The Unrepentant Individual

...just hanging around until Dec 21, 2012


April 5, 2007


Interview — Blogging vs. Pamphleteering

One of the regular readers over at The Liberty Papers is doing a college paper on the similarities between bloggers & pamphleteers. He was looking for an expert to interview, and when he couldn’t find one, he contacted me. With his permission, I’m posting his questions and my answers below the fold.

—————————————————————————

Read more of this entry… »

Posted By: Brad Warbiany @ 5:34 pm || Permalink || Comments Off || Trackback URL || Categories: Blogging, Books, Education, Internet, Libertarianism, Media, Politics


March 17, 2007


How Did The Polacks Save Their Ailing Lace Industry?

By making thongs!

“Lace wasn’t selling in the quantities it once did, and the tradition was starting to slowly disappear,” says Malgorzata Stanaszek, co-owner of KONI-art, the company that stitches the lingerie. “Our friend then said, as a half-joke, ‘Why don’t you make thongs? They’re popular now.’”

Stanaszek, 32, recruited her mother and two sisters into the business, and they started stitching the thongs and selling them on the Internet in 2004. Now Stanaszek says she employs 65 women who work from home churning out lace panties, G-strings, thongs and bras for customers around the world. Orders come from across Europe and as far away as Japan, China, New Zealand and the United States; a Koniakow thong sells for about $20.

“Our company has a global reach,” Stanaszek says from her tiny office at the main crossroads in Koniakow’s sister village Istebna, a smattering of wooden houses lining the road that snakes along the mountain’s crest.

Yep. So much for the typical jokes about Poles. In a competitive environment, they adjust to changing desires and adapt to the times. As a descendent of Polish immigrants* to the US, fixing our reputation as dullards comes as a welcome change.

Of course, if they had it their way, the moralists in Koniakow would ensure the lace industry simply dies:

“It’s really not beautiful at all what they’re doing,” said Joanna Pielka, an elderly woman on her way to church in Istebna. “Do there have to be so many holes?”

Stanaszek says some older lace makers remain opposed. “There is a small group of people that is against the underwear, and they will remain that way,” she said.

Of course, they are fighting against this development even though it’s increasing their own sales of non-sexy lace:

Publicity about the thongs has benefited older lace makers too, says Tadeusz Ludzki, who owns a gift shop in Koniakow.

“Some older woman are happy too … because the traditional lace items are also selling better,” Ludzki says. “More tourists come and so more of the traditional items also sell.”

The undie-makers are undeterred, though. In a quote sure to make a libertarian’s heart all a’flutter:

“There’s no shame in doing this. Shame would be stealing,” she said. “This is work.”

Amen. Voluntary exchange of goods for money. Good for you.

(To support these brave women, you can find them at Koni-Art USA.)

Read more of this entry… »

Posted By: Brad Warbiany @ 10:59 am || Permalink || Comments (3) || Trackback URL || Categories: Economics, Libertarianism


March 12, 2007


Cigar Clubs

Back when I was living in Lake Forest, California, right around the corner was a place called Club Aficionado (caution on the link, it doesn’t like Firefox. Jerks). I went in there one day to check them out, and realized it wasn’t only a cigar store, it was a private club. In the back, they had a full bar, tables, big-screen TV, etc. They were telling me all about the local big-wigs who were members. I thought about it, figured out how much it cost to be a member, and decided I could make much better use of the money.

Since then, I’ve visited another local cigar club called Red Cloud. My future brother-in-law is a member, so the last time I was in California we stopped off for a smoke and a couple games of chess in the lounge. At the time, I started wondering if a business like this would make sense here in Georgia. After all, I’m in a relatively affluent area where something like this might give big-wigs a chance to hobnob with each other.

But then I realized a crucial difference between Georgia and California. In Georgia, it’s not illegal to smoke in public establishments. Thus, for California to even have a cigar bar, they must create a private club in which to enclose it.

Now, as my brother-in-law pointed out, they’re not just selling a place to smoke a cigar. They’re selling a bit of exclusivity. After all, we were there on a Saturday night at 9 PM, and the place was only mildly crowded. If you’re like me, and you like to sit at a bar and have a drink without the constant smash of people running into you, reaching over you, and generally invading your personal space, it makes a lot of sense. And because it’s a paid membership, there is a vested interest in making sure that your needs are catered to. Which is nice.

But when I had thought initially about the idea of a place like this opening in Georgia, I thought only of the benefits of private membership. I hadn’t considered the fact that private membership would be a legal necessity for the place to even exist. Could a place like this live outside of the legal constructs that California imposed? After all, I might be willing to spend a few hundred bucks a year for a membership to a nice private cigar bar, if it was the only place I could smoke a cigar. But I wouldn’t be willing to do so if there were free cigar bars around, which is something that doesn’t exist in California.

What this brings up is a nice example of the Bootlegger and the Baptist (also see this excellent Econtalk podcast with Bruce). This economic theory described by Bruce Yandle suggests that while a southern Baptist might fight to stop Sunday sales of alcohol in order to assuage his conscience, there is an economic benefit to the bootlegger who fills the market niche of selling alcohol illegally on Sundays at a very high profit. The bootlegger and the baptist aren’t working together, but they exist in a mutually beneficial arrangement (hurting only the consumer).

I think this is the same situation. In California, the nanny statists have decided that private property is public, and thus they can stop us from smoking to protect us from ourselves. This, though, hasn’t stopped the desire of individuals to go out and have a drink and a cigar. So a secondary industry springs up, charging people membership fees in order to legitimize their right to have a cigar in “public”. The nanny statists are happy (well, not as happy as they would be if they stopped it completely). The owners of the cigar clubs are happy, because they’re charging several hundred of dollars a year (over a thousand for a storage locker for your smokes) in order for the privilege of smoking in their establishment. The only people hurt, as is usually the case, is the consumer, who ends up spending a lot of money or losing his freedom.

The cigar club that we went to was a very nice place. I got to sit in a nice, comfy, high-backed leather chair, and proceed to beat the pants off my brother-in-law in chess (twice, actually). All the while I was smoking a very fine cigar and drinking an Arrogant Bastard. All in all, it was quite an enjoyable hour as we killed time before heading to a poker game. In fact, it’s someplace that I might consider joining if I lived there and thought I’d use it enough. But let’s remember exactly why it exists: because government took away freedom.

Posted By: Brad Warbiany @ 10:36 pm || Permalink || Comments (6) || Trackback URL || Categories: Economics, Libertarianism, Ponderings


February 13, 2007


Yeah, Put Him Behind Bars

Connecticut man busted twice for drugs

A Danbury man’s plans to bail himself out after a drug bust went more than a bit awry over the weekend. State police said that a small safe that Nakia Davis, 32, had his aunt bring in to the Southbury barracks not only contained $5,000 in cash for bail, but also drug paraphernalia and 16 grams of cocaine, leading to more charges.

Davis had been pulled over for speeding on Interstate 84 in Southbury. With the help of a police dog, marijuana was seized from the car, and police found 43 baggies of cocaine weighing 48 grams when they patted Davis down, police said.

Davis arranged for his aunt to bring a small safe which Davis claimed contained money for his bail.

State police said when Davis’ aunt opened the safe in front of a state police trooper, inside was the cash, but also drug paraphernalia and 16 grams of cocaine.

As I’ve pointed out before, I’m against the War on (Some) Drugs. But this guy probably needs to be behind bars on charges of general stupidity.

Posted By: Brad Warbiany @ 8:17 pm || Permalink || Comments (5) || Trackback URL || Categories: Libertarianism, News, Snark


February 10, 2007


Georgia Expands Sunday Sales Law

Well, it’s another Saturday here in Atlanta, so I need to make some decisions. The only beer I have in the house is homebrew. I’ve got plenty, but I need to decide whether I want to pick up some commercial beer as well. Since it’s Atlanta, though, I don’t need to decide whether I want to do this today, I need to decide for today AND tomorrow, because the Georgia Legislature is beholden to the Religious Right, and has made Sunday sales of alcohol illegal.

Well, as I’ve pointed out before, help is on the way. A bill was introduced to legalize the Sunday sales of beer and wine. But it began to take fire from liquor distributors who were legitimately upset that liquor wasn’t included, only beer and wine. Well, they’ve made some changes, and the law got even better.

Sen. Seth Harp, R-Midland, said the plans were designed to address criticisms of a bill he previously had introduced, which would have let communities decide whether to legalize the take-home sale of beer and wine on Sundays.

The new proposals would add liquor sales to the plan’s options and give communities the choice of allowing alcohol sales only after noon — when church services traditionally end. An unusual coalition of religious conservatives and liquor distributors had lined up against Harp’s original bill.

Representatives of at least some of those liquor groups say they now support the effort.
‘‘Now that the bill includes spirits, it is the right bill for Georgia,’’ said Jay Hibbard, a vice president with the Distilled Spirits Council of the U.S. ‘‘The overwhelming majority of Georgians support Sunday sales, and it’s going to allow that overwhelming majority the opportunity to decide for themselves.’’

While I’m ideologically opposed to the noon restriction, it doesn’t seem onerous enough to fight over. After all, on the East Coast football doesn’t start until 1 PM, so it’s not like those folks out west who have to be ready by 10 AM. But the fact that they’re opening this to liquor makes things very good, because most of the really good, hard to find beers and wines aren’t available at grocery stores. Without the ability to sell liquor, it’s unclear whether it would have made financial sense for the dedicated liquor stores to be open.

But, alas, it’s still going to be a tough fight, against people who have nothing better to do than try to meddle in our lives to assuage their own moral concerns. Unfortunately, that includes the governor:

‘‘We obviously will still oppose the bill, obviously for the same reasons,’’ said Sadie Fields, director of the Georgia Christian Alliance. ‘‘I grew up in an era when everything was closed on Sunday — now we’ve encroached on the day and turned it into just another day.’’ Fields said she appreciated Harp ‘‘recognizing that part of the Sabbath when people are in church,’’ but that the noon option doesn’t change her mind on the plan.

Supporters of Sunday sales still have a lot of work to do if the plan is to be approved by the Legislature this year. Even if it clears both chambers, Gov. Sonny Perdue, who says he does not drink alcohol, has said it would take ‘‘a lot of persuasion’’ for him to sign it.

I challenge the Georgia legislature to overwhelmingly pass this bill. I want it to show up on Sonny’s desk with the knowledge that he’ll look like the jerk if he vetoes it. A 55%-45% vote in the legislature gives him far too much political cover to veto a bill that 80% of metro Atlanta residents and 68% of the statewide population want to see passed. If this comes to Sonny’s desk after a 70% vote, though, and he vetoes the bill, it will show the state of Georgia that he’s acting purely at the behest of the middle-Georgia religious conservatives, folks that wouldn’t be forced to legalize the sales in their own communities anyway.

Georgia, it’s time to join the 21st Century.

Posted By: Brad Warbiany @ 10:45 am || Permalink || Comments (2) || Trackback URL || Categories: Beer, Libertarianism, Politics, Religion


February 4, 2007


Cut Withholding To Create Libertarians

Tonight, the wife and I were working out our taxes using TurboTax. Our taxes aren’t very complex, so I don’t feel the need to employ too much help to understand the byzantine tax code we live under.

Well, I am usually not very good at saving money for rainy days, so I tend to manage my finances to ensure a refund at the end of the year. I still check each time to see how much ends up getting paid to the government. This year, adding in the employer contribution to SS and Medicare, it works out to a pretty sizable 5-figure number. Now, I’m not a rich man. While I make a pretty decent income, my net worth is barely positive. Yet I pay taxes like a rich man, and it makes me angry every year.

My wife, on the other hand, doesn’t have the same level of anger. She looks at our refund (about $2K this year), and thinks “oh well, at least we didn’t have to pay!” We’re planning a trip to Mexico, and she sees this refund as the quick and easy way to pay for the trip. We get $2K back on a total payment of $25K+, and she’s happy about it.

So here’s an idea for all of you readers, or at least those who are married folks who don’t have spouses of libertarian bent. Start claiming too many dependents on your W-4. Work it out so you owe every year. It won’t take long before your spouse is complaining about taxes, when he/she is scrambling to find $2K instead of trying to figure out how to spend the $2K the benevolent government is sending you.

Posted By: Brad Warbiany @ 12:24 am || Permalink || Comments (4) || Trackback URL || Categories: Libertarianism, Personal Life, Taxes


January 13, 2007


New Libertarian Social News Site

Many of you are familiar with Digg.com, a news aggregator site where the actions of the community of readers propel “worthy” stories ahead of the rest. Essentially, they’re designed to separate the wheat from the chaff. Unfortunately, Digg has some inherent biases and a herd mentality that usually forces smaller blogs and news items, despite their worth, to be overlooked. That being said, I have submitted stories there, because free advertising doesn’t have to be incredibly effective to still be worthwhile.

Recently a new site devoted to the libertarian side of the internet has opened. Liberty Loop operates on the same sort of principle as Digg, but the content is mostly libertarian-oriented. It’s also a new site, so submitted stories are more able to rise to the top and be seen than on the larger sites, and based on it’s libertarian theme, the stories are likely to be seen by their true target audience. Check it out, I’ve been browsing a bit already and it looks like there’s some good content over there.

Hat Tip: Hit & Run

Posted By: Brad Warbiany @ 10:11 am || Permalink || Comments (3) || Trackback URL || Categories: Around The 'Sphere, Blogging, Internet, Libertarianism, Technology


January 11, 2007


New Blue Law in Georgia

In a surprising turn, new legislation in Georgia has made it illegal to sell meat on Fridays during Lent. While it has been seen as an unchangeable practice for years to ban Sunday sales of alcohol, Georgia has now become the first state to expand the practice to non-alcohol goods.

The move is a surprise to most people, both in Georgia and around the country. No other states have suggested plans to follow suit, but analysts expect a ripple throughout the South as other evangelical-dominated states consider similar legislation.

The justification for the law, by the legislators, seems unclear. Most have taken a silent approach when asked, but it is largely thought that a small minority of Christians convinced Georgia’s legislators that it was their role to enforce dietary rules of religious observance. Pastor Bobby Smith, of the New Life Church of Atlanta, did suggest that the rules were not intended to bind people to religious observance, but purely as a restriction of commerce:

“I’m not saying that people can’t eat meat on Fridays during Lent,” Smith said, “I just think that we as a society should not be encouraging it. If they want to buy their meat on Thursday, and eat it on Friday, that’s just fine. This isn’t an infringement on anyone’s rights. After all, we’re not making it illegal every day during Lent, just on Fridays. But America was founded on Christian ideals, and I think we should respect the Lord’s wishes on our observance of his laws.”

The new law has drawn ire from many sides. The ACLU issued a joint statement with the American Atheists, threatening lawsuits based on the separation of church and state. Most alcohol-related blue laws have survived such challenges based on the 21st Amendment, but it’s unclear whether the measure will have other legal cover. One Georgia legislator, though, speaking on condition of anonymity, suggested that the court may be the only option to fight this law:

“We’ve learned from the unpopularity of blue laws that very few people are in favor of the law. However, it’s not enough of an imposition that they take the energy to fight the law. The supporters, however, are rabid, and will withhold their vote, as a group, from any politician who endorses the end of blue laws.”

Legal fights are expected to take years. In the meantime, however, Georgia shoppers should hope they remember to buy their meat on Thursday.

Read more of this entry… »

Posted By: Brad Warbiany @ 8:12 pm || Permalink || Comments (4) || Trackback URL || Categories: Beer, Humor, Libertarianism, Politics


January 9, 2007


How About A Charity Tax Credit?

I was thinking about this yesterday. Our elected officials love to use money to help the “less fortunate”. They are either “compassionate conservatives” or “progressive”, both of which believe that rich people’s money should be redistributed to poor people.

So how much hypocrisy can we point out if we suggest that in addition to excluding charitable giving from taxable income, we also offer a 25% tax credit for it?

Think of it this way. Let’s assume that the only deduction allowed by law is for charitable giving, and $100,000 of income is in a 30% tax bracket, while $30,000 income is in a 10% tax bracket.

So the guy with the $100K income, assuming no charitable giving, owes $30K in taxes to the government. If he gives $10K to a charity, his taxable income drops to $90K, making his tax bill $27K. Obviously he hasn’t come out “ahead” on the deal, because he’s given $10K to save $3K in taxes.

The guy with $30K owes $3K in taxes. Likewise, the $30K person decides to tithe 10% to his church, or $3K. In doing so, he saves $300, so his tax bill is $2700 instead. Again, he hasn’t come out ahead, because he’s given $3K to save $300.

However, because the richer person is in a higher tax bracket, he gets a greater tax reduction per dollar donated than a poorer person. He reduced his taxes by 30% per dollar he donates, while the poorer person only reduces his taxes by 10% per dollar. What if we added a 25% tax credit (on top of the exclusion of donations from taxable income), in order to help spur on charitable giving? (Note, I’d make the tax credit only apply until you get to $0 taxes paid, not allow you to get a refund for taxes never paid).

So in the first scenario, the rich person donates $10K and thus reduces his tax burden by $5500. Again, he’s still not coming out ahead, but instead of owing $27K in taxes, he owes $24,500. Essentially, by adding a tax credit, he gets a benefit as if he had donated a little over $19K. So from a tax perspective, it’s like slightly less than doubling his donation.

In the second scenario, though, the person who donates $3K reduces his tax burden by $1050, making his final tax burden $1950 instead of $2700. Again, he hasn’t come out ahead, because he donated $3000 to save $1050. But his $3K donation has the same effect on his tax burden as if he had donated $10,500, making the effect on his tax burden of more than tripling his donation.

To make a change like this encourages charitable giving, while giving lower income people greater tax reduction per dollar donated than higher income people. To elected officials who like to play God with our paychecks, while “helping the poor”, this would make a lot of sense.

If our elected officials really wanted to encourage charitable giving, which many of us outside of Congress would argue is much more effective at helping people than letting government have the money, we could get a lot of people in Congress to sign on to this proposal. However, I doubt it will happen. I think our elected officials believe that all money for good purposes should flow through Congress, and the idea of interrupting their own revenue stream in favor of private charity goes against everything they stand for. After all, they’re more interested in power and control than results, as we’ve seen from pretty much every government program ever designed.

Read more of this entry… »

Posted By: Brad Warbiany @ 11:57 am || Permalink || Comments Off || Trackback URL || Categories: Libertarianism, Politics, Ponderings, Taxes


January 7, 2007


Another Criminal Off The Streets

Brothel
Brothel in High-Dollar Atlanta Suburb Busted

For years, Lisa Ann Taylor’s neighbors suspected something was going on behind the doors of her white-columned, million-dollar mansion in one of suburban Atlanta’s most exclusive neighborhoods.

Scantily clad women were seen posing for photos in the driveway. Cars and trucks came and went at all hours. And there were loud parties.

Despite repeated calls to police about the suspicious goings-on, there was no evidence of a crime. That is, until six weeks ago, when authorities were tipped off to a Web site showing Taylor — a former Penthouse Pet of the Month — sprawled topless on an ottoman and brazenly advertising services ranging from 300-dollar one-hour photo shoots to “dream dates” that included a one-hour “show.”

Police raided the red-brick mansion Wednesday and found what they described as a high-class brothel and the headquarters of a call-girl ring whose customers received favors limited only by their imaginations and their ability to pay.

Yay! The morals of Atlanta are safe! No more dirty hot former models crawling the back alleys high-end real estate looking to corrupt our morals engage in a victimless consensual sex act for money.

Posted By: Brad Warbiany @ 10:08 pm || Permalink || Comments Off || Trackback URL || Categories: Libertarianism, News


December 20, 2006


Interesting Quote

“One has to be really well read to debate a libertarian.”

Posted By: Brad Warbiany @ 9:55 am || Permalink || Comments Off || Trackback URL || Categories: Around The 'Sphere, Libertarianism


December 11, 2006


“We Need” Doesn’t Obligate The Government

Over on my War On Christmas Blog post, I’ve gotten some interesting comments and trackbacks. One trackback came from a Help Save Christmas, a blog that I’m still unsure whether it’s satirical or not. Another was from a definitely-satirical War On Christmas blog. My suggestion to start one was not entirely original, it seems.

But one comment just arrived that I thought needed a response:

I agree with that – We need a national mid-winter, Non-Secular Holiday.

Below is my annual holiday rant – Happy Holidays

Consider this – After Rome took over Christianity it was natural that one of the most important Roman feast days would evolve into the most important Christian holiday – December 25th.

Just four day before is the Winter Solstice, Dec 21st. In the northern hemisphere the shortest day and longest night of the year. This is an occasion that has been celebrated since prehistoric times. It is a marker on the Celestial Calendar that is shared by all of us on this Earth.

Why not shake out this holiday into two days – Separate the religious from the Secular – The 25th will be the religious day of observance, Christians would celebrate it as they like, free from the diluting influences us infidels – and, of course, it would continue to be called Christmas.

December 21st could be the day of celebration for everyone. This has always been known as Yule or Yuletide – it is an ancient name for the season.

We need is a National Holiday for all of us at this time of the year.

You know what, I’ve got absolutely nothing against celebrating Yuletide. But why do we need a National Holiday? If you’re going to wait around for our Congressmen to do something likely to piss off the 85% Christian population, you’re going to be worm food by the time it happens.

Why not just start celebrating it yourself, with your friends. Maybe start an online movement to celebrate Yuletide. Get this thing off the ground yourself. Don’t wait for the government to “create” a holiday that you say has been celebrated since prehistoric times. Don’t act as if you can’t celebrate Yuletide unless the government makes it a holiday, just start doing it.

Christmas didn’t become a Federal Holiday in America until 1870. You may have an uphill battle to get Yuletide declared a holiday by the government, BUT THAT DOESN’T STOP YOU FROM CELEBRATING IT.

Posted By: Brad Warbiany @ 8:13 am || Permalink || Comments Off || Trackback URL || Categories: Libertarianism, Ponderings, Religion


December 4, 2006


NASA To Establish Permanent Moon Base

I like it. It’s not fast enough for my taste, but it’s a good start.

NASA says it will set up polar moon camp

NASA may be going to the same old moon with a ship that looks a lot like a 1960s Apollo capsule, but the space agency said Monday that it’s going to do something dramatically different this time: Stay there.

Unveiling the agency’s bold plan for a return to the moon, NASA said it will establish an international base camp on one of the moon’s poles, permanently staffing it by 2024, four years after astronauts land there.

The key decision for NASA in its planning was whether to have a permanent settlement, and that drove other decisions, Dale said. Going with a permanent base was an outcome of NASA asking itself and more than 1,000 experts from 14 nations the questions: “Why are we returning to the moon and what we plan to do when we get there?”

Two key themes, according to NASA, were to prepare for future exploration, with Mars the next stop, and expansion of human civilization. Both NASA’s science and engineering communities agreed on a permanent outpost, an agreement rare for two conflicting sides of the agency, Horowitz said.

They’ve got the right idea. Getting off this rock is one of the most important things I can see in humanity’s future (and if it happens quickly enough, my own). But something tells me that we can do this faster.

At least, I don’t think “we” in the governmental sense can do it faster, but that “we” in the capitalist sense can do it faster. All you need are the right incentives. Go there, live long enough, and you own the moon. That sounds like a good enough incentive, if you ask me :-D

NASA couldn’t be reached for comment on this proposal.

NASA
Free market? We can’t hear you… LALALALALLALA! WE CAN’T HEAR YOU LALALALALA!!!”


JRB Technology linked with NASA To Establish Permanent Moon Base
A Stitch in Haste linked with Moondoggle Alpha (or "Pork: 1999")
Posted By: Brad Warbiany @ 8:02 pm || Permalink || Comments (3) || Trackback URL || Categories: Libertarianism, News, Science



Bong Hits 4 Jesus

U.S. court to decide “Bong hits 4 Jesus” banner case

The U.S. Supreme Court said on Friday it would decide whether a high school principal violated a student’s free-speech rights by suspending him for unfurling a banner that read “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”.

Student Joseph Frederick says the banner’s language was designed to be meaningless and funny in an effort to get on television as the Winter Olympic torch relay passed by the school in Juneau, Alaska, in January 2002.

But school officials say the phrase “bong hits” refers to smoking marijuana. Principal Deborah Morse suspended Frederick for 10 days because she said the banner advocates or promotes illegal drug use in violation of school policy.

Frederick, 18, had been standing on a public sidewalk across the street from the school when Morse grabbed his banner and crumpled it. Students had been allowed to skip class to watch the relay.

A few things are clear. First, this kid knows that “bong hits” is not exactly meaningless. Granted, “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” is a bit silly and meaningless, but it is at least drug-related. But again, he was on a public sidewalk, and I don’t see any reason the school can punish him for this.

There is one key question here, though, which IMHO this case hinges upon:

Frederick’s lawyer, Douglas Mertz, said schools cannot punish students for displaying messages off school property at events that are not sponsored or supervised by the school.

Now, a school-sanctioned or school-supervised event may be governed by the school’s code of conduct, even if it’s not on school property. The school did allow students to skip their classes to be a part of this event, but the question is whether or not it could be considered “sponsored or supervised by the school”.

I would think it’s not. It appears that if they were allowing students to “skip class” to attend this event, that it was more of an understanding that it was not a school event, but that if students chose to attend, it wouldn’t result in punishment for truancy. That, coupled with the fact that the student wasn’t on school property, is enough to tilt my opinion in this one. Hopefully the Court will agree.

Posted By: Brad Warbiany @ 10:50 am || Permalink || Comments (3) || Trackback URL || Categories: Constitution, Education, Libertarianism, News


November 29, 2006


0 For 638 — Sounds Like Our Government!

638 Ways to Kill Fidel Castro

The man whom the CIA has tried to despatch with everything from a bacteria-infected hankie to an aerosol filled with LSD, is still around and should be blowing out the 80 candles on his cake on December 2, writes the Guardian newspaper.

Reviewing the film shown by British TV Channel Four Tuesday evening about the US government’s 638 failed plots to kill Fidel Castro, the Guardian UK says it comes at a timely moment.

At a time when US government officials speculate about the Cuban leader´s health situation, this film deals on the attempts on the life of Fidel Castro, either directly organized by the CIA or their many proxies, registered by retired general Fabian Escalante in his book 638 Maneras de Matar a Castro (638 Ways to Kill Castro).

I’ve got a canned response for people when they ask me about something that they think the government should be doing.

“I don’t trust them to deliver the mail, you think they can pull this [whatever they're proposing] off?”

How do you expect government to assassinate a foreign head of state, when it takes 27 bureaucrats to sign the appropriate forms before a government union employee can tie his shoes? These are the people you want to trust your retirement and healthcare to?

Posted By: Brad Warbiany @ 11:06 pm || Permalink || Comments (2) || Trackback URL || Categories: Libertarianism, News, Pop Culture, Snark

« Previous PageNext Page »