So confesses Colorado State Senator Ken Chlouber, a crusader against supermarket discount cards, in an embarrassing moment of personal insight.

Declan McCullagh highlights the distinction between privacy and confidentiality. Regulation of the private sector won’t enhance privacy.

Rain. Depending on where you are right now, and where you’ve been in the past, rain will conjure up images, memories, and even emotions.

If you are from a farming background, you may recall friends and family members losing everything because of rain or the lack thereof at exactly the best or worst moment it could have arrived. If you are fan of old musicals, the thought of rain might cause you to start humming a catchy tune to the annoyance and even possibly fear of those in your vicinity (especially if you currently or have ever worked for the Post Office). If your conscious mind is nourished from the fount of hard-hitting and personally-relevant information from things like CBS Evening news, rain may cause you to immediately begin visualizing mud slides, floods, and prematurely interrupted baseball games.

Of course, these terrible events are then counter-balanced by the joyous opportunity, presented through the same medium, to save these seasonally-drowned waifs for mere pennies a day, but that doesn’t lessen the emotional impact of warm snow.

There is definitely something psychologically significant about rain. It seems that too much of it, and its precursor, clouds, can have an adverse affect on the human condition. It is no surprise that both US-based DisneyPlaces are located in states with unfair and almost shameful amounts of sunshine. It is also no surprise that Seattle is (or at least was, before Al Gore’s dire and thought-proving warnings came true and the internal combustion engine caused El Nino) the suicide capital of America, as well as the birthplace of that most uplifting of musical stylings, Grunge. The silver lining, it seems, often dangles from the end of a rope, awaits at the bottom of a bridge plunge, or dozes off into permanent oblivion by not paying heed to the advice available from one’s doctor or pharmacist. And all because it rained too much.

The total number of sunny days is one of the more subtle things which differentiates two of my favorite places: Texas, and New Zealand. I did not say “The US and New Zealand”, because that would be too broad of a generalization to be valid. I do like all of New Zealand, but I don’t like most of “The US”. I do, however, like most of Texas, which is promoted by its tourist industry as “A whole other country” (sic). And Texas is culturally (and meteorologically, for the purpose of this article) closer to being a single nation than America is. It is certainly easier to maintain one’s personal comfortable cultural interaction patterns in Dallas and Mesquite than it is between, say, San Francisco and Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania. Anywhere in Texas, I can talk about rodeo or carry my antique war souvenir in a shoulder holster without getting a sideways glance or a pompous chuckle (or a trip to the People’s Conformance Center). In contrast, I feel equally uncomfortable in both San Francisco and anywhere near the United States’ east coast. They give me different flavors of The Creeps, but they’re still in the same phylum. New Zealand has some of that taste as well, but only in its major cities. Auckland can feel a bit like, oh I don’t know, Vermont in summer, with its “We’re terribly busy being civilized. What do you want here, Yankee?” attitude, but I do like it, almost as much as I like the heart of Texas: Austin (which always feels to me like Saturday night with drunk friends).

I guess Austin and Auckland are two of my favorite places, as far as cities go. With the exception of starting with the same letter, they are about as different as nice cities can be.

Austin and Auckland are both quite diverse and metropolitan, supporting a wide range of cultures, sub-cultures, and things cultured in a petri dish, so boredom during people-watching and generic human intercourse doesn’t really occur in either locale. Austin does have a very upbeat, cheery, almost annoyingly self-generated hip-ness to it, and this contrasts with Auckland, which seems to constantly be in auditions for Farthest European City, and competing for the fastest mimic of bad EU and USA laws and standards (Jerry Springer, of all the syndicated options under God’s heaven, is now imported to New Zealand shores along with such things as HIV and bad acid). This is virtually the opposite of any Texan’s attitude towards himself and his home state, which could basically be summarized as a bumper sticker: “Only God Can Make a Texan”. So pride vs. envy is one of several divergences. There are others.

Rainfall, for example. Austin averages about a pint of rain per year, where Auckland’s monthly rainfall during its winter is something like 8.6 on the I-Hope-Somebody-Is-Friends-With-Noah scale. And, non-coincidentally, the area of New Zealand surrounding Auckland has the highest teen suicide rate in the Commonwealth (and several other arbitrary national groupings as well).

Some people assert that the reason for Auckland’s maudlin and demonstrably mortal teenage population has to do more with the culture than the precipitation level. They say that, because New Zealand suffers from an over-abundance of government attention to, funding of, and involvement in virtually everything, and a general cultural tendency to punish success via “Tall Poppy Syndrome” (the clich� which describes the beheading of those individuals which dare exceed the collective average), that the successful kids become disheartened, and the unsuccessful ones just plain give up any hope of ever becoming useful and turn destructive both inwardly and outwardly.

They say that if there is no freedom to take those chances which can result in ultimate failure, then the thrill of success is deadened. Even the hope of winning is replaced by a lazy contentment with losing out to a comfortable below-average (but still within the majority) fate. Only the degree of failure is in question. And as that bar grows lower and lower, eventually those subjected unrelentingly to it subconsciously collapse and conclude that they might as well quit Big Time Right Now rather than continuing to lose over several more years. If you have seen either The Piano, or Once Were Warriors, you have seen the cinematic expression of this dreary local depression. Even the politicians are personal failures, not even buoyed with the glint of personal greed in their eyes, but driven by an aggression-free aspiration to be at the front of the cattle car.

These same people say this may be partly due to how New Zealand society began, and not just how it has been decaying�excuse me, “Becoming More Caring”, over the last few decades. It was effectively populated by the British government offering free land and money and relocation facilities to a cross-section of fiercely loyalist UK society. The colony population was hand-picked to be as vanilla and bland as the majority of the Empire, and the only thing that the individuals themselves had to supply was a willingness to accept their free stuff, and then possibly engage the local semi-indigenous population in trade or occasional armed unpleasantries.

The consequences of founding a nation with this rather calculated and gray colonization population have been somewhat overturned by the immigrants who have arrived during the last 50 years. These immigrants are usually Tall Poppies (except the seemingly endless stream of translocated trade unionists from the UK: May the Lord bless and keep them all, quickly), and tend to stand out like a male construction worker at a Tupperware party. In a society which values egalitarianism (may the Lord bless and keep that also) above all else, it can be a difficult environ to meld with and succeed within. Fortunately for these newer Zealanders, though, they have already overcome incredible odds in order to to run the multi-faceted gauntlet of both long-distance immigration and the herd of sub-failures (bureaucrats) waiting to greet them as they got off the plane/train/auto-gyro and challenge their individual (gasp) validity. They, more often than not, ascend the guarded and too-little-used ladder of individual pride and productivity to become Longhorns amongst the sheep.

Very rarely does one read about immigrants from other western or Asian countries whose children, being given a new life in a new land fully equipped with digital TV and penicillin, decide to take a bath with a toaster because life is “unfair”. And I don’t seem to recall hearing about Texas having one of the highest rates of do-it-yourself do-yourself-in incidents. There’s got to be an explanation.

It must be the weather.

Some might conclude that Dick Freely is an expatriate Texan living in New Zealand.

(This piece was published in Laissez Faire City Times 5/7/01. Republished by permission of Dick Freely.)

Voting For Beer
by Andy Stedman

Give ‘Em The Bird
by John Lopez

“Every Vote Counts!”
by Lynette Warren

The Secret of Their Success
by Lynette Warren

A Nation Of Subservient Chickens
by John T. Kennedy

Power Without Accountability
by John T. Kennedy

Joshua Claybourn’s Vote Is Up For Grabs, But What Is it Worth?
by John T. Kennedy

Claybourn’s Vote, Part II
by John T. Kennedy

A Vocational Chat With Voters
by V

Choose And Perish!
by John T. Kennedy

Who Gets A Better President?

Voter Fraud

Do it. Vote.

I See Voters…

Also see: Strike The Root’s Non-Voting Archive

Those are the words I recall being spoken on US Army rifle ranges immediately before the targets start popping up and getting blown away. Folks, here’s the first fifty-yarder: The Noam Chomsky Blog.

Tip courtesy of The Libertarian Jackass.

So I’m talking to my friend S. in lovely Deseret. My friend S. is more of an admirer of George W. Bush than I could be, but on this occasion she is expressing dissatisfaction with his support for a Palestinian State.

I point out that I, too, see nothing wrong with some sort of Palestinian state - as long as it was surrounded with high walls, electrified barbed wire, and perhaps moats full of man-eating crocodiles.

My friend S. replies: “Yeah, man, that would be great! A Palestinian State…Palestinian State Prison!

And then we both laugh.

No more state marriages, for the time being anyway, in one Oregon County.

This is the least bad government move so far in the gay marriage flap. It would be even better to drop all government recognition of marriage.

The High Road is a gun forum I lurk upon, and the Legal And Political section is always good for a slow motion train-wreck. Take this gem, here. This is a discussion about a recent story of anti-Bush protesters being arrested in Crawford, TX. Seems the would-be protesters didn’t have some sort of “permit”, or sumpin’. There’s a bit of intelligence from the usual worthies mixed in the comments, but the typical reaction is something like this:

More Liberal Nonsense
The heading should say, break the law and go to jail. Those protesters broke the law and they were punished. What is the problem?

Y’see that attitude, there? That utter, brain-dead worship of “the law” is what got us so deep into the mess we’re in now. Since “the law” is whatever the government says it is, the above slackjaw is conceding that, yeah, the government pretty much has the right to do whatever it wants to, whenever it wants to, however it wants to. The only reason he likes it now is that it isn’t a Democrat enforcing “the law” against one of his pet causes.

These yammerhead conservatives at THR are the same morons who, dollars to doughnuts, are going to herd themselves down to the polls in November and put their stupid little hoof-marks on the ballot next to GW’s name, all the while bleating about how they can barely stand the taste of the Republican cud they’re chewing. Thing is, the Republican party knows that the gun owner vote is locked up solid. After all, who else are they gonna vote for? All that the GOP has to do is to not be quite as bad as the Dems, and they can stick the gun vote in their pocket. This is a truth that the grass-eaters just don’t want to face.

Y’see, facing the stark naked truth that their votes are sewn up might mean making some really unpleasant adjustments in their world-view, like facing the fact that electoral politics and their beloved Constitution are what got them into the mess they’re in in the first place. Like noticing that since we’re sitting at the bottom of the results of two hundred years of balloting and constitutionalizing, maybe we ought to try something else, for a change. Like getting the point that an obscure lawyer made a long time ago:

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain–that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

Just wait. When the next Democrat takes hold of the whip, it’ll damn sure come down hard on those oh-so-deserving idiots who are defending that selfsame whipping nowadays. And mark my words, they will still have no better idea of what to do about their predicament than to meander into the voting booth and pull the lever for the Republicans, again and again and again.

Thomas DiLorenzo continues to have problems recognizing what the Constitution is: a grant of power to the federal government. He writes:

The article on FCC tyranny by Marc Stevens, cited below on the Blog by Charley Hardman, is excellent but contains one flaw: The Constitution is not entirely a “negative charter of liberties.” Until 1865 it was: It prohibited Congress from doing a great many mischievous things and delegated only a precious few powers to the central government, reserving sovereignty in the free and independent states.

The Constitution was never a negative charter of liberties. If that were so, there would be no reason to create a Constitution in the first place. If Congress hadn’t been constructed and endowed with power, there would be no reason to limit Congress’ power. It wouldn’t have any.

In fact, the Constitution gives Congress substantial power: levy indirect taxes, borrow money, regulate interstate commerce, establish laws for naturalization and bankruptcy, coin money, establish post offices, build roads, establish patents and trademarks, create courts, declare war, publish letters of marquee and reprisal, raise and support armies and navies, and govern the federal district. More so, they can make any law necessary and proper to carry out these powers. That is not an inconsequential grant of power, and it’s hardly a negative charter of rights.

However, the “Civil War Amendments” — 13, 14, and 15 — all contain a clause at the end that empowers Congress to enforce them. This created opportunities for endless power grabs by the central government, which it has taken full advantage of, especially with regard to the 14th Amendment. The mindless egalitarianism that now rules our society is a direct result of this. Thanks to these Amendments we’ve gone from “Congress shall make no law . . .” to “Congress can do whatever it damn well pleases, and if it doesn’t, federal judges can simply declare themselves dictators and legislate from the bench.”

Actually, Congress bases most of its legislative authority on the Interstate Commerce Clause. The legal theory is, since nearly everything affects interstate commerce, it stands to reason that Congress has authority over most everything. In recent years this has been scaled back somewhat, especially though Lopez, but the primary justification has changed little. Indeed, since nearly everything does touch or affect interstate commerce, and since Congress is empowered to make all laws necessary and proper to regulate interstate commerce, it stands to reason that Congress has considerable authority. And that authority has expanded because there is much more interstate commerce than there was in 1789.

Whether the Constitution has any proper authority, well, that’s another question.

In arguing for free trade Radley Balko argues that free trade is no threat to religion.

Suppose it was: If free trade was detrimental to religion would that be a valid argument against free trade? If not, then how are any consequences to religion relevant to an argument for free trade?

By way of Beck I recently came across this passage by Nick Gillespie:

However, the larger point from this ongoing debate has to be that once you get into a cost-benefit analysis of smoking bans, the fight is essentially over. That’s because those analyses are embedded in a public health model which proceeds from the assumption that risky behavior needs to be minimized. It may take a couple of years, but once the issue is being decided on something other than the right of a business owner or an individual to do what they want with their own property/person, it’s only a matter of time before the scope of permissible behavior is severely restricted.

I was mildly surprised to see this from Gillespie since the magazine he edits devotes a great deal of space to the wonkish arguments he here eschews.

I’ll paraphrase Gillespie to make the same point on free trade:

The larger point from this ongoing debate has to be that once you get into a collective cost-benefit analysis of free trade, the fight is essentially over. That’s because those analyses are embedded in a collectivist model which proceeds from the assumption that collective welfare needs to be maximized. Once the issue is being decided on something other than the right of a business owner or an individual to do what they want with their own property/person, it’s only a matter of time before the scope of permissible behavior is severely restricted.

The problem with Balko’s approach is that by arguing for free trade on the grounds he has chosen he implicitly affirms the validity of the collectivist claim against private property.

Via Venlet.

“My life thus far has surpassed splendidly the ambitions of boyhood and youth. In the first decade of our dwindling century, during trips with my family to Western Europe, I imagined, in bedtime reveries, what it would be like to become an exile who longed for a remote, sad, and (right epithet coming) unquenchable Russia, under the eucalipti of exotic resorts. Lenin and his police nicely arranged the realization of that fantasy.”

- Vladimir Nabokov

Roderick Long has a terrific article on Strike the Root about some of the libertarian inklings of Greek philosopher Xenophon. As a fan of classical Greek civilization, I love to read little snippets like this:

There were two boys, a big boy and a little boy, and the big boy�s coat was small and the small boy�s coat was huge. So the big boy stripped the little boy and gave him his own small coat, while he put on the big one himself. Now in giving judgment I decided that it was better for both parties that each should have the coat that fitted him best. But I never got any further in my sentence, because the master thrashed me here, and said that the verdict would have been excellent if I had been appointed to say what fitted and what did not, but I had been called in to decide to whom the coat belonged, and the point to consider was, who had a right to it… - Xenophon, The Education of Cyrus

Terrific, something else to put on the pile of books I’ll never get a chance to read.

Barbra Streisand wants anybody but Bush, so she’s given a grand each to Dean, Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, Sharpton, Graham, and Clark.

Well maybe not just anybody.

Could this look any worse for Dennis Kucinich and Carol Moseley Braun? Not even Babs took them seriously!

I found Fundrace via Catallarchy. SuperBabs image found at The Camel Toe Report.