Was Thomas Jefferson an Environmental Alarmist?

[Cross-posted at Libertas.]

Apparently the most recent fad among environmental alarmists is to enlist the venerable Thomas Jefferson to their cause. This latest bit of nonsense was, I gather, started by Dr. James Hansen of NASA (who is apparently unfazed and unrepentant in the face of his recently revealed Y2K error). Even certain faux market environmentalists are following Hansen’s lead. The strategic idea here is to bolster support for the CAGW thesis by attaching Jefferson’s respected name to radical environmentalism. The hope, at least implicitly, is that resistance and skepticism of Americans, and for some – also libertarians, to the CAGW thesis will wither in the face of their revered Founding Father’s environmentalism. The claim is that he believed currently living generations should not bind future generations to living in an environmentally degraded world; therefore, the state should prevent them from doing so. The method by which this claim is made is, you guessed it, by taking quotes out of context and putting a leftist-environmentalist spin on them. Someone else already beat me to it, so I’ll simply refer you to Luboš Motl’s debunking of this latest environmentalist farce.

Anthony LaCalamita: Insane or Not?

Anthony LaCalimita, a former employee of an accounting firm in Oakland County in my home state of Michigan who reportedly stormed into the building and gunned down three of his former employers and executed a fourth one, is now being “evaluated by a private psychiatrist” to determine whether or not he is “mentally ill.”

This is what the Detroit Free Press says in this excerpt of the article:

The man accused of storming a Troy office building in April and shooting three people, killing one, will be evaluated by a private psychiatrist to determine if he was legally insane at the time.

Anthony LaCalamita, 36, has already been found criminally responsible and competent to stand trial by doctors at the state’s forensic center, but today his attorney, Jerome Fenton, asked the trial judge to allow additional testing. Fenton is considering an insanity defense for LaCalamita, who has a long history of mental illness.

Let’s cut through the claptrap, shall we? If Calamita is “mentally ill,” as some of these psycho-quacks suspect he is, then why is it that experienced and skilled pathologists have never been able to discover and document this so-called illness when they perform routine autopsies?

If anything, LaCalimita knew exactly what he was doing and why he was doing it. The psychiatric state, including its “private psychiatrists,” would love you to believe that LaCalimita was not responsible for his actions and that the culpability of his crime rests on the imaginary hands of a brain disease, which is clearly non-existent. If this brain disorder does exist as these experts contend, did it, in the form of whispering voices, order him to purchase a gun to shoot and kill one of his employers and wound the other three in broad daylight?

The hysteria surrounding this malarkey is revolting to the Nth degree.

Tom Tancredo: Let’s Bomb Muslim Holy Cities

Prominent Neo-Con Republican and xenophobe Tom Tancredo declares that America would be a much safer country if we bombed every major Muslim Holy city.

Here’s a short excerpt of what he says in his blog on CNN today:

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo’s campaign stood by his assertion that bombing holy Muslim sites would serve as a good “deterrent” to prevent Islamic fundamentalists from attacking the United States, his spokeswoman said Friday.

“This shows that we mean business,” said Bay Buchanan, a senior Tancredo adviser. “There’s no more effective deterrent than that. But he is open-minded and willing to embrace other options. This is just a means to deter them from attacking us.”

On Tuesday, Tancredo warned a group of Iowans that another terrorist attack would “cause a worldwide economic collapse.” IowaPolitics.com recorded his comments.

“If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina,” Tancredo said. “That is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. If I am wrong, fine, tell me, and I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent, or you will find an attack.”

Tancredo and other evil, xenophobic, racist collectivists are the real reason why the terrorists “hate us.” And don’t give me this bogus garbage that it’s because they “hate us for our freedoms.”

Ron Paul, the Elephant in the Room

Here’s the Texas Monthly’s coverage of Ron Paul. The rag’s cover shows a nicely-drafted illustrated sketch of Ron on its cover.

(Thanks to Lew for his mention of this.)

Democrats Caving In on Government Surveillance

It seems like congressional Democrats are compromising on the Leviathan’s never-ending surveillance program. Well, isn’t that just fine and dandy?

Here’s an excerpt of today’s Washington Post on this story:

Congressional Democrats outlined a temporary plan yesterday that would expand the government’s authority to conduct electronic surveillance of overseas communications in search of terrorists.

The proposal, according to House and Senate Democrats, would permit a secret court to issue broad orders approving eavesdropping of communications involving suspects overseas and other people, who may be in the United States. To issue an order, the court would not need to identify a particular target overseas, but it would have to determine that those being targeted are “likely,” in fact, overseas.

If a foreign target’s communications to a person inside the United States reaches a “significant” number, then an court order based on probable cause would be required. It is unclear how “significant” would be defined.

Under a sunset provision, the authority would have to be revisited in six months.

“Given the continued threat environment and some recent technical developments, I have become convinced that we must take some immediate, but interim, step to improve collection of foreign intelligence in a manner that doesn’t compromise civil liberties of U.S. citizens,” said John D. Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

In recent days, the administration has proposed giving the attorney general sole authority to authorize the surveillance, suggesting that if Democrats do not act quickly Americans would be at greater risk of attack.

Democrats said that giving sole authority to the attorney general would be unacceptable and insisted that the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court have an oversight role.

Some civil liberties advocates were pleased.

“It is vastly better than the administration’s bill and preserves the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement,” said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies.

Others, including some Democrats, said that granting the government authority to intercept calls with broad warrants could allow a large number of phone calls and e-mails of U.S. individuals and companies to be intercepted, as well.

Caroline Fredrickson, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington legislative office, contended that Democrats are “capitulating to the politics of fear.”

Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) said that the proposal, while better than the administration’s, “does not have adequate safeguards to protect Americans’ privacy.”

When it comes to statist Democrats, can we say….cowards?

Minneapolis Bridge Collapses Into Mississippi River

An eight-lane highway interstate bridge, which was jammed with rush hour traffic, collapsed into the Mississippi River in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Here’s an excerpt of the incident from the Washington Post today:

MINNEAPOLIS, Aug. 1 — An eight-lane highway bridge clogged with rush-hour traffic buckled and collapsed into the Mississippi River in central Minneapolis on Wednesday evening, pitching numerous vehicles into the roiling water below. At least seven people were killed and dozens were injured, authorities said.

Emergency officials said the toll could rise as rescuers, hampered by burning cars and hunks of broken roadway, scoured the debris-clogged river for survivors. The Minneapolis Star Tribune newspaper reported that 20 people were still missing late Wednesday night, and that officials said efforts had switched from rescue to recovery.

“This is a catastrophe of historic proportions for Minnesota,” said Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R). “We are doing everything we can to make sure we respond as quickly as we can to this emergency.”

It was not immediately clear what caused the Interstate 35W bridge to break apart. Pawlenty said the structure had been undergoing “cosmetic” repairs, including resurfacing and guardrail and lighting replacement.

Witnesses described a lamppost-shaking rumble at 6:05 p.m. Central time as the concrete-and-steel structure rippled from south to north and then broke apart, its 458-foot-long central section plunging from more than 60 feet into the greenish water.

As massive swaths of concrete sheared off, vehicles on the bridge fell. Some of them plunged into the water, while others, including a school bus, came to rest on slanted sections of pavement at the clifflike edge of the r oadway. Several of the vehicles caught fire and one tractor-trailer was cut in half.

At least one person drowned. Rescue officials said many of the survivors were seriously wounded.

And the kicker is: the government operates, controls, funds the maintenance of, and owns bridges like this one. Are we to be really surprised that, if there is no private property rights on our roads and our bridges and that only the “public” owns these roads, that these bridges like the one in Minneapolis are falling apart at the seams?

EP Will Not Stop Polluting of Lake Michigan

Today’s online edition of the Detroit Free Press reports that The Great Leader’s own Environmental Pollution — I mean Protection — Agency will not take governmental action against a BP refinery based in northern Indiana from dumping pollution into Lake Michigan.

Here’s an excerpt from the article which should concern every pro-freedom American across across the libertarian divide:

CHICAGO — Rebuffing bipartisan pressure from Congress, the Bush administration’s top environmental regulator Tuesday declined to stop a BP refinery in northwest Indiana from dumping more pollution into Lake Michigan.

Stephen Johnson, administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, said he saw nothing wrong with the permit Indiana regulators awarded in June to BP, the first company in years allowed to increase the amount of toxic chemicals pumped into the Great Lakes.

Although the federal government has been pushing for more than three decades to eliminate pollution in the Great Lakes, the EPA didn’t object to the BP permit — part of a $3-billion expansion of its refinery in Whiting, Ind.

This is grossly unethical, not to mention pathetic. It’s bad enough that Democrats cop to being socialists and want to control every aspect of all Americans on our own soil; it’s worse that the Bush administration — a GOP administration as it is — employs libertarian rhetoric to disguise its support for a governmental system of environmental protection….which is more like environmental pollution.

At least there’s a significant difference between libertarians, Democrats, and Republicans on the issue of environmental protection. Democrats oppose private property rights and private ownership of land and, for the most part, oppose refineries and oil companies from operating on those rented lands. They also want the government to expand its ownership of the land and act as the champion of environmental stewardship, even if they do pollute the land, the lakes, the rivers, and the oceans as well. Republicans want to subsidize oil companies that lease government property and allow government agencies like the EPA and the Department of Interior to issue permits allowing companies to dump such hazardous chemicals and materials in the lakes and other bodies of water, which are government property anyway. While they go out of their way to oppose government ownership and control of property and handling of hazardous waste and material on the land and employ laissez-faire and private property rights rhetoric, they don’t mind the government subsidizing businesses that have no incentive to protect and care for the land on which their businesses reside and don’t own, but rather pollute on the property which they are leasing.

Libertarians, on the other hand, believe in private property rights and want the government to stay out of the environmental protection business. At least they want the free market to take over protecting the environment and restore individuals and businesses’ ability to exercise their private property rights — items that have been long since excluded from public debate for the longest time.

Need and Public Policy: Handle with Care

The Foundation for Economic Education‘s very own Gary M. Galles writes:

“Need” implies agreement on what and how extensive it is. However, needs are in the eye of the beholder, and their perceived extent varies dramatically from person to person. (How much of X does one need?) When we don’t agree on the extent, using the word “need” masks that disagreement. It implies that the beneficiaries’ view is the relevant one, even when they are unwilling to offer enough to attract volunteers to supply their needs in the market. The often-different views of those forced to finance those needs are dismissed as irrelevant.

(Thanks goes to FEE for providing these articles online free of charge.)

The U.S. and Soviet Union Once Sold Weapons to the Middle East

According to the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), The imperial federal beast, which has been allying itself with Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia by selling them arms to help them fight the Iranians and the Iraqi “insurgents,” has been revealed to have once allied itself with its old enemy the USSR by selling weaspons to them, Syria, Iraq, and post-1979 Iran in the Middle East during the Cold War.

With the release of this report by JINSA, should we really be surprised by all of this? With this revelation coming out of the woodwork, isn’t this all the more reason to abolish our foreign policy of interventionism and return to a foreign policy of non-interventionism? Isn’t this all the more reason to abandon our limitless, maximum, ever-growing Leviathan with an ever-expanding welfare-warfare state to a small, limited, ever-restricted government that embraces a respect for individual rights, free markets, and the rule of law?

The Leviathan’s Case Against Michael Vick

The U.S. federal government’s criminal case against Atlanta Falcons quarterback star Michael Vick for his purported involvement in the most recent dog fighting scandal is heating up as ever. At the same time, the Leviathan, which has confiscated 54 pit bulls that were allegedly used in the dog fighting, is holding them as evidence to be used against Vick and the other three men suspected of ties to the operation.

According to the New York Times, Vick and the other three men — Tony Taylor, Purnell A. Peace, and Quanis L. Phillips — plead not guilty last week “to charges related to a dogfighting operation that the authorities said was called Bad Newz Kennels.”

Here’s an excerpt of the Times today:

On Monday, Taylor pleaded guilty and agreed to help prosecutors make their case. He signed a 13-page statement confirming much of what the government stated when it indicted the four men July 17. The 18-page indictment uses graphic detail in describing the animal cruelty the men are accused of. It states that during a search of Vick’s property in Surry County in April, 54 pit bulls were recovered, along with a so-called rape stand used to hold dogs for mating, and a treadmill modified for dogs.

More charges are expected in the case, and a trial has been scheduled for November. Vick, the star quarterback of the Atlanta Falcons, has been suspended indefinitely by the National Football League.

Now I’m the last person in the world to endorse or give any moral, financial, and emotional support to any underground operation that employs dogs to attack and kill other dogs as a sport and for entertainment. I think it is a disgusting and terrible practice to begin with. But do these men really deserve jail time for a “crime” that did not involve violence against “victims” in any way, especially when those “victims” were dogs and not humans?

The collectivists are using laws against animal cruelty to prosecute a group of individuals who used animals in a sport that society on the whole has otherwise condemned and utterly rejected. The laws, while written with the best of intentions in mind, are being used to protect “victims” where there are none. Victims only apply to humans, not animals.

And how is this any different from cockfighting? Cockfighting is a sport that has been made illegal in many states, although it was a strong, common practice in the United States from the late 1700s to most of the 20th century. Even the Founders like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were avid fans of cockfighting. However, over time, the sport has been, on a one-by-one basis, illegalized at the state level, with Louisiana being the last state to ban the event.

It is interesting to note that dog fighting had once been a legal practice from the 15th century to the early part of the 20 century, although in recent decades, it has been outlawed in many states due to society’s increasing contempt for and opposition to animal cruelty. However, the biggest reason for the bans is the rise of radical leftist-socialist organizations like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).

The cardinal legal argument against dog fighting (and even cockfighting) by PETA, the Humane Society, and other organizations like them is that it is wrong to harm animals for the purpose of providing a blood sport for people who desire that form of entertainment. But the real legal argument I get from these groups is that animals who are “harmed” and “tortured” by those involved in the practice are “victims” of violent crimes aggressed against them.

The reason for this mentality is that animals are viewed by PETA, HSUS, and other shrill “animal rights” organizations is that animals have “rights” comparable to humans, which is false. Animals do not have rights. They are neither capable of possessing rights nor have the need for them to begin with. What is the rationale for this argument, you ask? It is simple for three distinct reasons:

• Animals do not have and are not capable of having a system of morality. Animals have no need for morality. They neither have the competence nor the will to possess nor even the understanding of the concept of morality. Morality means nothing to them. That is what distinguishes humans from animals. We humans are capable of having a system of morality, whereas animals do not. Animals, from a utilitarian and ethical standpoint, are amoral. Humans can be either moral or immoral (“immoral” meaning having a set of bad moral principles), but at least they have a system of morality that strings together their ideas of right and wrong. Animals, on the other hand, simply lack that ability.

  It goes further than that. Animals have no love for morality. They will kill other forms of species to insure their own survival, even at the expense of those species. A shark, for example, kills a school of fish for food because it is in their nature to kill and is necessary for their survival. Have sharks committed the “crime of murder” against these fish? Of course not. If one were to suggest such a thing, one would receive looks and disgust from animal lovers and other groups of people who would find such a statement ridiculous and laughable on its face. It is all simply part and parcel of the entire food chain. Because they kill other forms of species for that reason, they have no respect for individual rights – a component which is necessary for a species to control their environment that would enable them to control their own lives without doing harm to other species. Ascribing the same rights to animals who lack a moral center and are, by nature’s design, functioning to preserve their order within the animal kingdom is nothing more than a mistake, not to mention a joke. To place animals above humans as if animals are higher and better than humans is not only vulgar and offensive, but also illogical and ridiculous. The fact that there is no proof that animals possess such a system goes without saying.

• Because animals have no ability to possess morality, they also neither possess nor believe in the ability of individual rights and free will, unlike their human counterparts. Humans are capable of these things, but animals do not. They have no need for free will and individual rights, since they are governed by the laws of nature and the need to procreate and survive. Human beings are capable of exercising those rights, whereas animals do not. And because they have no desire for free will and indvidualism, they see themselves as an inherent collective for the greater good of their species.
• Because animals have no ability to recognize and respect individual rights and free will, that, in turn, is what makes animals the property of humans. Since animals have no morals and the ability to exercise individual rights and free will, they are, in the eyes of natural law, man’s property to do with what he pleases. Since the marketplace allows me to purchase an animal and possess it to do with what I will to it, I can keep it as a pet, sell it in a free market as either a pet or food, or kill it to eat it for my own survival. Since private property rights means that I have the moral and natural right to use the animal any way I see fit, it is my property; therefore, it is my right to do what I want to do to it. To remove a man’s ability to protect and preserve his private property and ascribe rights to that property based on some flimsy assumption that an animal is the equivalent of a man is to destroy a man’s right to acquire and earn the fruits of his labor and to destroy his ability to engage in freedom of exchange. Animals have no ability to object to them being property, since they neither possess the faculties of a man nor the ability to reason like a human to begin with.

That is not to say that we should condone abuse of an animal or harm to them for no reason at all. It is society’s interests to boycott businesses that support such practices and ostracize those who favor them.

When all is said and done, the Michael Vick case will show that it is not an issue of “victimization” that is the problem. It is the violation of private property rights and the inaccurate relegation of morality, individual rights, and free will to a set of species that are not capable of fathoming these concepts at all.