Words of wisodom from Karl Denninger at Market Ticker.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
A BAD LAW IS A BAD LAW
The Washington Missourian has a headline story today "Drug Unit Commander Refutes Criticism of Law" covering the public backlash that has erupted over the psuedoephedrine prescription law. The upshot of the article seems to be that Det. Sgt. Jason Grellner believes that the end justifies the means, that the solution to the meth problem justifies any inconvenience or expense that the public is forced to bear. His logic in trying to justify his actions is seriously flawed.
"The city of Washington can, under state law, pass an ordinance that is more restrictive than state law," Grellner told The Missourian. "Case in point, numerous smoking bans in other cities - cigarettes contain drugs. This is no different."
This is entirely different than the regulation of cigarettes. In the first place, people can still buy cigarettes without additional cost being imposed upon them by the requirement of receiving a permission slip to do so. Secondly, the cities are regulating where smoking can occur, not smoking itself. Thirdly, it is at least possible to make the argument that second hand smoke causes harm to persons other than the smoker. Taking cold medicine impacts the patient and no one else.
"The city of Washington was not asked to reclassify this drug," he noted. "They are simply acting in behalf of public safety and regulating the sale. It is no different than counties or cities regulating the sale of alcohol. That's why we have dry cities and counties."
The argument is not whether the city has the right to do this. Contrary to the assertions of the ACLU I suspect that the city of Washington is well within its legal authority. The question is whether the actions of the city are targeting the innocent while letting the guilty move to another area, without further legal action taken against them. This brings up another point; is it just to institute a policy which will only send Franklin County's problem to some other part of the state instead of permanently removing it?
"Grellner added that the state of Kentucky implemented a "stop sale" system of monitoring pseudoephedrine-based medicines that was not effective and meth labs increased by 47 percent in the state. He added that monitoring drives up the "black market" value of pseudoephedrine-based pills. In Franklin County, the black market value of a box of cold medicine containing pseudophedrine is $50. In Kentucky the same package is valued at $75."
The reason that this market exists is that the illegal consumer of pseudoephedrine has not been removed from the marketplace. Laws targeting the law abiding generally will have very little effect on the criminal.
"A knee jerk reaction is made to a problem immediately without thought," he said. "This has been scrutinized, discussed and planned to end the meth problem. Here we stand 13 years later and over 50,000 labs later and we stand with the same problem," Grellner told The Missourian. "I hardly refer to this as a knee jerk reaction."
The amount of planning that has gone into a law in and of itself says very little about the end product. A well planned bad law is still a bad law. The state needs to pass laws that make the manufacturing and distribution of methamphetamine such a risky act that the profit motive is outweighed by the possible penalty that will be paid if the criminal is caught.
"The city of Washington can, under state law, pass an ordinance that is more restrictive than state law," Grellner told The Missourian. "Case in point, numerous smoking bans in other cities - cigarettes contain drugs. This is no different."
This is entirely different than the regulation of cigarettes. In the first place, people can still buy cigarettes without additional cost being imposed upon them by the requirement of receiving a permission slip to do so. Secondly, the cities are regulating where smoking can occur, not smoking itself. Thirdly, it is at least possible to make the argument that second hand smoke causes harm to persons other than the smoker. Taking cold medicine impacts the patient and no one else.
"The city of Washington was not asked to reclassify this drug," he noted. "They are simply acting in behalf of public safety and regulating the sale. It is no different than counties or cities regulating the sale of alcohol. That's why we have dry cities and counties."
The argument is not whether the city has the right to do this. Contrary to the assertions of the ACLU I suspect that the city of Washington is well within its legal authority. The question is whether the actions of the city are targeting the innocent while letting the guilty move to another area, without further legal action taken against them. This brings up another point; is it just to institute a policy which will only send Franklin County's problem to some other part of the state instead of permanently removing it?
"Grellner added that the state of Kentucky implemented a "stop sale" system of monitoring pseudoephedrine-based medicines that was not effective and meth labs increased by 47 percent in the state. He added that monitoring drives up the "black market" value of pseudoephedrine-based pills. In Franklin County, the black market value of a box of cold medicine containing pseudophedrine is $50. In Kentucky the same package is valued at $75."
The reason that this market exists is that the illegal consumer of pseudoephedrine has not been removed from the marketplace. Laws targeting the law abiding generally will have very little effect on the criminal.
"A knee jerk reaction is made to a problem immediately without thought," he said. "This has been scrutinized, discussed and planned to end the meth problem. Here we stand 13 years later and over 50,000 labs later and we stand with the same problem," Grellner told The Missourian. "I hardly refer to this as a knee jerk reaction."
The amount of planning that has gone into a law in and of itself says very little about the end product. A well planned bad law is still a bad law. The state needs to pass laws that make the manufacturing and distribution of methamphetamine such a risky act that the profit motive is outweighed by the possible penalty that will be paid if the criminal is caught.
COULD IT REALLY BE TRUE?
The Ledger Enquirer is carrying the story about the lawsuit that was filed by Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook asking for conscientious objector status and a preliminary injunction to stop his deployment to Afghanistan. Before this could go to court his orders to deploy were rescinded. A general and a lieutenant colonel have now joined the suit that is intended to clarify the issues surrounding Obamas eligibility to be president due to concerns about his citizenship status at birth.
Major Cook is concerned that if Obama is not legally allowed to hold the office of president due to his lack of citizenship, that any orders to be deployed issued by Obama would not be lawful orders. This creates a situation that removes American soldiers from all protections afforded by the Geneva Convention.
I have followed this story since before the election. It has been covered by a whole bunch of mainstream news organizations which (predictably) found no conflict existed. Most of the insistence that Obama is not a citizen has come from blogs and conspiracy sites so I have been hesitant to grant them much credence. However, with the revoking of these orders before the trial and the consistent refusal of the Obama administration to release the long form birth certificate, maybe it's time to start thinking there might be some truth to these allegations.
If this would turn out to be true,what next?
Major Cook is concerned that if Obama is not legally allowed to hold the office of president due to his lack of citizenship, that any orders to be deployed issued by Obama would not be lawful orders. This creates a situation that removes American soldiers from all protections afforded by the Geneva Convention.
I have followed this story since before the election. It has been covered by a whole bunch of mainstream news organizations which (predictably) found no conflict existed. Most of the insistence that Obama is not a citizen has come from blogs and conspiracy sites so I have been hesitant to grant them much credence. However, with the revoking of these orders before the trial and the consistent refusal of the Obama administration to release the long form birth certificate, maybe it's time to start thinking there might be some truth to these allegations.
If this would turn out to be true,what next?
GOD, GUNS, GUTS AND PICKUP TRUCKS
Ted Nugent would be so proud!! A Missouri car dealer puts a CNN info babe in her place. Why is it that the media thinks that all journalism should support a particular agenda? All I want is the news, straight up, without the editorials. I can always read the op-ed pages if I want an opinion.
Strangely enough, I get the feeling that her heart wasn't really in this. She admittedly grew up around guns so probably has no real bias against them. How much pressure is being applied to news people to push an anti-gun and anti-freedom agenda? It seemed as though her line of questioning was forced, as though she felt obligated to push the leftist company line. I only mention this because I usually sense a certain level of zealotry in these situations but not here. How much do you think a soul costs these days?
Strangely enough, I get the feeling that her heart wasn't really in this. She admittedly grew up around guns so probably has no real bias against them. How much pressure is being applied to news people to push an anti-gun and anti-freedom agenda? It seemed as though her line of questioning was forced, as though she felt obligated to push the leftist company line. I only mention this because I usually sense a certain level of zealotry in these situations but not here. How much do you think a soul costs these days?
Saturday, July 18, 2009
WHAT IS TRUTH?
Dana Loesch reports on an ABC News article that says former President Carter is leaving the Southern Baptist Church over its interpretation of the role of women in the church. Apparently, church leaders at their June convention voted to no longer allow women to serve as pastors. I guess that this is more offensive to him than his buddies at Hamas strapping bombs to retarded women and sending them out to blow themselves up. Of course, this does show an enlightened attitude on the part of Hamas, allowing women to do everything that a man can do.
ABC says that Carter intends to remain in his post as deacon of his Baptist church. How can he retain a position of authority in a church that he has left? This reinforces my perception of Carter as someone that is confused and indecisive, the two defining characteristics of his administration.
This also highlights a flaw in the Protestant system of decentralized power in religion. I'm Catholic and am not saying that we get everything right, far from it. However, the idea in Protestantism that every man is his own Pope, able to interpret scripture and tradition to his own liking, seems to set the stage for a total lack of respect for the truth. It seems to me that truth exists and is knowable. My agreement with or acceptance of this truth has no bearing upon its existence. Because God is truth, truth is.
Protestantism seems to me to in some ways to encourage people to run from truths that they don't like. Protestants can always find a church that agrees with them. If the church at some point strays too far from their beliefs they seem to feel that they can go look for another or maybe start one of their own. I know that I am making a broad generalization here but I have seen this happen enough to know that it is a major problem in the Protestant world.
Catholics do this to some extent, also. However, due to the more centralized and powerful nature of the church, changing parishes will normally still not change the teaching all that much. Unless they find a parish and priest that have strayed so far off the reservation that they are for all intents and purposes schismatic. At that point, the parish is more closing following the pattern set by Protestantism and its members are only marginally Catholic anyway.
There are many teachings in the Catholic Church that I have struggled with over the years. Because I don't have the freedom to follow my own idea of the truth, but accept that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth (Timothy 3:16), I have been forced to reconcile my personal beliefs with the truth taught by the church. This process has caused me to have a much deeper and richer understanding of the world around me. Had I run to the next church that taught what I believed was the truth, my growth as a Christian and a person would have been truncated.
Does this underlying idea that truth is situational serve as a root cause for the confusion men like President Carter experience? Has his experience in a world filled with truths of his own making made him incapable of seeing truth clearly enough to act upon it? I don't know.
Just something that I wonder about from time to time.
ABC says that Carter intends to remain in his post as deacon of his Baptist church. How can he retain a position of authority in a church that he has left? This reinforces my perception of Carter as someone that is confused and indecisive, the two defining characteristics of his administration.
This also highlights a flaw in the Protestant system of decentralized power in religion. I'm Catholic and am not saying that we get everything right, far from it. However, the idea in Protestantism that every man is his own Pope, able to interpret scripture and tradition to his own liking, seems to set the stage for a total lack of respect for the truth. It seems to me that truth exists and is knowable. My agreement with or acceptance of this truth has no bearing upon its existence. Because God is truth, truth is.
Protestantism seems to me to in some ways to encourage people to run from truths that they don't like. Protestants can always find a church that agrees with them. If the church at some point strays too far from their beliefs they seem to feel that they can go look for another or maybe start one of their own. I know that I am making a broad generalization here but I have seen this happen enough to know that it is a major problem in the Protestant world.
Catholics do this to some extent, also. However, due to the more centralized and powerful nature of the church, changing parishes will normally still not change the teaching all that much. Unless they find a parish and priest that have strayed so far off the reservation that they are for all intents and purposes schismatic. At that point, the parish is more closing following the pattern set by Protestantism and its members are only marginally Catholic anyway.
There are many teachings in the Catholic Church that I have struggled with over the years. Because I don't have the freedom to follow my own idea of the truth, but accept that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth (Timothy 3:16), I have been forced to reconcile my personal beliefs with the truth taught by the church. This process has caused me to have a much deeper and richer understanding of the world around me. Had I run to the next church that taught what I believed was the truth, my growth as a Christian and a person would have been truncated.
Does this underlying idea that truth is situational serve as a root cause for the confusion men like President Carter experience? Has his experience in a world filled with truths of his own making made him incapable of seeing truth clearly enough to act upon it? I don't know.
Just something that I wonder about from time to time.
Friday, July 17, 2009
A RIGHT TO HEALTHCARE
There was a letter in the Washington Missourian from someone that made the claim that we have a right to healthcare. Below is my response to this. I have had a long term debate going on in my head (along with all of the other voices) about this topic. If anyone reads this please respond and tell me where I'm wrong. Thanks.
To the editor:
On 7/14/2009 Susan Cunningham wrote a letter to the editor proclaiming our right to healthcare and extolling the virtues of a government run and financed healthcare system.
The question I have regarding her letter is this; can you possibly tell me where we ever had a "right" to healthcare that presupposes public dollars being used to support it? I know it is possible to argue that a right to healthcare exists in the natural law (though I disagree with this argument), just as a right to self defense does. However, I've never heard anyone try to make an argument that society owes me the means to my own defense. Maybe the government should buy me a gun.
So let’s say just for the sake of argument that you do have a right to healthcare. Does that right entitle you to the best available healthcare or just enough to get by? Even the poorest can get enough to get by already, without government taking more of my property and freedom. If you think that you are entitled to the best healthcare on the public dime then I want the government to buy me the biggest nuclear missile made so that I can exercise my right to self defense.
I think that common sense would dictate that, in most instances, my right to self defense could be exercised by a baseball bat bought (at my expense) at the five and dime. Your right to healthcare can be exercised by paying for minimal health insurance yourself or just paying the doctor as you go. Both healthcare and self defense are life and death decisions that we are personally responsible for. Oh, did I mention that with rights come responsibilities?
Truth cannot negate truth. In other words, if it is true that I have an exclusive right to my property it cannot also be true that you have a right to it. My labor is my property. It is central to my being. Your claim of a right to healthcare presupposes that someone will provide that care. You have no right to the labor provided by a doctor or anyone else without just compensation. No individual is entitled to the services or the fruits of another's labor without just compensation. A right is something that we are free to have or do, without permission, something we posses free of all encumbrances. If our actions infringe on the rights of another (such as taking their property) we are not exercising our rights, we are imposing our will.
But, you say, the doctor will be compensated by the government. Where does the government get its money? From the fruits of the labor of its citizens. Does the federal government have the ability to take property from its citizens for public use? Only as allowed by those citizens and for the purposes clearly defined in the constitution. Healthcare is not one of them.
The “right” to health care is a canard foisted upon the public in hopes of ramming an unsustainable socialist medical system down our throats. This is part of a larger drive to destroy the free enterprise system that has made the U.S. the most prosperous country in the history of the world. The American people will not accept a socialist system if it is presented honestly so its backers will lie, cheat and distort the truth to hide its true nature from the public. This assertion of a right to health care is merely part of this charade.
To the editor:
On 7/14/2009 Susan Cunningham wrote a letter to the editor proclaiming our right to healthcare and extolling the virtues of a government run and financed healthcare system.
The question I have regarding her letter is this; can you possibly tell me where we ever had a "right" to healthcare that presupposes public dollars being used to support it? I know it is possible to argue that a right to healthcare exists in the natural law (though I disagree with this argument), just as a right to self defense does. However, I've never heard anyone try to make an argument that society owes me the means to my own defense. Maybe the government should buy me a gun.
So let’s say just for the sake of argument that you do have a right to healthcare. Does that right entitle you to the best available healthcare or just enough to get by? Even the poorest can get enough to get by already, without government taking more of my property and freedom. If you think that you are entitled to the best healthcare on the public dime then I want the government to buy me the biggest nuclear missile made so that I can exercise my right to self defense.
I think that common sense would dictate that, in most instances, my right to self defense could be exercised by a baseball bat bought (at my expense) at the five and dime. Your right to healthcare can be exercised by paying for minimal health insurance yourself or just paying the doctor as you go. Both healthcare and self defense are life and death decisions that we are personally responsible for. Oh, did I mention that with rights come responsibilities?
Truth cannot negate truth. In other words, if it is true that I have an exclusive right to my property it cannot also be true that you have a right to it. My labor is my property. It is central to my being. Your claim of a right to healthcare presupposes that someone will provide that care. You have no right to the labor provided by a doctor or anyone else without just compensation. No individual is entitled to the services or the fruits of another's labor without just compensation. A right is something that we are free to have or do, without permission, something we posses free of all encumbrances. If our actions infringe on the rights of another (such as taking their property) we are not exercising our rights, we are imposing our will.
But, you say, the doctor will be compensated by the government. Where does the government get its money? From the fruits of the labor of its citizens. Does the federal government have the ability to take property from its citizens for public use? Only as allowed by those citizens and for the purposes clearly defined in the constitution. Healthcare is not one of them.
The “right” to health care is a canard foisted upon the public in hopes of ramming an unsustainable socialist medical system down our throats. This is part of a larger drive to destroy the free enterprise system that has made the U.S. the most prosperous country in the history of the world. The American people will not accept a socialist system if it is presented honestly so its backers will lie, cheat and distort the truth to hide its true nature from the public. This assertion of a right to health care is merely part of this charade.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
I'M LATE, I'M LATE, FOR A VERY IMPORTANT DATE
CNS News reports that they let the Vice President out again today. Why?
“We’re going to go bankrupt as a nation,” Biden said. “Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’” Biden said. “The answer is yes, that's what I’m telling you.”
We will have to put our heads underwater to keep from drowning, leap from a cliff to keep from falling and gouge out our eyes to improve our vision. We've passed through the looking glass. Say hi to Alice for me, will you?
“They’ll be a deal in there so there’s competition, so what you’ll have in there is you’ll have the ability to go in there and say, ‘Now look, this is the policy I want. This is the one,” Biden said."
See, I told you not to worry, we've got a deal in there.
“We’re going to go bankrupt as a nation,” Biden said. “Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’” Biden said. “The answer is yes, that's what I’m telling you.”
We will have to put our heads underwater to keep from drowning, leap from a cliff to keep from falling and gouge out our eyes to improve our vision. We've passed through the looking glass. Say hi to Alice for me, will you?
“They’ll be a deal in there so there’s competition, so what you’ll have in there is you’ll have the ability to go in there and say, ‘Now look, this is the policy I want. This is the one,” Biden said."
See, I told you not to worry, we've got a deal in there.
I DIDN'T WANT TO SEE A DOCTOR, ANYWAY
Centrist Dem Leader: Has Committee Votes To Block Health Bill
By Martin Vaughan, Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- U.S. Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., a leader of fiscally conservative House Democrats, said Wednesday a House plan to overhaul the U.S. health-care system is losing support and will be stuck in committee without changes.
"Last time I checked, it takes seven Democrats to stop a bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee," Ross told reporters after a House vote. "We had seven against it last Friday; we have 10 today."
Nasdaq
So the concept of national health care doesn't really bother these guys, it just needs a little fine tuning. Maybe like a tweak here of some pork project in someones district or a little nudge there of some sort of prime committee membership. Who knows, maybe there is some honor and real concern for the future of our country. My guess is, though, this is just a way to bargain for personal advantage. Maybe put on a little show of dissent for the folks back home to show that the statists really aren't goose stepping hand in hand towards our brave new world. In the end, enough will vote for whatever the leadership tells them to vote for to get the noose pulled that much tighter around our necks. European socialism here we come.
By Martin Vaughan, Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- U.S. Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., a leader of fiscally conservative House Democrats, said Wednesday a House plan to overhaul the U.S. health-care system is losing support and will be stuck in committee without changes.
"Last time I checked, it takes seven Democrats to stop a bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee," Ross told reporters after a House vote. "We had seven against it last Friday; we have 10 today."
Nasdaq
So the concept of national health care doesn't really bother these guys, it just needs a little fine tuning. Maybe like a tweak here of some pork project in someones district or a little nudge there of some sort of prime committee membership. Who knows, maybe there is some honor and real concern for the future of our country. My guess is, though, this is just a way to bargain for personal advantage. Maybe put on a little show of dissent for the folks back home to show that the statists really aren't goose stepping hand in hand towards our brave new world. In the end, enough will vote for whatever the leadership tells them to vote for to get the noose pulled that much tighter around our necks. European socialism here we come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
