I run great risk of failing.
It may be that I shall encounter ruin
where I look for reputation and a career of honor.
The chances are perhaps more in favour of ruin than of success.
But, whatever may be the chances,
I shall go on as long as
any means of carrying on the fight are at my disposal.
Anthony Trollope
The Oscars and Glen Campbell's "I'm Not Gonna Miss You"
To be honest, I don't recall the last time I've been to a movie theater; it's been years. I've never known most of the nominees' performances, and the Oscar's show itself can be excruciating to sit through; the acceptance speeches are full of acknowledgments that bore me silly, and the occasional leftist political nonsense is enough to make me turn the TV off. I did have a sentimental favorite, though, in the Best Song category: Glen Campbell's tune from his recent autobiographical film which focuses on his career-ending Alzheimer's. Since Glen was unable to perform his song in person, the family asked Tim McGraw (whose song "My Little Girl" is a personal favorite) to substitute. The intellectual property rights issue is affecting relevant videos on Youtube; when an authorized video is available, I'll embed it. I first read a Billboard post on tonight's story whose embedded video was disabled by the IP police; I have seen one listenable copy of the performance off someone's TV, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was also disabled by the time the reader sees my post.
Unfortunately, Glen's song didn't win the Oscar; that went to John Legend's "Glory" from the Selma movie.
Tweet of the Day
It's time to abolish the FCC. The Statist power grab using pushing-on-a-string, exaggerated "net neutrality" fears will deter innovation.
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) February 23, 2015
Image of the Day |
| Muslims host a ring of peace outside Oslo synagogue AP photo via The Telegraph |
 |
| Via Rand Paul |
 |
| Sophie Scholl was part of the domestic anti-Nazi resistance and beheaded by the regime. For more, see here. |
 |
| Via Independent Institute |
HT: Don Boudreaux of Cafe Hayek. I have repeatedly opposed "net neutrality" (as if you didn't notice my widget on the blog over the last several weeks appearing in the top right corner). This is basically dysfunctional government regulation in search of a problem; in fact, we have had an open Internet without incompetent government bureaucrats freezing innovation through feckless pushing-on-a-string regulation, and Hazlett points out in this WSJ op-ed this is not the first time we've seen an attempt by competitors to try to control private companies; back during the Clinton Administration, companies were trying to persuade the government to give them regulated access to cable lines: the same fear-mongering garbage about cable companies using their "monopoly" privilege to promote anti-competitive services at a price. (In fact, the issue has more to do with generic issues of bandwidth capacity and very large file transfers--like streaming video. The network tried to cope with say exploding demand for streaming video within its hardware capacity. It is concerns with efficiently handling blobs of content which has nothing to do their origin or the nature of their content.) Hazlett then points out that the complaints of cable operator preferences are all but nonexistent--and primarily anecdotal in nature. He notes that the complaint against Metro PCS, whiched has offered an inexpensive "all you care to use" access of data, voice, and text: with an exception for streaming video because of limited capacity. Metro PCS had one exception for streaming content: Google's Youtube videos. This had nothing to do with payola; Google provided a proprietary compression technology which reduced the impact of its videos on Metro PCS' network. I have no doubt if other content providers provided similar technology, Metro PCS would have provided likewise access. But it was hardly "discriminatory"; it initially excluded all streaming video for resource reasons. In fact, Hazlett additionally points out that the FCC isn't needed to mitigate anti-competitive fears since the government already has antitrust laws on the books.
Incidentally, I know the very first thing the net neutrality fascists argue is that anyone opposing their Statist agenda is being paid off by the broadband industry. I am hardly a shill for the cable industry; in fact, for years in the 2000's, I never subscribed to cable (if anything, a major cable company still owes me money from my return of equipment when I moved from Maryland a year ago); I have never worked for or invested in a cable provider; I've never been contacted by a cable provider concerning my stance, and I've never gotten so much as a penny from them. My opposition is fully based on and consistent with my pro-liberty perspective, and a large percentage of libertarians (including all the sources I frequently reference in general on liberty issues) express similar skepticism of State involvement with the Internet.
Guest Post Comment: Washington State Florist
Okay, how come you guys don't realize that the CURRENT case is that a Washington State judge has ruled against Stutzman? I posted a commentary on that in my Friday post.
Dondero is correct on the slavery analogy. A transaction from a liberty perspective is voluntary. As I pointed out in my post, Stutzman simply declined the opportunity to do the floral arrangement for a "gay wedding". Does that mean if a local business declines to carry suits in my size, I can sue them for "discrimination"? Why can't Stutzman say that she specializes in traditional wedding arrangements? If gays and "progressives" can boycott Stutzman because they consider her a "homophobe" or disagree with her religious beliefs, why doesn't Stutzman have the commensurate right to refuse business from them?
The first commentator is not pro-liberty on first principles alone. If I'm a business owner, I reserve the right not to transact with you--my right does not depend on whether the Statist judge respects my spoken or unspoken reasons. Stutzman is acting from religious conviction; isn't it amazing that the government accepts conscientious objections to wartime service but not for floral arrangements that compromise the concept of traditional marriage?
Facebook Corner
(IPI). A new proposal would place a penny-per-ounce excise tax on high-sugar beverages in Illinois.
It's morally outrageous to charge anything of or beyond a uniform low consumption tax simply to punish people making certain politically unpopular purchases offending some special-interest group or shifting a tax burden to the target group. These are particularly obnoxious because the taxes are highly regressive in nature, e.g., many lower-income people make those purchase decisions. I have no dog in this fight because I don't drink sugary drinks or smoke--but the tax policies are intrinsically unjust.
and I will stock up on Diet Coke in Mo. and In. when I go buy my smokes!!!
did they change the law to make it more of a crimminal offense for going to missouri to get cigarettes?
Well, as to the Statist commenter, there's a use tax which you would likely have to pay on your state return. What are you going to do--put up a roadblock into Illinois searching for a load of cigarettes? It would be more expensive than it's worth. As for me, the savings probably wouldn't be worth the gas and my time to save a few pennies. Are Chicago cops just as likely to kill someone for selling allegedly untaxed cigarettes as in NYC? I wouldn't doubt it could happen. For health reasons, I don't drink sugary drinks, but I find it morally reprehensible to shift the tax burden to people making that decision.
(IPI). Agency fees are wrong because they force people to pay for services they may not want or find beneficial, and compel people to pay for union political speech, in violation of their First Amendment rights
Isn't that statement true about taxes? People are forced to pay for services all the time that they do not want or find beneficial.
Apples and oranges. The government is a monopoly that in theory is justified for limited purposes like protecting individual rights, common defense, etc. If and when government goes beyond its legitimate mandate, it risks rebellion and/or noncompliance. To a limited extent, we have the right to migrate, e.g., to another locality, state or country, or can operate on the grey/black market (e.g., IPI's recent pieces on cigarette smuggling).
The problem here is that union monopolies are empowered by the government monopoly. Most pro-liberty people accept the concept of unions as voluntary associations; 'voluntary' includes the right to opt out. Mandatory union fees are like de facto third-party taxation. Agency fees are an option of allowing unions to recoup a prorated portion of the costs of their exclusive collective bargaining privilege from non-union members. As IPI points out, unions not only are insisting on de facto taxation without representation by requiring agency fees as part of collective bargaining, they are basically exploiting non-union members for their own corrupt purposes: the agency fee option is being used to pass on costs that are not directly related to the collective bargaining process. It thus violates First Amendment rights, not to mention property rights of non-union members. As IPI has repeatedly pointed out, the union needs to persuade workers to its ends, not use corrupt legal privileges to exploit those exercising their right to work.
Choose Life
This is my favorite new song in a line of favorites of Elton John's "Blessed" and Dan Hill's "Unborn Heart": a father's unconditional love and acceptance of his preborn son. I have been known (as an amateur songwriter myself) to gently criticize certain songs, even ones like this brilliant track. I'm not completely sold on the verse "if you get stuck in the mud I'll pull you out". I would prefer to substitute something like "if you run and fall, I'll be there to pick you up". Of course, I'm never earned a dime in the music industry, and Sam Martin has written some highly successful singles for other artists. Note that he included clips of his wedding day and the ultrasound of his son's heartbeat in the video below.
Proposals
Political Cartoon
James Taylor, "Your Smiling Face". This ranks among my top three Taylor hits ("Fire and Rain", "You've Got a Friend"); I love bouncy upbeat songs (remember Katrina and the Waves' "Walking on Sunshine", Nash's "I Can See Clearly Now"?)
