fears of dangers as they saw them. Their prejudices may have been mistaken and their analysis flawed, but on the whole they advanced the cause of freedom to more and more people. They saw - they experienced - the benefits of free trade and free markets. They knew that freedom promoted peace and prosperity.
And this is the tradition which libertarianism inherits. No other movement or system of political thought does. Going beyond the Zero Aggression Principle, we perhaps need a broader definition of libertarianism for what freedom has done and can do for humankind. None of the "Founding Mothers" who inspired the modern libertarian movement - Isabel Paterson, Rose Wilder Lane, Ayn Rand - held to the virtual anarchism of many of their intellectual successors. Nor did Ludwig von Mises, whom Liberty magazine declared "Libertarian of the [20th] Century."
I would rather go back to Acton, that one can safely be called a libertarian who believes that liberty is the highest political end - but will not necessarily break all traditional structures, loyalties, and restraints. Acton was a liberal and a nobleman in the British Empire, just as Mises was all at once a liberal, a Jew, a Pole, and a nobleman in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. A prudential unwillingness to forsake traditional institutions shouldn't make one any less a libertarian.
In other words, the libertarian movement might be better off including all of those who believe in the Whig (including the Founding Fathers), and classical Liberal traditions. If your political principle is to advance freedom, and the free-market civil society, then you are either a libertarian or at worst an ally of libertarianism. But if your loyalty is to something else - the equal distribution of wealth, or national glory and Empire, social order based on your religious conceptions of a good society, or ideological crusades to impose "freedom" abroad at the cost of it at home - then you are not a libertarian.
Libertarianism is the belief that society flourishes when the individual - when freedom - is allowed to flourish.
Do you see what savage bastards we're up against here? Yesterday Al Qaeda beheaded Paul Johnson Jr. Just like they said they would. Are you listening people? JUST LIKE THEY SAID THEY WOULD. And haven't they said that they were also going to hit us on our own soil again .. this time looking for tens of thousands of American deaths? When will we be saying "just like they said they would" to that threat?
These Islamic menaces have no humanity. Not one ounce. They are cruel, cunning, capable ruthless monsters. I hope there aren't many idiotic Americans who agree with that fool I saw and Hannity and Colmes this week ... the one who said we need to open a dialogue with these monsters and negotiate with them. Yeah .. let's show some weakness. That's what we need.
I want you to think about how much encouragement these bastards get from the appeasement crowd in this country. Just how much do they want to see John Kerry win the White House? Is there any doubt in your mind who they would vote for? Does that person happen to be the same person you're going to vote for?
Linked below are very graphic pictures of [url=http://thememoryhole.org/war/...]American Paul Johnson [/url] after he was murdered. Mr. Johnson was not a military target or a combat casuality, he was plain and simply a murder victim. As many know, I am against our actions and the hundreds (close to a thousand) American deaths thus far. But where does it stop! [url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5...]What a crying shame[/url] . He worked for Lockeed Martin and had been in Saudi Arabia for years. He was a pawn for a bunch of murderous thugs. What more can be done to stop this type of thing. I am not a pacifist by any means and have served our country faithfully for 10 years in the USMC. I do not want to see any more American deaths, but I am pissed off now. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green Party. We are all Americans and should feel the anger I feel about this last beheading. So here is my solution. Bear with me because it strays from my usual frame of mind. My solution will take 72 hours. It will target innocent civilians possibly. It will not be popular with other nations, nor with the so called United Nations Council. My goal is to protect innocent Americans period...
First, we give the murderous thugs a 72 hours window, as they gave Mr. Johnson. During this 72 hour window, we evacuate all Americans to the outskirts of each target we identify and place the American service members at border check points.
Second, we advise all INNOCENTS. men, women and children who want to leave the are to do so and proceed to the nearest border checkpoint. All persons will be check prior to leaving for any weapons or contraband.
Thirdly, issue a warning to everyone through leaflet and mass media coverage that after 72 hours, we will bomb each target[/url] until there is nothing left, flatten the cities and do not worry about rebuilding or infrastructure..
Next, after the bombing is complete, we turn over the entire country to the United Nations and bring everyone home.
This is rather drastic, but what are we going to do? Stay in the area for 10 years. Remember Kosovo. We are still there. I do not want to see Americans still being killed in 10 years by these crazed maniacs.
We as Americans need to pull together to tell our politicians that its time to take care of our own. [url=http://www.cato.org/research/...]Bring the troops home[/url] , spend the money on our citizens and stop being the worlds policeman. We have enough problems in our country. We do need to support other smaller nations, but we do not need to fight everyone's battles. If a country cannot rule itself, it is not our problem. We are the strongest nation in the world. Lets put that strength to work back home. I ask, who is the next strongest nation in the world... [url=http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD...]Russia[/url] . How many of their citizens or service members have been killed.
I am pissed. I am angry. I am an American. Strategically start striking selective cities. [url=http://www.cato.org/dailys/06...]Bring our folks home [/url] and let them start living the American Dream. Do I believe we should intervene at times to assist other nations..YES. But this is not one of them.
Enough of the soapbox. How many have to die. Hey here is another solution, take over the whole damn country with the help of maybe England and Prime Minister Blair. If we are going to do something do it right. Take over the country and the oil fields. Reap the benefits. IF we are going to be the bad guy, then be the bad guy and reap the oil benefits. We all know that will never happen, but what the hell its late and Mr. Johnson has been murdered for trying to earn a living.
Not a popular post, but a little of Turks Rants at a late hour.
I thought I'd give this a try also, I got it off of ODUWildman's Blog
10 Bands/Artists You've Been Listening A Lot To Lately
01- The Doors 02- Ozzy Osbourne 03- Frank Sinatra 04- Aerosmith 05- Alanis Morissette 06- Bruce Spingsteen 07- Dave Matthews Band 08. Uncle Kracker 09. Kenny Chesney 10. Travis Tritt
9 Things You Look Forward To:
01- Winning the Mega Millions 02- Getting rid of 90% of the stress in my life 03- Publishing my novel 04- Summer vacations that never end 05- Convertible Corvette 06- Being happy all the time 07- Giving my family all that they want within reason 08- Sleeping more than 6 hours! 09- Having "true" friends to spend time with and not phonies.
8 Things You Like To Wear:
01- An Armani Suit 02- Rolex watches 03- A pair of comfortable sleepers 04- comfortable silk slacks 05- A comfortable robe to write in 06- loafers 07- sweat pants around the house 08- Thick/heavy sweatshirts
7 Things That Annoy you:
01- People who talk crap about others 02- Traffic 03- rumors 04- getting fat as I get older 05- humidity 06- gas prices 07- writers block
6 Things You Say Most Days:
01- S.O.B. 02- screw it 03- I'll get to it 04- Hello ( cell phone rings 100 times a day)STOP CALLING ME! 05- Clean up your room 06- Call me later!
5 Things You Do Everyday:
01- write 02- worry 03- read 04- talk on the cell phone too much 05- drink too much coffee
4 People You Want To Spend More Time With: 01- My Wife 02- My two kids 03- True friends 04- my mother
3 Movies You Could Watch Over And Over Again 01- Goodfellas 02- Donnie Brasco 03- Casino
2 Of Your Favourite Songs At The Moment:
01- Kenny Chesney/Uncle Kracker - "When the sun goes down" 02- Bruce Springsteen - "The River"
1 Person You Could Spend The Rest Of Your Life With:
01- My wife - without a doubt, she has kept me grounded.
I find it interesting that most Americans have questions on where they actually stand on their political views. I took this quiz today and it nailed me right where I believe I stand on the issues. Try it out, you may be surprised.
Click on the image to be taken to the Political Quiz. Let me know if you agree with its findings.
The Libertarian Party and other rants on a slow night
On this day June 16, 1858 in Springfield, Illinois, Abraham Lincoln stated "A house divided against itself cannot stand". I have recieved many emails since starting this blog asking why I post some of the anti-war posts, being a former Marine. I believe in our country and our way of life, however, I have views that differ from our two "established" political parties. I for one, am neither a Democrat, nor a Republican. If I had to put my finger on it, I guess my Political Philosophy would be called me a Left-Liberal - Left-Liberals prefer self-government in personal matters and central decision-making on economics. They want government to serve the disadvantaged in the name of fairness. Leftists tolerate social diversity, but work for economic equality.
If I was made to pick a certain Political Party it would be [url=http://www.lp.org/]The Libertarian Party[/url] .
They are committed to America's heritage of freedom:
- individual liberty and personal responsibility
- a free-market economy of abundance and prosperity
- a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade.
Keeping that train of thought, I do subscribe to many of the ideads of [url=http://boortz.com/]Neil Boortz [/url]. Great radio show. Now onto the next thought. Senator Kerry, please take a stand on something. [url=http://snopes.com/politics/ke...]Great piece on Mr. Kerry [/url] linked here dealing with how Senator Kerry goes through life with his nose in the air, oblivious to the hoi polloi who inhabit his immediate surroundings. Kerry or Bush... Does it make a difference. I would just love to find a candidate who stood for what is right and stood up for the right thing. And while most stand passively mute, hooray to Senator [url=http://snopes.com/politics/wa...]Robert Byrd [/url] who delivered a fiery floor speech condemning President Bush's calls for military action against Iraq. And finally something on a good note...[url=http://snopes.com/politics/wa...]a group of civilians[/url] gave up their seats on commercial flight to soldiers on leave from Iraq. This country still stands for something good in all the bad times.
[url=http://www.thedoors.com/][b][u]The Doors[/u][/b][/url] With the rain and the overcast weather, I was in a somber mood and felt the need for some Jim Morrison and the sounds of the Doors. Their music always puts me in a better place- Long live the Lizard King. [url=http://home.earthlink.net/~rbasen/poetry.html][u][b]Reading[/b][/u ][/url] After the music, I think a little Poetry from Morrison is just the ticket.
I was getting ready for bed and while flicking the channels, came upon the Dennis Miller Show this evening. While I do not agree with some of his views, he is entertaining and does, unlike other hosts, give his guests a chance to state their opinions. It was interesting to hear him explain why we should bomb Iraq and stay in the country. As I stated, I may not agree with his views, but he does put an a rather entertaining show. I would love to see him have someone like Neil Boortz on his show in the future. That should be Pay for View. I also caught a little of the Bill O'Reilly Factor tonight. Not much into him tonight. Segement on Michael "the freak" Jackson and the monewy he has paid out to settle law suits. As O'Reilly stated and I agree, he should be put away to stop from hurting kids.
Lastly, AEROSMITH -- THEY MUST HATE ME- three times I have tried to see them. The first time the show was cancelled because of 9-11, last year, it was cancelled because of Hurricane Isabel and finally this year, I had the back stage passes again and on the way home from work tonight, I heard on the radio that the concert for tomorrow was cancelled due to "illness". I am the one who is sick. Here is the kicker, they will not be rescheduling for my area. As I stated, they must hate me. I do have back stage passes for the Dave Matthews concert on July 23. What will happen then? Your guess is as good as mine. I also set up the after party with a friend of mine who manages N.E.R.D. ( Pharrell will be performing with Dave Matthews) The after party on July 23 will be at the Surfside Inn on Atlantic Avenue in Virginia Beach. 500 select people will be allowed to attend. I guess I will ask ODUWildman if he wants to go. Should be an interesting night. Photos will be taken and shared. More to come. You interested in attending Twinkie?
Brendan O'Neill argues that the recent U.N. resolution on Iraq is no big turnaround, but rather, proof that the Bush/Blair team is "desperate to disavow political responsibility for Iraq, and to distance itself from the postwar mess it created. Indeed, the coalition [url=http://www.spiked-online.com/...]withdrew in spirit long ago[/url] - now it wants out in body, too."
Another issue is who is reaping the benefits of this war, not our citizens who need it the most... Knight Ridder reports that "Halliburton paid [url=http://www.realcities.com/mld...]high-priced bills for common items[/url] , such as soda, laundry and hotels, in Iraq and Kuwait and then passed the inflated costs along to taxpayers," according to a Pentagon audit and statements by former Halliburton employees that are [url=http://www.house.gov/reform/m...]posted here[/url] .
Finally Surfdom also links to law professor Michael Froomkin's [url=http://www.discourse.net/arch...]read on the memo[/url] , which David Ignatius says is, "in its dry lawyerly way... as shocking as the Abu Ghraib photographs." Plus: Alternet [url=http://www.alternet.org/modul...]excerpts the new book[/url] , "Guantanamo: What the World Should Know."
[url=http://apnews.myway.com/artic...]Poll of Iraqis Reveals Anger Toward U.S.[/url] [b]This is what I have been saying for a long time. Initially I totally agreed with the war, however, now it is a cause for the politicians to fight over while our servicemembers are being killed and injured. Young men and women who are defending our very freedoms, but for what reason?[/b] A poll of Iraqis commissioned by the U.S.-governing authority has provided the Bush administration a stark picture of anti-American sentiment - more than half of Iraqis believe they would be safer if U.S. troops simply left. [url=http://www.usatoday.com/life/...]Alanis Morissette, Ryan Reynolds Engaged[/url] Isn't it ironic? I have recently been turned on by her lyrics and then saw her with her new short haircut and really was turned on by her. Her lyrics are so haunting that I am attracted to her because of her lyrics. Her looks are an added bonus. Alanis Morissette, who made her name with poignant, angry songs about wrecked relationships, is engaged. Her boyfriend, actor Ryan Reynolds, has asked her to marry him
I love this new MP3 Player I just purchased a few weeks ago.? It is the best thing to come around in a long time.? I sat by the pool this past weekend and listened to all of my favorite tunes and even an audio book without ever having to get up to change a CD.? It is the ultimate all-in-one digital music player, the Dell Digital Jukebox will download Windows Media or MP3 files from your PC in seconds, then take your favorite tunes with you wherever you go.? I have already placed over 5000 songs in the player and no longer have to search for CD's.? I love it.?
Who is most responsible for the 9-11 disaster leading us into the Iraqi war. "[url=http://www.shopnetdaily.com/s...]Wild Bill[/url] " thats who... Read it!
"Should the U.S. attack Iraq with or without the U.N. ?" Listed in the following link is an unbiased, primarily pro/con format, responses to the related and core question. - [url=http://www.usiraqprocon.org/p...]Pro/Con[/url]
While I love my country and served in the USMC for 8 years, there are too many of our troops dying and being injured and for what...Oil. Yes, Terrorism was the initial reason for actions taken on our part and I agreed with the actions taken initially, however, now we need to take care of our own and bring home US Servicemembers to their families. By the way did you see the US MArine Corporal saluting President Reagan's casket with no hands ( Injured in Iraq). A true Patriot. Anyway, why is it that we are always the world's policeman. Lets "police" our own country. Bigger issues need to be addressed, crime, social security, medicaid, education, the homeless, the decline of family values. I can go on forever. Whatever happened to the " white picket fence" mentality from the 50's. Time to get off my soapbox.
I sat home tonight thinking about various items to begin this blog with and amazingly, I had very little to say. Those who know me are probably amazed I have little to comment on... No anti-establisment sentiments, no "Big Brother" rantings. maybe it is because I sat by the pool all day reading a great new book following up on the "[url=http://www.goodfellahenry.com...]GoodFellas[/url] " movie about Henry Hill. One of the best movies of all time starring Ray Liotta and Robert Deniro. King of the Rats (Henry Hill) as Chuck Zito called him on the Howard Stern Show, but a very interesting read beginning where the movie ended to present time.
Watched a great movie also "[url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0...]Enemy of the State[/url] " starring Will Smith and Gene Hackman...its amazing how Big Brother is able and does watch every move we make. For those who think it does not happen, Wake Up.
One last thing... rumors - Why is it that everyone has to always talk shit about other people. Why can't we just be responsible for ourselves. The answer... JEALOUSY !
In the Persian Gulf War, about three troops were wounded in action for every fatality. In Iraq, about seven are being wounded for every one killed.
[i]Bavley, Alan. "New technology and medical practices save lives in Iraq." Knight Ridder Newspapers, 17 Dec 2003. Link. Posted 18 Dec 2003. [/i]
There have been 949 coalition deaths, 833 Americans, 59 Britons, six Bulgarians, one Dane, one Dutch, one Estonian, 18 Italians, one Latvian, six Poles, one Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and six Ukrainians, in the war as of June 9, 2004
There have been 949 coalition deaths, 833 Americans, 59 Britons, six Bulgarians, one Dane, one Dutch, one Estonian, 18 Italians, one Latvian, six Poles, one Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and six Ukrainians, in the war as of June 9, 2004 
