The Militant Libertarian

I'm pissed off and I'm a libertarian. What else you wanna know?

Saturday, March 06, 2004

When They Took It Away...

When they took the 4th Amendment away
I was quiet because I didn't deal in drugs...

When they took the 6th Amendment away
I was quiet because I had never been arrested...

When they took the 2nd Amendment away
I was quiet because I didn't own a gun...

Now they have taken the 1st Amendment away
and all I can do is be quiet...

Got comments? Email me, dammit!

Faking It: A Brief Textbook Of American Democracy

[Aaron's Note: while some of this I don't really agree with (like the overuse of the word "democracy"), it's good commentary.]
Written: Monday, January 19, 2004
by Fred Reed

While the United States is freer and more democratic than many countries, it is not, I think, either as free or as democratic as we are expected to believe, and becomes rapidly less so. Indeed we seem to be specialists in maintaining the appearance without having the substance. Regarding the techniques of which, a few thoughts:

(1) Free speech does not exist in America. We all know what we can't say and about whom we can't say it.

(2) A democracy run by two barely distinguishable parties is not in fact a democracy.

A parliamentary democracy allows expression of a range of points of view: A ecological candidate may be elected, along with a communist, a racial-separatist, and a libertarian. These will make sure their ideas are at least heard. By contrast, the two-party system prevents expression of any ideas the two parties agree to suppress. How much open discussion do you hear during presidential elections of, for example, race, immigration, abortion, gun control, and the continuing abolition of Christianity? These are the issues most important to most people, yet are quashed.

The elections do however allow do allow the public a sense of participation while having the political importance of the Superbowl.

(3) Large jurisdictions discourage autonomy. If, say, educational policy were set in small jurisdictions, such as towns or counties, you could buttonhole the mayor and have a reasonable prospect of influencing your children's schools. If policy is set at the level of the state, then to change it you have to quit your job, marshal a vast campaign costing
a fortune, and organize committees in dozens of towns. It isn't practical. In America, local jurisdictions set taxes on real estate and determine parking policy. Everything of importance is decided remotely.

(4) Huge unresponsive bureaucracies somewhere else serve as political flywheels, insulating elected officials from the whims of the populace. Try calling the Department of Education from Wyoming. Its employees are anonymous, salaried, unaccountable, can't be fired, and don't care about you. Many more of them than you might believe are affirmative-action hires and probably can't spell Wyoming. You cannot influence them in the slightest. Yet they influence you.

(5) For our increasingly centralized and arbitrary government, the elimination of potentially competitive centers of power has been, and is, crucial. This is one reason for the aforementioned defanging of the churches: The faithful recognize a power above that of the state, which they might choose to obey instead of Washington. The Catholic Church in particular, with its inherent organization, was once powerful. It has been brought to heel.

Similarly the elimination of states' rights, now practically complete, put paid to another potential source of opposition. Industry, in the days of J. P. Morgan politically potent, has been tamed by regulation and federal contracts. The military in the United States has never been politically active. The government becomes the only game available.

(6) Paradoxically, increasing the power of groups who cannot threaten the government strengthens the government: They serve as counterbalances to those who might challenge the central authority. For example, the white and male-dominated culture of the United States, while not embodied in an identifiable organization, for some time remained strong. The encouragement of dissension by empowerment of blacks, feminists, and homosexuals, and the importing of inassimilable minorities, weakens what was once the cultural mainstream.

(7) The apparent government isn't the real government. The real power in America resides in what George Will once called the "permanent political class," of which the formal government is a subset. It consists of the professoriate, journalists, politicians, revolving appointees, high-level bureaucrats and so on who slosh in and out of formal power. Most are unelected, believe the same things, and share a lack of respect for views other than their own.

It is they, to continue the example of education, who write the textbooks your children use, determine how history will be rewritten, and set academic standards-all without the least regard for you. You can do nothing about it.

(8) The US government consists of five branches which are, in rough order of importance, the Supreme Court, the media, the presidency, the bureaucracy, and Congress.

The function of the Supreme Court, which is both unanswerable and unaccountable, is to impose things that the congress fears to touch. That is, it establishes programs desired by the ruling political class which could not possibly be democratically enacted. While formally a judicial organ, the Court is in reality our Ministry of Culture and Morals. It determines policy regarding racial integration, abortion, pornography, immigration, the practice of religion, which groups receive special privilege, and what forms of speech shall be punished.

(9) The media have two governmental purposes. The first is to prevent discussion and, to the extent possible, knowledge of taboo subjects. The second is to inculcate by endless indirection the values and beliefs of the permanent political class. Thus for example racial atrocities committed by whites against blacks are widely reported, while those committed by blacks against whites are concealed. Most people know this at least dimly. Few know the degree of management of information.

(10) Control of television conveys control of the society. It is magic. This is such a truism that we do not always see how true it is. The box is ubiquitous and inescapable. It babbles at us in bars and restaurants, in living rooms and on long flights. It is the national babysitter. For hours a day most Americans watch it.

Perhaps the key to cultural control is that people can't not watch a screen. It is probably true that stupid people would not watch intelligent television, but it is certainly true that intelligent people will watch stupid television. Any television, it seems, is preferable to no television. As people read less, the lobotomy box acquires semi-exclusive rights to their minds.

Television doesn't tell people what to do. It shows them. People can resist admonition. But if they see something happening over and over, month after month, if they see the same values approvingly portrayed, they will adopt both behavior and values. It takes years, but it works. To be sure it works, we put our children in front of the screen from infancy.

(11) Finally, people do not want freedom. They want comfort, two hundred channels on the cable, sex, drugs, rock-and-roll, an easy job and an SUV. No country with really elaborate home-theater has ever risen in revolt. An awful lot of people secretly like being told what to do. We would probably be happier with a king.

(C) Fred Reed 2003

Got comments? Email me, dammit!

Friday, March 05, 2004

Just Gettin' By

While making dinner this afternoon, my wife and I (yep, sorry ladies, this one's taken) were talking about her work. Her boss trades her around jobs because she does a very good job. The others at her work don't. So my wife gets rotated around to basically bring things up to par.

We talked about this and it got me to thinking. In all my career of working for other people, I found myself in similar situations. I'd do a good job, work hard, etc., etc., while others around me would do just enough to not get fired or yelled at. Consequently, I'd get unhappy with the job and pissed off and eventually quit, get fired, get "laid off," or otherwise be removed from employment. Meanwhile, in a lot of those jobs, those people I was working with are still there...five, ten years later.


We supposedly live under a capitalist form of government with a free economy. In this system, those who work hard and are innovative will get ahead and make money: they get hired to the best jobs, get raises, bonuses, etc., etc.

But that's not how it is.

Instead of that, they get laid off, fired, or quit their jobs and go from one to another; working just long enough somewhere to get fed up and go somewhere else.

Meanwhile, those who choose to do just the minimum to get by do just that...they get by. They have little or no incentive to do any extra since all it will mean is instability and unhappiness.

Obviously, if you agree with all this, then you agree that we DO NOT live in a capitalistic system or a free market. Something has changed that.

In socialist countries, people tend to do just enough to get by as they have no incentive to do any more. Their extra work rewards no one.

So it is here... Why is that?

You draw the conclusions. I've figured it out for myself, I'm sure you can too...

Got comments? Email me, dammit!

What ever happened to the 56 men who signed?

What ever happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence?
by Gary Hildreth

Have you ever wondered what happened to the fifty-six men who signed the Declaration of Independence? This is the price they paid:

Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons in the revolutionary army, another had two sons captured. Nine of the fifty-six fought and died from wounds or hardships resulting from the Revolutionary War.

These men signed, and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor!

What kind of men were they? Twenty five were lawyers or jurists. Eleven were merchants. Nine were farmers or large plantation owners. One was a teacher, one a musician, one a printer. Two were manufacturers, one was a minister.
These were men of means and education, yet they signed the Declaration of Independence, knowing full well that the penalty could be death if they were captured.

Almost one third were under forty years old, eighteen were in their thirties, and three were in their twenties. Only seven were over sixty. The youngest, Edward Rutledge of South Carolina, was twenty-six and a half, and the oldest, Benjamin Franklin was seventy. Three of the signers lived to be over ninety. Charles Carroll died at the age of ninety-five. Ten died in their eighties.

The first signer to die was John Morton of Pennsylvania. At first his sympathies were with the British, but he changed his mind and voted for independence. By doing so, his friends, relatives, and neighbors turned against him. The ostracis hastened his death, and he lived only eight months after the signing. His last words were, "tell them that they will live to
see the hour when they shall acknowledge it to have been the most glorious service that I ever rendered to my country."

Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags.

Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.

The signers were religious men, all being Protestant except Charles Carroll, who was a Roman Catholic. Over half expressed their religious faith as being Episcopalian. Others were Congregational, Presbyterian, Quaker, and Baptist.

Vandals or soldiers or both, looted the properties of Ellery, Clymer, Hall, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.

Perhaps one of the most inspiring examples of "undaunted resolution" was at the Battle of Yorktown. Thomas Nelson, Jr. was returning from Philadelphia to become Governor of Virginia and joined General Washington just outside of Yorktown. He then noted that British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters, but that the patriot's were directing their artillery fire all over the town except for the vicinity of his own beautiful home. Nelson asked why they were not firing in that direction, and the soldiers replied, "Out of respect to you, Sir." Nelson quietly urged General Washington to open fire, and stepping forward to the nearest cannon, aimed at his own house and fired. The other guns joined in, and the Nelson home was destroyed. Nelson died bankrupt, at age 51.

Caesar Rodney was another signer who paid with his life. He was suffering from facial cancer, but left his sickbed at midnight and rode all night by horseback through a severe storm and arrived just in time to cast the deciding vote for his delegation in favor of independence. His doctor told him the only treatment that could help him was in Europe. He refused
to go at this time of his country's crisis and it cost him his life.

Francis Lewis's Long Island home was looted and gutted, his home and properties destroyed. His wife was thrown into a damp dark prison cell for two months without a bed. Health ruined, Mrs. Lewis soon died from the effects of the confinement. The Lewis's son would later die in British captivity, also.

"Honest John" Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she lay dying, when British and Hessian troops invaded New Jersey just months after he signed the Declaration. Their thirteen children fled for their lives. His fields and his grist mill were laid to waste. All winter, and for more than a year, Hart lived in forests and caves, finally returning home to find his
wife dead, his children vanished and his farm destroyed. Rebuilding proved too be too great a task. A few weeks later, by the spring of 1779, John Hart was dead from exhaustion and a broken heart.

Norris and Livingston suffered similar fates.

Richard Stockton, a New Jersey State Supreme Court Justice, had rushed back to his estate near Princeton after signing the Declaration of Independence to find that his wife and children were living like refugees with friends. They had been betrayed by a Tory sympathizer who also revealed Stockton's own whereabouts. British troops pulled him from his bed one night, beat him and threw him in jail where he almost starved to death. When he was finally released, he went home to find his estate had been looted, his possessions burned, and his horses stolen. Judge Stockton had been so badly
treated in prison that his health was ruined and he died before the war's end, a broken man. His surviving family had to live the remainder of their lives off charity.

William Ellery of Rhode Island, who marveled that he had seen only "undaunted resolution" in the faces of his co-signers, also had his home burned.

Only days after Lewis Morris of New York signed the Declaration, British troops ravaged his 2,000-acre estate, butchered his cattle and drove his family off the land. Three of Morris' sons fought the British.

When the British seized the New York houses of the wealthy Philip Livingston, he sold off everything else, and gave the money to the Revolution. He died in 1778.

Arthur Middleton, Edward Rutledge and Thomas Heyward Jr. went home to South Carolina to fight. In the British invasion of the South, Heyward was wounded and all three were captured. As he rotted on a prison ship in St. Augustine, Heyward's plantation was raided, buildings burned, and his wife, who witnessed it all, died. Other Southern signers suffered the same general fate.

Among the first to sign had been John Hancock, who wrote in big, bold script so George III "could read my name without spectacles and could now double his reward for 500 pounds for my head." If the cause of the revolution commands it, roared Hancock, "Burn Boston and make John Hancock a beggar!" In the face of the advancing British Army, the Continental Congress fled from Philadelphia to Baltimore on December 12, 1776. It was an especially anxious time for John Hancock, the President, as his wife had just given birth to a baby girl. Due to the complications stemming from the
trip to Baltimore, the child lived only a few months.

Here were men who believed in a cause far beyond themselves. Such were the stories and sacrifices of the American Revolution. These were not wild eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were soft-spoken men of means and education.
They had security, but they valued liberty more. Standing tall, straight, and unwavering, they pledged: "For the support of this declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of the divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

They gave you and me a free and independent America. The history books never told you a lot of what happened in the revolutionary war. We didn't just fight the British. We were British subjects at that time and we fought our own government! Perhaps you can now see why our Founding Fathers had a hatred for standing armies, and allowed through the second amendment for everyone to be armed.

So, I ask you reader, What makes YOUR HOMES, YOUR LIVES, YOUR WIVES, YOUR CHILDREN better? When will YOU be willing to sacrifice all for the future of your children?

Got comments? Email me, dammit!

Thursday, March 04, 2004

Fistfull of Steel (aka "Why Aaron Doesn't Have a Radio Show")

Fistfull of Steel
Rage Against the Machine - Rage Against the Machine

Check it...
Something about silence makes me sick
'Cause silence can be violence
Sorta like a slit wrist

If the vibe was suicide
Then you would push da button
But if ya bowin' down
Then let me do the cuttin'

Some speak the sounds
But speak in silent voices
Like radio is silent
Though it fills the air with noises
Its transmissions bring submission
As ya mold to the unreal
And mad boy grips the microphone
Wit' a fistful of steel
Yeah...and mad mad boy grips the microphone
Wit' a fistful of steel

Wit' a fistful of steel
('Cause I know the power of the question)
Wit' a fistful of steel
Wit' a fistful of steel
(And I won't stop 'cause I know the power of the question)

It's time to flow like the fluid in ya veins
If ya will it, I will spill it
And ya out just as quick as ya came
Not a silent one
But a defiant one
Never a normal one
'Cause I'm the bastard son
With the visions of the move
Vocals not to soothe
But to ignite and put in flight
My sense of militance
Groovin', playin' this game called survival
The status, the elite, the enemy, the rival
The silent sheep slippin', riffin', trippin'
Give ya a glimpse of the reality I'm grippin'
Steppin' into the jam and I'm slammin' like Shaquille
Mad boy grips the microphone
Wit' a fistful of steel
Yeah...and mad boy grips the microphone
Wit' a fistful of steel

Wit' a fistful of steel
('Cause I know the power of the question)
Wit' a fistful of steel
Wit' a fistful of steel
(And I won't stop 'cause I know the power of the question)

Ahh shit

And I won't stop 'cause I know the power of the question

And if the vibe was suicide
Then you would push da button
But if ya bowin' down
Then let me do the cuttin`

Come on!

A .44 full of bullets
Face full of pale
Eyes full of empty
A stare full of nails
The roulette ball rolls alone on the wheel
A mind full of fire
And a fistful of steel

And if the vibe was suicide
Then you would push da button
But if ya bowin' down
Then let me do the cuttin'

Yeah! Wit' a fistful of steel!
Come on!
Wit' a fistful of steel!

©1992 by Rage Against the Machine - lyrics from the album jacket.

Get this album now!

Got comments? Email me, dammit!

Not So Funny Funnies...

Got comments? Email me, dammit!

You Started It

Here's a good one, sent to me by my friend Michael (aka "Ashcroft Loves Our Spooks"). :)

A guy walks into the welfare office, marches straight up to the counter and says, "I'm sick and tired of drawing welfare and I'd rather be working for a living."

The man behind the welfare desk says, "Well, your timing is excellent. We've got a job opening and you have first take on it - a very wealthy old man wants a chauffeur and bodyguard for his gorgeous nymphomaniac daughter. You'll have to drive her around in his Mercedes, and he'll supply all of your clothes. Because of the long hours, meals will be provided, at only the best restaurants, of course. You'll also be expected to escort her on her regular holiday trips to Europe. The starting salary is $200,000 a year. Are you available?"

The guy says "You're bull shitting me."

The welfare clerk says, "Yeah, well, you started it."

Got comments? Email me, dammit!

Wednesday, March 03, 2004

ABC News Perspective: Assault Weapons

ABC News Perspective: Assault Weapons
by Hugh Downs

Years ago, presidential candidate John F. Kennedy distinguished himself from his opponent Richard M. Nixon by saying that he, Kennedy, knew who he was and that Nixon did not know who he was.

Knowing who you are suggests maturity and a sense of self hood. Nations, just like individuals, also have identities and nationals can understand who they are, too. Members of any civilization can realize their uniqueness.

Sometimes some Americans seem to have difficulty understanding who they are. The United States is unique and we shouldn't feel guilty or envious because we aren't like other nations.

One issue that seems to magnify our lack of self confidence in who we are is the gun debate. Some Americans think we should be like the Japanese when it comes to guns. Other think we should behave like the British, or the Swiss, or maybe some other foreign nationals.

The recent vote to repeal the so-called assault weapons ban seemed to kick up the dust once again in the gun debate. Patrick Kennedy, a Democrat from Rhode Island, equated weapons with satanic forces. "Play with the devil, die with the devil," Kennedy said. Jim Chapman, another Democrat from Texas, said banning certain rifles was like outlawing Rolls Royce's because of drunk drivers and the damage they do. But the two sides couldn't be more opposed.

Before we plunge into the question of what a so-called assault weapon is, let's back up a few million years and consider their evolution. Our most ancient hominid ancestors learned to throw stones to kill game. Later when they learned how to throw spears, Anthropologists and paleontologists theorized that the act of throwing was a tremendously stressful thing. Combining binocular vision and distance estimation with delicate hand-eye coordination had never been attempted before in nature. Humans pioneered the technique.

And one of the consequences of mastering this technique was a more robust nervous system; a nervous system that may be responsible for opening the door to humanity's unique intellectual activity.

Spears turned into bows and arrows. And arrows turned to crossbow bolts, and then to firearms. The development of field artillery created a demand for sophisticated mathematics and mathematicians solved problems of ballistic velocities and trajectories.

The manufacture of firearms gave birth to precision engineering, concepts of mass production, and breakthrough insights in metallurgy.

As a result of the intellectual achievements, master gunsmiths in New England and elsewhere created an economic powerhouse. Guns and intellectual progress seemed to have been intertwined. Rocket science is a direct outgrowth of humankind's fascination with ballistics.

Perhaps the most stunning of all these fruits is the development of the computer. The purpose of the world's first computer, Eniac, was to calculate artillery and missile trajectories. In other words, humanity's most astonishing intellectual artifact, the computer, is an offspring of our love affair with guns.

Well, that's a truth about guns. Guns exercised our unique intellectual ability. They stimulated many scientific disciplines. They created wealth. And the have defeated enemies from Adolph Hitler to Sadam Hussein.

Some people may not like the idea, but a large measure of our success as a species is due to our passion for firearms. This is an uncomfortable truth, because guns serve a dark side of humanity also. War is our dark side. War destroys life and property. And everyone, even brave warriors, justifiably fear it. Weaponry provided food for our tables and served us
well in certain crises.

But as instruments of war they play a cacophonous distasteful tune. Nobody likes it. People who claim they like war, I believe, are lying to themselves and to the world.

But guns do not make war. Guns can hold neither grudges nor hate. Guns are merely instruments. A machine gun can no more launch an attack without a machine gunner than an oboe is to play Mozart without a musician. Instruments are extensions of people. Firearms are merely extensions of people.

Firearms, in whatever numbers or whatever configurations, are not the problem. The problem would seem to have its roots in national attitude we have toward correcting things. Where did we develop the idea that personal grievances or social wrongs can be redressed by shooting the bad guy?

For example, we do not have the greatest number of handguns per capita. We just have (the) greatest number of deaths from these weapons. Israel and Switzerland are both ahead of us in number of handguns per capita. But they don't have very much of this kind of crime. Almost every home in these countries has at least one sidearm, given a person on completion of compulsory military service. They have the guns, but they just don't seem inclined to shoot each other.

The assault rifle debate takes our attention away from the underlying problem: how to effect a change in our national attitude toward settling differences by violence. This is what we should be focused on. But we seem to (be) fixated on a buzzword like "assault."

Hunters, professional armors, and firearm historians say the term is imprecise. Some claim there is no such thing. One common term, known as an assault rifle, refers to a long arm or carbine capable of automatic fire with ordinary military ammunition or big-game ammunition.

Fully automatic weapons, true machine guns, have been banned since the 1930s and that ban remains in effect. So the "assault weapon" ban cannot refer to machine guns, although many people, I think, mistakenly think so. All the banned weapons are semi-automatic.

Legislators who initiated the ban claim that semi- automatic weapons have no sporting use. But semi- automatic rifles have long history in hunting and other sports. The famous BAR, or Browning Automatic Rifle, is a semi-automatic hunting rifle; so is the Remington Model 7400. Semi-automatic shotguns have been on the market for many years.

The banned rifles differ from non-banned ones only in small decorative details: decorations like a folding stock, a bayonet mount, or a flash suppresser. Otherwise, the banned "assault weapons" are ordinary rifles. They are not automatic military weapons.

But the Republicans are now embarrassed by a perceived necessity of lifting the ban on so-called assault weapons. And they've elected to do so as quickly and quietly as can be done to get it behind them so it's not an issue later on when the elections looms. Many of them feel it will not get past both houses of Congress anyway and they can then say to the NRA, "We did our best."

Unlike Britons, Americans are citizens and not subjects. And there's a very great difference between the two. Americans do not worship their government as god, which is a thousand-year-old tradition in Japan. Nor, like the Japanese, do we believe that government is infallible, as if government authority were an extension of family authority.

Americans are not Canadians either. We are unlike both the strict Quebecoise and the English-speaking subjects of the British monarch. Americans are different and require different rules and laws.

Maybe when we Americans learn to responsibly manage our guns, and our drugs, and our automobiles, or any other of the dangerous things in life, maybe then we will know who we are.

For Perspective, this is Hugh Downs, ABC News. Perspective is an ABC News Weekly radio news magazine on KOA Radio each Sunday. Hugh Downs provides an essay each week.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!

When the People Were the Police

By Larry Pratt, February 26, 2004

There was a time when the word "police" was not usually used as a noun. It was a verb that described what the people did to keep order in society. Today the people only police a campground, or some similar action.

The history of the changing meaning of police is a history of the transformation of America from a society of limited government serving the people to our present plight where the people serve the government.

Borrowing on the idea of the kinsman redeemer in the Bible, America - even for decades beyond the War for Independence - relied on private prosecutors. Victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury that would
investigate the matter and issue an indictment if it concluded that a crime should be charged.

Then the victim, or his representative (generally an attorney, but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men.

These are some of the findings from the research done by Roger Roots and published in the Seton Hall Constitutional Law Journal in an article entitled "Are Cops Constitutional?"

The term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. The idea was that criminal acts were not against the state but against the victim. Since people did not belong to the state and were masters of government, crimes could not be committed against the state. (One notable exception to this would be the crime of treason.) A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was rarely seen even after the beginning of the Republic.

Under such a system of criminal justice, who would be the victim to accuse another of owning or carrying a gun? Such a concept of crime also makes it harder to abridge the rights to free speech, press, religion and assembly as well as the right to keep and bear arms. The recent assault on the First Amendment perpetrated by the federal government - enactment of the Campaign Finance Law to protect incumbents from groups informing voters of Congressional voting records - would be nearly inconceivable in a system where crimes are limited to actual harm done to or threatened against

With such a view of justice, how would we have a War against Crime? The government would not be in a position, nor have the personnel, to prosecute such a war. No prosecutor, no police, and no consequent arrogance of power such as we see today.

Roots found that private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Grand jurors often acted as the detectives of the period. In the early 1700's, grand jurors were sometimes called upon to make arrests in cases where suspects were armed and in large numbers. When a sheriff was unable to execute a warrant, he could call upon a posse of citizens to assist him.

"Formal criminal justice institutions dealt only with the most severe crimes. Misdemeanor offenses had to be dealt with by the private citizen on the private citizen's own terms. In other words, before the advent of professional policing, fewer crimes - and only the most serious crimes - were brought to the attention of the courts," Roots found.

Does that mean that much crime went not only unreported but also unpunished? On the contrary, visitors to the US such as Alexis de Toqueville found that there was little crime in the US and that criminals, while having little fear of a nearly non-existent government presence, had much to fear of the entire people. He marveled at how well such an undirected and non-professionalized system could work so well.

And the reason we changed was?

[Roger Roots was interviewed on Live Fire; the interview is archived on the web at]

Got comments? Email me, dammit!

Tuesday, March 02, 2004

K-Talk (KTKK-AM 630) Radio

Well, I read my friend Fran's opinion on K-Talk Radio's change in lineup. You can find that on his blog here: It inspired me to write something myself about the issue.

For those of you who don't know, K-Talk is a local Utah radio station that broadcasts on the AM dial (AM 630). They are a talk radio station and, up until recently, were probably the last of the truly free speech stations on the air. There was nothing else like it! The hosts were, for the most part, unpaid amateurs, the station was funded entirely by commercials (no government money), and the shows ranged all over the political spectrum. Well, the station as we knew it is now dead.


Well, there are plenty of theories. There are those who believe that one of the new hosts moved in and began "taking over" the place by insinuating himself into everything and eventually ruinning the joint. While there is cirumstantial evidence for this, I doubt it's the truth.

There are those who believe that the management plans to sell the place, so they're "shaking it up" and hoping to "improve ratings" so it will be worth more. This doesn't hold much water considering the station's past and the fact that the new "shakeup" is going to do everything BUT improve ratings.

So what's the reasoning? Well, to be honest, I believe it's purely politics. Literally. The ownership of the station is Republican and has probably been getting flak for some time over their "cookey little station." Many of the things said on various shows on the station have definitely been pretty controversial (to say the least) and, internally, the station has always had an active and belligerant back-stabbing political atmosphere.

Before we really get into this, let's review the players in this little drama. These are, of course, my own opinions of these people. You can hate me if you want. I won't mind. When reading the following, imagine photos appearing of the persons mentioned with various expressions on their faces (happy, snide, innocent, evil, etc.). It's fun!

The Station: K-Talk is on the AM dial, as mentioned, and broadcasts at a whopping 1,000 watts (500 after dark). It is located in Sandy, Utah, and has been a stalwart of controversial, libertarian, and conservative politics for a very long time here in the Salt Lake Valley.

Dick Perry: the largest-share owner of the station, what he says basically goes. He's not around much and generally hands most of the management over to Tom (below). He's likeable enough, I guess, but has a kind of "backstabber" look in his eye. Maybe it's just 'cause he's shorter than me.

Tom Draschil: station manager and generally a very likeable type. In fact, even though we argue politically, I always thought Tom was a pretty good guy. He's a good management type, though I don't think he's extremely knowledgeable about how a radio station operates financially.

Kristen (?): production manager at the station. She's...well, awesome. The place would fall apart (once the duct tape finally gave) if she weren't around. She's a real and totally unappreciated asset there. Plus she has the cutest baby on the planet (not mine!). She's not really a player at the station, but I felt she deserved some recognition somewhere, so I put it here. :)

Kitty Burton: a mainstay at the station who will still hang around after the building collapses and everyone goes home. I'm not sure what she gets out of being there, except maybe her psycotic ego needs something. All I know is that no politics take place inside the station without her getting her hands in it somewhere.

Jack Stockwell: 7am-9am host known as "Dr. Jack." He's a chiropractor, but mainly talks about politics and such. He's a follower of the Lindon LaRouche movement, so probably has a screw or two loose somewhere, but has one of the better shows on the station regardless.

Jim Kirkwood: used to be in the 9am-11am slot. He's Jewish, vegetarian, and takes karate. How you practice karate with Coke-bottle glasses on is something I'd like to see, but regardless, he enjoys calling himself a libertarian politically. I say "enjoys calling himself" because he's not. He's a neo-conservative all the way. The government can do no wrong by this guy. Most would at least consider him "statist."

Jim Dexter: used to be in the 11am-1pm slot Mondays and Tuesdays. I worked with Jim for a long time and have known him for a while off-air as well. He's a devout libertarian, though I argue with him over some viewpoints we don't share. I believe that out of all the hosts on the station, Jim was the best interviewer on the air. He had some great guests on his show and has a way about him that makes for a great interview.

Barbara Jean: used to be in the 11am-1pm slot Wednesdays and Thursdays. To be honest, BJ has the worst radio presence and worst technical skills of all the hosts on K-talk...even the brand new ones. However, she also has the ability to converse on just about any controversial subject AND has had some of the greatest controversial and downright conspiranoid guests, bar none. For such a little lady, she has balls and will go anywhere to talk about any damn thing. Because of this, she probably has the biggest and most vocal fan following at K-Talk.

Gayle Ruzika(sp?): used to be on from 11am-1pm Fridays. Gayle is the head (or at least the figurehead) of the Eagle Forum, Utah's most conservative political action group. I rarely agreed with anything she said, but she had a good show. Especially the noon to 1 "Constitution hour." Always good stuff there.

Mark Marine (and company): used to be in the 1pm-3pm slot. The "credit show" is paid for by Mark Marine, who sells advertising and peddles his own car dealership during his time slot. Other than his financial contribution to the station, he didn't have much pull. His show is sometimes interesting and informative, but many times just boring. I have personal problems with him as well, due to my own experience as his car dealership, but that's a separate issue.

Shari Holweg: used to be in the 3pm-4pm slot. She's a self-professed "Utah Democrat" and a fiery commentator to be sure. She's a great lady and had an awesome show. Too bad it was only an hour.

Merril Cook: used to be in the 5pm-7pm "drive time" slot. To put it bluntly, Merrill is addicted to politics and the idea of himself being in public office. He's the only man I know who's spent 8 million dollars to get elected and sent to Washington, D.C. and then came home penniless. As Dexter put it once, Cook is so wishy-washy he can change opinions mid-syllable. I don't like Cook and it's for sure he doesn't like me either. On the radio, he has the worst personality and the most drunken-sounding, non-enunciating voice possible.

Jim Sumpter: used to be the 7pm-9pm host. Relatively new to K-Talk, he did bring in a lot of technical updates to the station. However, as a radio host, he has all the voice and technical expertise of a pro, but the personality of a jackass after a full bucket of oats. I don't really hate him, though, since I don't really care about him personally. I do, however, now that he has had one of the worst shows in K-Talk history (and that's including Kenny Buttro).

Dale Williams: has had various shows on the station and currently acts as "fill-in" for some hosts. Dale is a personal and good friend of mine. He's one of the most libertarian people I know and would be much more than he is if he'd start believing more in himself. Dale also has had some of the greatest shows on the station as he has a good mixture of the talents of Barbara Jean, Jim Dexter, and Dale's own libertarian style. With some real training, Dale could easily be a professional at this.

Kim "Sgt. Striker" Staker: not really an on-air personality, Kim has nevertheless pumped more heart, soul, and effort into the station than anyone else, bar none. He's worked tirelessly (and for free) overnights, on weekends, at any hour of the day, all for the betterment of K-Talk. Kim deserves serious kudos for what he's done.

Todd Larsen: currently the Tradio (Sundays) host, Todd has probably finally found his niche at the station. He was on-air with Dale Williams for a while, but wasn't really cut out for talk radio hosting. To be honest, he's not the brightest match in the book and has a too-limited subject range for talk radio.

Janet ?: I'm not sure what her job at the station is, but she has her own office. I think her official post is "hang around and look sour." That seems to be her forte.

Kyle ?: I'm not sure when he's on the air, but am happy to have avoided it for the most part. He's been on during the day once or twice and seems to have only one talent: making sure that everyone knows he's part black, American Indian, hispanic, Pacific Islander, and God knows what else. Race is his only issue and he sucks like a Hoover on the microphone.

Joe Jackson: not currently on the air, but was the ONLY professional host K-Talk has ever had. While I didn't agree with him politically, he did have the best show on the air despite his pathetic slot (5am-7am). His voice, production values, ability to field subjects, and control of callers without constricting them is truly awe-inspiring to hear.

Now look at the people listed above and tell me who you think they'd keep around or give better time slots to... OK, now turn your thoughts 180 degrees and that's reality.

Jim Sumpter is on mornings for about 3 hours, Jim Kirkwood was teamed with Merill Cook to make easily the worst drive-time show in the history of radio, while Dexter, Jackson, and Williams have no shows...

Now, since I'm such a political animal and have such a way with words and people, I'll show you how I'd handle the station's woes and how I would line up the shows:

5am-7am: goes to the highest bidder who's stupid enough to wake up that early to do a radio show. Anyone is viable and bids are for a monthly schedule...

7am-9am: Stockwell can keep it. He seems to be doing pretty well there and I don't see why this should be changed.

9am-11am: This is a rough one to decide, but I'd offer it to any of the following: Dale Williams, Barbara Jean, or Jim Dexter. They could even mix and match if they'd like, as it was before.

11am-2pm: Lunchtime needs a good host who can appeal to people for 30 minutes to an hour at a time (not someone who needs the entire three hours to do one show). So I'd say this spot is best suited for someone like Dale Williams or Shari Holweg.

3pm-5pm: Mark Marine can keep this slot (I believe it's his current space with the new lineup), since he means income to the station and actually has a very unusual show, despite it's shortcomings.

5pm-7pm: Joe Jackson and any good radio conservative/libertarian. Joe is a liberal, but the drive-time should be the hottest show of the station's lineup. Mixing and matching Joe with one or two people throughout the week might also be a good idea. Joe Jackson and Fran Tully are great together. I think that Joe Jackson and Dale Williams or Jim Dexter would also be good.

7pm-9pm: Jim Sumpter had this spot before and seemed to be OK with it. I think he can have it back.

The rest of the time slots are syndicated, so there's no point in screwing around with that. Although if someone really wants a spot between 9pm and 5am, I guess they could lobby for it. I, myself, would have fun with a once-weekly 11pm-2am spot, I think.

Weekends are kind of hodge-podge. I'd say that Saturday and Sunday would be good days for "live" blocks from, say, 10am-4pm. They could be lined up thusly:

10am-Noon: Kitty Burton

Noon-2pm: Jim Kirkwood

2pm-4pm: Dead Air since no one's listening anymore anyway.

I'd have only a very few ground rules at the station:
1. Don't break FCC rules. We test the "dump" button weekly to ensure it works, so you'd better learn how to use it...
2. If you call for someone to be "lined up and shot" you will be...well, lined up and shot!
3. I don't care how inane they sound or how misbegotten their comments...callers are never "stupid"...
4. No caller will be held on for more than 3 minutes. NO exceptions. I don't care if it's the Pope or the President...THREE MINUTES!
5. You WILL pay attention to HAL 9000 and you WILL know when breaks are coming up so you DON'T end up talking into the commercials.
6. No one is to talk to the hosts during their shows, no matter how "important" whatever you have to say is. It can wait until the show is over! Keep the damn door shut, we'll fix the air conditioning!

Well, there you have it. My commentary on K-Talk Radio. I don't think that the ownership realises it yet, but the station is already a dead's just that no one's pushed the carcass off its feet yet.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!

Good Reads

I haven't posted a Good Reads list of things to keep you pissed off in a while. I apologize for how large this one is. Have at it!

U.S. military lawyers criticize Guantanamo trial process
FBI Shutters Web Host,1283,62451,00.html
S.F.: If You're Asked, Don't Tell
Government's pursuit of personal data lives on

Senators uphold right to home birth but dump midwife bill anyway,2933,112543,00.html
Cattle Battle Continues in New Mexico
Parents with backbone
Beyond Black History
Heil Gun Show Registrations
Greenspan's Real Legacy,1848,62438,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1
Fighting for Right Not to Show ID
Uncle Mike

The Forgotten Marx Brother

Got comments? Email me, dammit!



Got comments? Email me, dammit!

Monday, March 01, 2004

Mel and the Jews: Random Thoughts on a Cultural Phenomenon

This was originally posted by Edward Britton on 2-28-04 in his Yahoo Group (linked below).

Mel and the Jews: Random Thoughts on a Cultural Phenomenon
Edward Britton

I don't know what it is about Mel Gibson's movie, The Passion Of The Christ, that's got the old-guard liberal establishment in such an abject snit, but I've concluded the movie has got to be good on the basis of that fact alone. And if liberals were irritated before, imagine how they'll feel to wake up Monday morning to discover that Mel's dramatic endeavor will have raked in an astounding 117 MILLION dollars* over the weekend--an unprecedented haul for motion pictures in this genre!

I have the following tidbits to satisfy the curiosity of those who may not have been privy to some of the more interesting details/history behind the making of Mel's movie: Mel sank 25 million of his own money into the project because he was unable to find financial backing anywhere else.

Mel Gibson, an actor, director and producer with otherwise impeccable credentials in Tinsel Town, couldn't find a production/distribution company willing to pony up the requisite cash, and damn near had to bribe Icon Productions just to take over the logistics. Nobody expected the movie to do much better than one of those tired old foreign flicks that debut in back alley theaters in the artsy fartsy sections of town.

This was when Honest Abe Foxman of the ADL got involved, and rocketed Mel's otherwise obscure period piece to the centermost position on everybody's radar screen. That's right, if you ever wondered what made the movie such a big deal, it wasn't the Pope's pronouncements regarding the faithfulness-to-fact of Mel's retelling of the crucifixion story, it
was the Jews over at ADL moaning about the movie's non-existent "anti-Semitism." Think about that for a moment: an arguably militant yet unquestionably leftist Jewish organization making an otherwise obscure movie about the crucifixion a blockbuster hit. Life's cup just overflows with irony.

I suspect that Gibson kisses a picture of Abraham Foxman every time he makes a bank deposit. If success is the best revenge, then surely God has blessed old Mel with overwhelming success in the forms of a record-setting box office take, and thousands of enraged secularist pantywaists. That's not a bad return on one's investment even if we were to include the months of editorial abuse, bordering on libel, from people not intellectually worthy of licking Gibson's boots.

I don't know when I'll ever see Mel's version of The Passion (I've vacillated between seeing it, not seeing it, and being downright scared to see it), but one thing's for certain: cultural phenomena like this movie have a tendency to force people to pick, literally, the side of the "force" with which they will ally themselves. I am of the belief that, in this case, he's on the right side. I am also certain that he and I both are exceedingly proud of the enemies we keep. They are as much of a statement of who we are as Mel's controversial enterprise is about his faith.


Edward ><+>

Wanna see real terrorism? Just 'hole up' in a 'compound' somewhere in rural Texas while publicly asserting your rights under the first ten amendments to the Constitution. You'll have terrorists coming out of your ass.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!

Lookit All Da People

Wow, I'm amazed. I just took a look at this site's statistics and even though it's new and has had some troubles recently with server problems, I'm pulling an average of 44 visitors a day. Sweet!

Hey, welcome all you fellow travelers and whatnots!

Got comments? Email me, dammit!

"Divinely Inspired Document" and "God's Chosen Nation"

Well, here we are on the first day of March. The big news, of course, is the opening of "Passion" starring Mel Gibson about the final hours of Jesus' life. I haven't seen it, but probably will soon enough.

On the radio today, on the first week of K-Talk Radio's ( new "lineup" of hosts, Jim Sumpter - now on from 9:00am to noon - talked about the "divine inspiration" behind the Constitution and the fact that our land is "chosen" by God.

Now, to give you a little background on Sumpter as I see him, he is a bit of a religious idealogue (being LDS in faith) and, in my opinion, something of a Republican apologist/statist.

That said, he held his tongue remarkably during the calls regarding the Constitution and God's "chosen land."

I, myself, believe that God did have a hand in inspiring the founders on the path towards freedom and the drafting of the U.S. Constitution (read it in the documents section, button to left). However, by the same token that the hand of man was involved in writing the Bible, so was it in the Constitution. Therefore, it is not word-for-word the word of God. I think God pointed the founding fathers in the right direction and the rest is history.

If you understand the background of the drafting of this document, you know that James Madison was the author of the original constitution. That document was very democratic and people-oriented. In today's society, many believe that "democracy" is the best thing since sliced bread. ain't. Madison's original draft was almost a pure democracy (read: mob rule) and many of the founders, most popularly Jefferson and Franklin, had nothing but bad things to say about the idea of mob rule.

Regardless, Madison's constitution was debated for a long time at that convention. There were pure mob rule types in attendance, almost pure anarchists, and pure statist/monarchical types there - as well as everything in between. In the end, the Constitution we gained in 1789 was a compromise between control freaks and anarchists.

The U.S. Constitution is a great document and the basis of easily the best form of government ever created on earth. However, it is flawed. Any creation of man is imperfect. That's just how it is: we aren't God. The Constitution has a few idiosyncracies that allowed our nation to evolve into what it is today.

Now that it has been tried and fettered for a couple hundred years or so, it's time, I believe, that some reconsiderations were made. They probably won't happen until we've had another revolution to throw off our current regime of tyrants, but you never know. So here's my thoughts.

The specific portions I believe need some refinement (or be completely stricken):

Article I, Section 6 reads:
"...They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

I believe this should be changed to enumerate that priviledge from arrest does not necessarily mean they will never be tried for said crime. Ted Kennedy would no doubt be in prison were it not for this. I believe that once the session is officially over for the year, trial may commence and, if needed, be suspended during another session of Congress, or withheld until the congressional term is finished. In any case, the person is and never should be IMMUNE from prosecution just because he or she is an elected representative.

Article I, Section 8 reads:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;..."

Of all the sections, this is the one paragraph I have the most problems with. First, it should be amended to enumerate that the Congress can lay and collect taxes FROM THE STATES, not from the People. Otherwise, justification for our IRS would never have been made and our current gestapo would not be happening. Second, the states, since they are representated equally in the Senate and by populace in the House, would have it in their best interest to NOT allow raising of taxes without just cause. This means we'd probably still be at a personal tax rate of around 3% or less rather than our current 40-50%...

I also hate the "...and general Welfare of the United States;" bit. This is the opening the socialists have used to institute their New Deals, welfare, entitlements, and other crap on us. For instance, I pay into Social Security yearly at an almost exhorbitant level. Yet it's very doubtful I will see it when I "need" it - especially considering fed Chairman Greenspan's remarks a couple of days ago. Since Social Security is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme and has become nothing more than welfare for the aged...why not privatize it in such a way that government no longer has a hand in the thing at all?? Read Harry Browne's "Why Government Doesn't Work" as a good illustration of how this could realistically be done WITHOUT screwing those who are depending or soon to be dependent on it...

Also in this section, you will see no authority for the Congress to hand over the U.S. monetary system to any other body nor to a private or foreign-owned institution...the Federal Reserve is owned by the World Bank, which is owned mainly by foreign interests... You figure out where that puts us...

Article III, Section 1 reads:
"The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

These are lifetime appointments. I think that's wrong. They should be ten or fifteen year appointments, at maximum, and should never be given to the same person more than once. Yes, judicial appointments are a bioootch to get through from the President and through the Congress. However, that's because most Congress people know that these judges will be there forever. Take that away, and they may be a little more lenient on it. Besides...the longer their debate over judicial appointments, the less time they'll have to come up with new and "screw us" laws to pass...

Article VI reads:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

I don't disagree with this section, per say, I just think that it needs to be highlighted and sent to every judge, state representative, etc. around the nation for emphasis. Especially to Colorado and Rick Stanley's persecutors.

Article the Second (Amendment XVII) reads:
"No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened."

This is nice, but is completely ignored as our current elected jackasses enjoy an automatic pay raise every year which completely ignores this provision...

Article the Fourth (aka "Second Amendment"):
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The original version was better, as it would waylay most all of the bullshit arguments that leftists like to claim (such as only the "militia" can have weapons and the "militia" is the National Guard). Even today, the dictionary defines "militia" as "able bodied men between the ages of 14 and 45." Besides, it clearly says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"... I did a study once in which I replaced "The People" with "The STates" and later "The National Guard" throughout the Constitution. Guess what happened? Only the States or the National Guard could vote...only the States or the National Guard could peaceably assemble... You get the idea.

Article XIII reads:
"Section. 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

While I really like this one (it's also a firm argument against the draft), I don't think that Section 2 is really required. Although this is probably just a technical matter that makes no real difference in the end. It was done originally as justification for using National Guardsmen and military troops to enforce desegregation. Probably needed at the time, I guess, but doubtful it's really needed now.

Article XVI:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Obviously, like to see this one thrown out completely.

Article XVII reads:
"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures...."

Toss the whole shebang.

There you have it. Aaron's new and improved U.S. Constitution! Print this out for use after the revolution to come, as I once again say that I doubt anything better will come of government until revolution has happened...

As for this being God's "chosen land," I think that's incorrect and a bit ego-centric on our part. I believe that we are supposed to be an example of all that is great regarding free agency, true charity (not government-mandated), etc., etc., etc. Obviously we don't do that, so we've failed in that regard.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!

Sunday, February 29, 2004

This Just In: Federal Tresspass With Wolves!

Rancher: Wolf agent 'trespassed'

A Meeteetse rancher says the federal official in charge of wolves in Wyoming illegally handled four wolves in his calving pasture recently.

Mike Jimenez of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did not have permission to be on private land when he was discovered with four tranquilized wolves south of Meeteetse on Feb. 14, rancher Randy Kruger said.

Larsen Ranch Co. owners say they may ask Park County Attorney Bryan Skoric to file criminal trespass charges against the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Unclear is whether the federal official found the wolves on private land or transported them there.

F&WS officials could not be reached for comment, but agency representatives have called rancher Ralph Larsen to apologize, his son-in-law Randy Kruger said.

A ranch stockholder and employee, Kruger said Wednesday he was driving across a pasture off Gooseberry Creek at 3 p.m. Feb. 14 when he "caught two men hiding in the bushes." They were under a high bank by the road, out of sight.

"It seemed quite alarming to me," he added. "I stopped to see what they were up to."

They had four wolves laid out, tranquilized. Kruger identified the men as Jimenez and Wes Livingston of Cody.

"They acted guilty, in my view," Kruger said. "They said they were trying to get the wolves collared.

"They were on our deeded land and in our calving pasture."

Because about 350 bred calves are on nearby land and due to calve March 20, he told the men, "We don't need this sort of thing."

Kruger drove on to a shop about one mile away and later thought he heard a helicopter, figuring it had left the men to go get fuel. The two men apparently had no vehicle.

"It's aggravating and upsetting," Kruger said. "It's causing me loss of sleep. It's a matter of terrorism."

The men told Kruger they had trapped and collared the wolves "in the area." When Kruger drove off, the wolves were beginning to stir.

"They were nice, well-fed looking wolves, right in their prime," he said.

Kruger presented the information to Park County Commissioner Tim Morrison on Wednesday morning and said Morrison will turn over the details to the county attorney to decide about "prosecuting the Fish and Wildlife Service or letting it go."

"We're pushing them to file charges," said Joe Tilden of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, who thinks the men flew in with the wolves. "Where does the federal government have the right to land on private property?"

For two men to be hiding in the brush with wolves strikes him as odd.

"It's bizarre," Tilden said.

During his recent trip to Washington, D.C., to meet with F&WS officials about the wolf issue, he recalled them asking him to place their faith in them.

"They want us to trust them when they're doing this kind of stuff?" he asked. "I back Larsen and Kruger 100 percent. It's pretty blatant."

Got comments? Email me, dammit!

Baja Fresh Fundraiser!

The intrepid leader of the Libertarian Party of Utah has sent out this notice. So all of you here in Utah come eat some great feed and help the LP. Just load up and print a copy of this flier: baja3604.pdf and bring it into the store listed on the date listed (next Saturday), and 15% of your money goes to help the LP!

Kick ass!

You know where I'll be Saturday, so come yell, take pot shots, whatever!

Got comments? Email me, dammit!