A War on PTO [Patent Office] Deficiencies? (from KinsellaLaw)
Sean Hannity v. Harry Browne: Harry Browne, former Libertarian candidate for President, was on Sean Hannity‘s radio program a couple of days. It was an embarrasing performance for Harry. Harry thought the point of the interview was to discuss a recent op-ed of his. However, Sean was ranting about an apparently Libertarian Party “spoiler” strategy designed to take votes away from vulnerable Republican congressional candidates. Naturally, Sean wanted to ask Harry, the Libertarian, about this, when Harry came on. Harry immediately started complaining, saying he didn’t know he had been invited to talk about that, calling FoxNews a “conservative” network, which Hannity immediately shot down by poining out various prominent liberals who work there, like Kondrake, Combs, etc. Then Sean challenged Harry on the drug issue, and asked Harry if he would let a pregnant mother take crack or abort the day before pregancy–as I recall, Browne took the standard libertarian response that the federal government has no role here, that he opposes this morally but the woman should be free to do it just as she is free to smoke cigarettes while pregnant (I may have this part of Browne’s response slightly distorted, this is from memory). Browne should have explained that there is nothing wrong in principle with state laws that outlaw a pregnant woman aborting in the ninth monty or taking crack while pregnant.
The worst part was when Hannity insisted, cheerfully ignorant of the concept of federalism, that the point of the the constitution was to protect “individual liberty” and “therefore” the federal government can outlaw late-term abortions and the like. Harry then called Hannity an “idiot” and the interview went downhill from there. Harry kept saying (rightly) that the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to outlaw crimes; a confused and exasperated Hannity took this to mean Harry was against all “government” laws protecting people; Harry should have explained our federal system to Sean, but failed to do so. When the commercial came up, Hannity said they’d have to pause for a commercial, whereupon Harry said, “well, I won’t be back” and he stormed off in a huff. In short, Harry should not have called Sean an idiot; he should not have attacked FoxNews as being “conservative”; and he should have explained the constitutioanl concept of federalism and enumerated powers to Sean, but failed to do so. And he should not have walked off the set, or complained about being asked about Libertarian Party strategy.
Fascinating report by Bruce Bartlett, Potential oil supply refill? (Washington Times). About old oil fields in the Gulf of Mexico apparently refilling. The anti-industrialist, anti-capitalist, anti-technology leftists and luddites are sure to be disappointed.
WWII Propaganda Posters Updated for Modern Era: These spoofs of WWII propaganda posters are hilarious (some are crude). (Thanks to Karen De Coster.)
FBI resources switched from drugs to terrorism: About the only good news I’ve seen lately in the government’s response to the Terrorist Attacks: the FBI is reassigning about 400 agents from the anti-drug crimes division to counter-terrorism operations; and shifting another 59 from white-collar crime divisions. If we were really serious about fighting and preventing terrorism, we’d (a) stop intervening around the world and provoking anti-US sentiment; (b) specifically target criminal group and government leaders for assassination instead of bombing innocent civilians; (c) remove all restrictions on, and engage in, racial profiling (e.g. give certain Arabs/Muslims in airports heightened attention); and (d) stop wasting resources fighting victimless crimes like drugs and shift those resources to terrorism prevention. The FBI’s move here is at least a small step in the right direction.
Don’t Mess with Texas or, A Yankee by Any Other Name Would Smell as… (from KinsellaLaw).
Good Math: The Orgasmic Calculator is worth trying, at least once, but not at the office…
Shades of Galambos: Along the lines of “if you build it, they will come,” we have the IP analogue, “if government enacts a right to obtain property rights in arbitrary, intangible ‘things,’ they will apply for it”: Man Claims Copyright of His Name, FindLaw (AP), 2002-05-16. Sounds like something–dare I use his name?–Galambos would do (see discussion of Galambos in this article, at footnotes 49-53).
Update: see also Galambos and Other Nuts.
Recent Comments