If you live in New Hampshire don’t voice your support for the bill to decriminalize marijana, especially to a representative who votes in the legislature.

Toby Iselin emailed his representative, Delmar Burridge, knowing full well that they disagreed on the issue. What Toby didn’t expect was a veiled threat that the police would be keeping an eye on him from then on.
The end of the response email from Burridge reads:

I am copying two members of the Keene Police Department in case you want to change your ways and act legal and save your friends.

You are very passionate in your beliefs and would make a great snitch. It is thrilling to dime on your so called friends.

This is kind of pathetic from someone who holds an elected office.

[via Hit & Run]

Blogged with Flock

I voted for myself to be a Congressman. I don’t really like voting because it’s a complete sham and participating in the process gives it a false legitimacy, but I thought I’d have some fun with it.

Mike Honda of the Democratic Party is the current Representative in my district and there is very little reason to ever vote for an incumbent.  He’s out.

I don’t know this other guy, Raymond L. Chukwu, the Republican Party’s pick for the seat, but I’m absolutely against one party controlling all the branches of government. If government is divided between parties there might be at least some gridlock on the highway to dismantle our liberty. Better luck next time Chukwu.

Vote Thomas A. Keswick for California’s 15th District!

technorati tags:voting, election2006, write-in

Blogged with Flock

My friend Jacob wrote such a great post about a congressional candidate running in the Houston area, that I felt like I needed to link to it.
Why would I care about a congressional race in Houston? Well, first of all it is interesting because it is a race for the district of Tom DeLay, the indicted former House Majority Leader who dropped out. The second reason is that a Libertarian candidate, Bob Smither, has a shot at winning the traditionally Republican seat because there is no Republican candidate on the ballot.

Take a look at Jacob’s post for details. I’m with him in that it’d be great to give Ron Paul some company.

technorati tags:libertarian, congress, elections, houseofrepresentatives, LP, Republican

Blogged with Flock

I’d never written to my elected representatives until the other day. I was pissed.

Dear [Congressman Honda, Senator Boxer, Senator Feinstein]:

I understand that the terror plot that was foiled caused great fear in many people, but having the TSA react with extremely burdensome regulations after the fact will not likely halt further attacks. The security measures currently in place obviously worked in this instance. Why, then, cause undue havoc in the private lives and schedules of millions of Americans?

My parents and elderly grandparents are going to my uncle’s wedding next weekend in Denver. They are only going for a few days. They were not planning on checking any bags so they could get through the airport rapidly because my grandma has a hard time walking or standing for great lengths of time. They will be forced to check bags and waste time in the airport because THEY CAN’T CARRY LIPSTICK ON THE PLANE.

[Mr. Congressman, Senator Boxer, Senator Feinstein], I know you get special privileges because you are in the government, but you really must make an effort to understand what a hassle this causes in ordinary Americans’ lives when it doesn’t do anything to make us safer.

By allowing the TSA to disrupt our way of life, you are helping the terrorists win.

Sincerely,

Tommy Keswick

technorati tags:tsa, feinstein, boxer

Blogged with Flock

I haven’t paid much attention at all to the San Jose mayor’s race. I’ve seen blurbs in the paper and a few ads in the mail. I was thinking the other day, though, at least three of the candidates are current city council members. There is at least one other guy running, a developer, I believe. My first impulse is to support the developer. I think I figured out why.

When a person has a private occupation, even one that some may not particularly like, we know where that person stands. We know the history, and we know what we should be skeptical of in that person. It would be much more apparent, and egregious even, were a business person to be elected mayor and then award known friends and contacts of that person with beneficial contracts, favorable regulations, or what have you.

On the other hand, when a candidate is already a politician, his or her full time job is already a spinner, a deceiver, and a back-room dealer. It is much more difficult for the public to see what this person is doing when already his or her time is constantly spent making false promises and covering up blunders.

By default, I pretty much distrust anyone who aspires to be a politician, so I cannot see the sense in repeatedly electing those same people.

I read an interesting piece today by Gene Callahan at my favorite anti-state site. He makes an analogy between men who beat their wives and people who support the state. Since the state is simply an intstrument of force against individuals, he argues, those who support it, even in the most minimal way, would be the same as a man who says it is acceptable to beat his wife, if only rarely. Therefore, minarchists, who only support the state’s effort to protect life and property, are only one step away from totalitarians.

Anarchists reject the notion that it is permissible to employ violence against someone who has not themselves committed an act of aggression, no matter how much one wants to get that innocent person to cooperate in forwarding one’s desired ends, and no matter how important one believes that end to be. Minarchists, to the contrary, defend their right to initiate aggression in any circumstance where they see the use of coercion as being really, really useful.

I wish more people would understand anarchism like he does.

Technorati Tags: anarchism, minarchism

I’m reading the book What Good Are the Arts? by John Carey and a certain passage spawned an interesting train of thought the other day. In the chapter called “Can art be a religion?” Carey writes many detailed pages about one of the most famous art worshippers of the 20th century: Adolf Hitler. The passage that got me thinking was this:

He developed a close relationship with Winifred Wagner and her children, and his annual pilgrimage to the Bayreuth Festival was one of the great festivals of Nazi culture, for which the town was swathed in swastikas.

The phrase “swathed in swastikas” was what my mind wrapped around. I could only imagine the town of Washington, D.C. and how much it is adorned in American flags. In this country, and most likely the rest of the world, people have come to be repulsed by the image of a swastika. In Germany it was merely a symbol of national pride much the same as the way flag stickers appear everywhere on bumpers and windows in this country.

I’m not exactly saying that the United States is like the Nazi regime, but it leads to an interesting comparison. I’m not a fan of any form of nationalism because it is basically blind support with no critical thinking involved. Following blindly leads people to accept almost anything in the name of national pride.

On a related note, Justin posts about how often Hitler is invoked by officials in the U.S. Government.

I try to avert my eyes from the contents of the magazine racks at supermarket checkout stands because I inevitably learn something about the relationship status of a celebrity that I don’t even want to know. Although, the other day a Newsweek cover caught my eye because it asked a question that surprised me: “How much Power should they have?” I am so cynical lately about politics and the media that to see a major publication actually questioning the government gave me pause.

I finally got around to reading the article today and it’s fairly well done. To me it kind of tiptoes around the issues. They are trying to be “fair” I suppose. The authors did draw a connection that I think is important for Americans to understand. Presidents are power hungry. They will always run roughshod over the rights they are charged to protect.

Though the choice is rarely stated—or perhaps even conscious—a president will almost always choose to violate individual rights over the risk of losing a war. When the French threatened American sovereignty on the high seas in 1798, John Adams supported the Alien and Sedition Acts, blatantly punishing free speech as traitorous. When the Civil War broke out in 1861, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus (the rule giving citizens a right to take their grievances to court). During World War I, Woodrow Wilson allowed officials to prosecute anyone for criticizing the government. During World War II, Franklin Roosevelt allowed FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to promiscuously wiretap, and ordered Japanese-Americans placed in internment camps. As the Vietnam War dragged on and domestic dissent arose, Richard Nixon—citing his Demo-cratic predecessors FDR and Lyndon Johnson—authorized bugging and wiretapping against domestic “subversives.” None of these steps, it should be pointed out, made the nation appreciably safer. (emphasis mine)

One would think that presidents would understand this. They can not be complete idiots and they have scores of advisors and lawyers surrounding them. I think they just don’t care. But what can I do?