Apologies, dear readers, for being AWOL the last couple weeks. Like Brian, I too have been balls to the wall at my day job (which of late has been my nights and weekends job as well). To get things back on pace, how bout some of today’s news:

Warren Buffett says he should pay more taxes.

Warren Buffett, the famous investor known as the “Sage of Omaha”, has complained that he pays a lower rate of tax than any of his staff - including his receptionist. Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52bn (?25bn), said: “The taxation system has tilted towards the rich and away from the middle class in the last 10 years. It’s dramatic; I don’t think it’s appreciated and I think it should be addressed.”

This is a case of the old glass half empty/half full disagreement. (As an engineer, I always considered the half filled glass to be terribly over-designed, but that is another matter). Is Buffett paying too little in taxes or are his employees paying too much? I tend to think the latter, because my default is to always favor lower taxes. Buffett clearly has a predilection toward higher taxes. I guess when you’ve got $52 billion in assets, an extra 20% tax on your $40 million a year income just isn’t that big a deal. “Hell, jack it up an extra 30%, what do I care? I could retire now and live off my assets until the sun explodes!” I wonder if Buffett, or anyone for that matter, clearly understands to what extent Buffett’s employees are being soaked due to taxes whose original intent was to hose the ultra-rich. The AMT comes to mind. One might also wonder how many of those oft maligned tax loopholes for the rich that Beffett has taken advantage of to get down to his 18% payroll/income tax figure. Finally, Buffett is overlooking one tiny detail. His money is his money. If he feels the government isn’t stealing enough of it, I’m not sure there’s anything stopping him from writing a check to uncle Sam to make up the difference. Other peoples’ money, on the other hand, is other peoples’ money. If the government raises Buffett’s taxes, then it raises others’ as well. And some of those people might not be so eager to feed the blob.

The only reason this is news is because Buffett is a rich liberal spouting the approved talking points. He has no special credibility in commenting on public policy. In fact, he’s what I’d call an intelligent fool. The kind of smart-idiot who can wit his way to a multi-billion dollar fortune, but can’t see the philosophical differences between inheritance and wealth redistribution.

In other news:

During the latest Democrat excuse for a debate, Dennis Kucinich confirmed that he has indeed witnessed a UFO. Oblivious to the irony, he later insisted that President Bush may be in need of psychiatric help.

Just to clarify. Iran’s nuclear ambitions and willingness to plunge the world into an era of darkness are real. UFOs are not.

Speaking about the President’s mental health, Kucinich adds:

There’s a lot of people who need care. He might be one of them. If there isn’t something wrong with him, then there’s something wrong with us.

“Us”? How many of you are in there, Dennis? And no, there’s nothing wrong with President Bush, mentally (except that he’s a liberal, which hasn’t been recognized as a mental disorder…yet). So I guess that just leaves you. You, and whoever “us” is.

In other news:

China is being plagued by Carter-esque fuel shortages.

Supply shortages. Long lines at the gas pump. It’s strange, even with oil prices approaching inflation adjusted all time highs (1981), similar to those we experienced in the Carter era, we don’t have any of these things here in America. We’ve got plenty of gas. How can that be? It may have something to do with the conspicuous absence of shortage causing nationwide price-caps like those imposed by China. Remember this the next time liberal activists and their henchmen in congress accuse fuel companies of price-gouging and insist that gasoline price caps are necessary. Like these people who are practically begging for them.

Sorry for the lack of posting. I’ve been swamped with work the last few days. I should return before the beginning of next week.

The Business and Media Institute reports on a video released by Al Gore, where the man who leads a global eco-religion has weighed in on the issue of health care. For all you plebs out there, listen up. “Health care is a universal right.” The Goracle has spoken.

The former vice president managed to find time this past weekend to post a series of videos on his peer-to-peer video sharing site, Current.tv - including one calling for “government-funded” health care. Gore is chairman of Current.tv.

In a setting reminiscent of a bored college student making a video in his dorm room, Gore is shown proclaiming that healthcare in America “ought to be a matter of right,” addressing what he thinks to be an “immoral” healthcare situation.

“I strongly support universal single-payer government-provided or government-funded health care” droned a languid Gore in his video, now also listed under the title ‘Gore Goes SiCKO’ on Michael Moore’s Web site.

This claim that health care is a right has been advanced with increasing frequency over the years. The reason we are hearing this claim is simple. The left believes that rights come from government. Based on this presumption, they conclude that if the public accepts that health care is a right, they will then demand that it be delivered from government. In turn, leftists get expanded power and control over your lives, which is - by definition - what they seek. There are two serious flaws in this logic. 1) Rights don’t come from government. 2) Health care is not, and cannot be, a right.

Let’s return for a moment to our founding documents and the philosophy that informed them. The Declaration of Independence asserts that men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” We are endowed by our Creator. These are not rights which come to us by the grace of enlightened bureaucrats. These natural rights exist as a consequence of our basic state of nature, which the Declaration of Independence claims produces a “separate and equal station” among men.

These ideas descend straight from Locke’s Second Treatise of Government. In it he declares that “all men are naturally in…a state of perfect freedom to order their actions…” He also includes this list of rights which those found in the Declaration of Independence are obviously derived from (emphasis added):

The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions…

It is only with this understanding of our natural liberty as the foundation for these rights that we can understand rights as they exist today. Furthermore, it is necessary to understand that each right also carries with it a duty. Let’s take, for instance, some of those rights as listed in the Bill of Rights, all of which are derived from those three articulated in the Declaration of Independence. Take the right to free speech. With it comes a duty that no one (specifically government) infringe upon the free speech rights of others. The same goes for the second amendment. With the right to bear arms comes a duty to respect, and thus not violate, the property rights of others. The same applies to freedom of religion. On and on it goes.

There is a very important pattern to understand from these duties. They all require only negative action; essentially, that individuals not infringe upon the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (property) of others. There can be no such thing as a right that requires positive action, for to do so would violate the fundamental right to liberty of all others. If an individual is said to have a right to health care, that does not merely require the rest of society to not infringe upon the basic right to life of that individual, it compels the rest of society to act, to care for that individual. Nothing that violates the right to liberty can itself be a right, for any such right would itself destroy the very foundation upon which all rights are built.

Health care is not a right, it is an anti-right. The left would have us believe that we advance by accepting such things as health care as a right of all Americans. It is an insidious cancer that would be introduced (or has been already) to accept such rights that require active duties on others as legitimate; for once it is acceptable to violate one of the three most basic rights in a specific circumstance, it is acceptable to violate any of them under any circumstance. Such a state of affairs can lead to no other end than tyranny.

Another week and another republican presidential debate. Ok, maybe they aren’t happening that often, but it feels like it. I’m not going to recap the entire thing. Rather I’ll hit what I think are the highlights and important developments, though in no particular order.

Fred Thompson can be exciting. After some lackluster performances I was beginning to question whether Fred Thompson was capable of energetically delivering what are quite sound and desirable positions. Last night he took a big step in the right direction. He also called Ted Kennedy fat. Mega bonus points. He got hit on tort reform, and though his answer included his federalist argument (one I sympathize with), his answer also rambled a bit. It was the only issue that provided a real weak point, though.

If John McCain is a top-tier candidate, so is Mike Huckabee. There’s no doubt that McCain gave many strong answers. His statement that he would rather lose a campaign than lose a war probably the most memorable of any candidate in the entire debate. It was that rare occasion where not only was a politician putting principle above politics, but it was believable. He also joked and got the laughs just as well as any of them. Yet it doesn’t seem to be enough to connect with the voters. He did possibly flub one answer, when he talked about the importance of reconciliation with former “enemies”. Though he was making a valid point, lumping the religious right into the same category as the Vietnamese may not have been quite what he intended. Mike Huckabee, on the other hand, continues to impress. Even where I disagree, the clear sincerity behind his views is itself inspiring.

Rudy Giuliani is still the front-runner, but not by much. The most striking observation to take from this debate is that this race is wide open. Giuliani has the best position at present, but any of the five main candidates (I’m including here Huckabee) could catch fire and make a run for it. Giuliani gave a potent line in response to a question about whether he can win teachers over. He said he cared more about students than teachers. Right on. Rudy didn’t step into anything here, so in so far as he came in ahead, he also came out ahead. Romney didn’t do anything particularly memorable, but he was similarly without any major flops. He’s warming on me, slowly.

Ron Paul would be right if he weren’t so wrong. His first question (on gay marriage) actually showed his intelligent, rather than crazy, side. But then we got to foreign policy. Nonintervention is a preferred default policy. But there are times when that policy is completely disastrous. Our nonintervention, and the nonintervention of Europe, in the lead up to WWII nearly let Hitler and his evil ideology triumph. Nonintervention in todays world would be just as dangerous, as radical global jihad poses the same threat. But we should temper our action with the awareness that it’s best not to engage in such policies if we don’t have to. It’s just not acceptable to adopt Ron Paul’s philosophy of complete isolationism.

Edit: I almost forgot to include one of the most stark comparisons presented by this debate.

Fox News is light years above the rest of the media. This debate outclassed the rest by miles. That hack Chris Mathews and his joke of a debate that he hosts on MSNBC has now been twice blown away by Fox.

Glass Monument to Che in Venezuela Shot

A glass monument to revolutionary icon Ernesto “Che” Guevara was shot up and destroyed less than two weeks after it was unveiled by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s government.

…Police said they had yet to identify those responsible. The Venezuelan newspaper El Nacional published a copy of what it said was a flier found by the monument signed by the previously unknown “Paramo Patriotic Front.”

“We don’t want any monument to Che, he isn’t an example for our children,” the flier read. It called Guevara a “cold-blooded killer” and said the government should raise a monument in Chavez’s hometown of Sabaneta, in the nearby lowland plains, if it wants to commemorate the Argentine-born revolutionary.

An appropriate end for a monument to such a worthless, sadistic murderer.

Communism is a system in which all property is held in common and administered by the state. When people think of communism they think of egalitarian redistribution of wealth and a centrally planned economy where resources are managed not by free individuals acting in their own interests, but by a state supposedly operating in the interest of all. However, it should be realized that any situation in which the state is dictating how to use resources implies logically that they are also dictating how not to use resources. We’ve grown accustomed to fighting the communist infiltration in America when it has manifested itself in the form of redistribution schemes. We should be equally vigilant in our efforts to fight communism when it presents itself in the form of state mandated limits in the use of private resources.

There is no just reason for government to deny people the right to harvest hemp.

In particular, we’ve allowed a once strong American industry to be entirely banished for no other reason than that it relies on a substance similar to that of a drug. I’m speaking of course of hemp. CNN reports that a group of farmers is suing the DEA over this very issue:

The feds call industrial hemp a controlled substance — the same as pot, heroin, LSD — but advocates say a sober analysis reveals a harmless, renewable cash crop with thousands of applications that are good for the environment.

Two North Dakota farmers are taking that argument to federal court, where a November 14 hearing is scheduled in a lawsuit to determine if the Drug Enforcement Administration is stifling the farmers’ efforts to grow industrial hemp. The DEA says it’s merely enforcing the law.

Marijuana and industrial hemp are members of the Cannabis sativa L. species and have similar characteristics. One major difference: Hemp won’t get you high. Hemp contains only traces of delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the compound that gets pot smokers stoned. However, the Controlled Substances Act makes little distinction, banning the species almost outright.

The DEA has responded by claiming they are just following the law and that they have no say in the matter. This position seems correct, and thus I do not believe this lawsuit is the proper strategy. It is, however, based on sound free market principles. There is no just reason for government to deny people the right to harvest hemp. The legislature should act and remove these ill-thought out restrictions. I need not even address some of the questionable assumptions and practices behind the government drug war, for this is not a drug and the two issues should be entirely separate.

I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to point out some sloppy journalism on the part of CNN. In a blurb designed to promote the benefits of hemp (Which aren’t relevant, as it shouldn’t be incumbent upon citizens to convince government of the usefulness of their product in order to get permission to produce it. They shouldn’t have to ask for permission in the first place.), the article repeats the oft stated canard that the Constitution uses hemp paper. This is not so, as the Constitution is printed on animal skin parchment which was used for all important documents at the time. I’m digressing, but I wanted to draw attention to the media’s tendency to accept as fact information presented from agenda organizations while this example was right in front of me.

To me, this issue boils down simply to this: there is no sound conservative principle justifying government regulation of hemp. In fact, such regulation is a relatively recent development, as hemp growth was encouraged to help the war effort during WWII. Let’s set aside any connections to the war on drugs - regardless of ones position on the issue - and look simply at the merits of this issue, which should lead to only one conclusion: that this is yet another area in which government has overextended its authority.

But remember folks, Bush is the divisive one who has coarsened the political discourse.

So we all know by now that one of the favorite tactics of the left, when they can’t get their way, is to accuse everyone else of being racists. This strategy has been used heavily over the many immigration debates. Irving, Texas, which has dared to enforce immigration laws, is now seeing just this sort of dishonest intimidation campaign being waged against its law enforcement officials.

Irving, TX Criminal Immigrant Program Called Racist - Corruption Chronicles

A Texas city?s program to get rid of criminal immigrants has led to more than 1,600 deportations and furious Latino rights advocates will rally at City Hall this weekend to block further implementation because they say the measure is racist and discriminatory.

Irving?s Criminal Alien Program simply checks the immigration status of anyone arrested within city limits. Those found to be in the country illegally are turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and eventually deported for violating federal immigration laws.

…Now illegal immigration advocates, who initially supported the effective program, are playing the race card. They claim that police officers are bigots who racially profile suspects and that all immigrants?legal and illegal alike?now live in fear.

So a program that targets all criminals for immigration status checks is racist. Logic is wasted on these people. One thing is clear though, if this program has them this upset it must be working. Every city should adopt this common sense strategy.

A Dallas man has been forced by criminals to use deadly force to defend himself and his livelihood on two separate occasions in three weeks.

Dallas business owner kills 2 intruders in 3 weeks

For the second time in three weeks, the owner of a machine shop fatally shot an intruder who had broken into his business, police said.

James Walton fired a shotgun Sunday at a man inside Able Walton Machine & Welding, police said. Walton, who lives upstairs from the shop, was alerted to the intruder’s presence by a motion sensor system.

“He’s got a right to defend his property,” Dallas police Sgt. Gene Reyes said. “What gives a stranger the right to go in and vandalize or burglarize his business? He’s within every legal right to do this.”

. . .Walton also shot and wounded a second man Sunday outside of the shop. Police said the man escaped, but was eventually detained for questioning.

. . .About three weeks ago, Walton shot and killed Raul Laureles when Laureles was climbing through a pried-open window of the business, police said. That incident also was referred to a grand jury.

Let’s hope the grand jury doesn’t do anything stupid. Anyway, since there’s nothing so repugnant to a liberal as seeing a private citizen engage in self defense (as that negates the need for the state to take power and act on your behalf), a moonbat reporter took it upon herself to ambush the 70-year old Walton, asking if he was “trigger happy” and wanted to “shoot to kill.” Being a normal human being who doesn’t want to have to harm people, but will if he must, Walton was reduced to tears. You can see the despicable video here (Edit: Video apparently had to be removed). The reporter gal has been suspended.

Mr. Walton had every right to take the action he did. John Locke explained in his Second Treatise of Government why a man has a right to defend himself with deadly force under these circumstances (emphasis mine):

[It is] lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he please, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else. And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i.e. kill him if I can, for to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.

Democrats got their wish: Turkey is moving to start operations in northern Iraq.

The Turkish parliament Wednesday authorized cross-border military operations into northern Iraq to combat Kurdish separatist rebels as world leaders implored Turkey to delay any action.

In the hours before the parliament voted by a gaping margin of 507 to 19 to give Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan permission to launch strikes any time over the next year, Iraqi and NATO officials made a flurry of cautionary, last-minute telephone calls to the country’s top leaders.

Democrats, who not long ago routinely complained that the Bush administration needs to return to realism, have decided that it’s more important to stand on principle over an issue that affects absolutely no one still alive than to ensure victory in Iraq. Of course, neither realist nor idealistic foreign policy should dominate at all times regardless of the issue. But democrats have managed to be on the wrong side of that debate on almost every issue. They wrongly think we can contain Islamic Jihad by making concessions to thuggish dictators, but when it comes to a genocide that happened 100 years ago, idealism is more important than any impact their stance has on current world affairs. Ludicrous.