I never get any trick-or-treaters, but I always carve a jack-o-lantern anyway. Here's this year's:

I can't help notice that there have been a lot of complaints about girls wearing slutty outfits like these, but because no one ever comes to the house, I have no way of evaluating slutty costume statistics.

For some background, Glenn Reynolds links James Lileks who quotes from Newsweek:

Witches are "wayward" and grammar-school pirates are "wenches." A girl isn't an Army cadet, she's a "Major Flirt," and who knew female firefighters wore fishnet stockings? Even Little Bo Peep comes with a corset, short skirt and lacy petticoat.

I kvetched about this a few years ago in my print incarnation, but for some odd reason one lone column did not stop the marketing juggernaut. I'll have to look into that.

I'm wondering, is such a thing possible?

As to what they would look like, I don't know. Earlier Glenn said he was "OK on slutty," although not for nine year olds, but would anyone say they're "OK on prudish"? Do today's kids even know what the word "prude" means?

What would a prude wear, anyway? Does anyone know?

First, let's settle the nagging question of what is a prude -- at least, from the standpoint of a clueless girl:

Dear Alice,

Hey! I am a thirteen-year-old clueless girl. I was just wondering what prude means. I mean, I am very curious about it, all my friends talk about it, and I have no clue what it means. If you could help me out, I would be very grateful. Thanks again.

-Curious and Clueless

Dear Curious and Clueless,

A prude is someone who is concerned about whether what s/he says, what s/he does, how s/he dresses, etc. is proper according to what a particular group of people thinks is "normal" or appropriate.

But there's more:

The term is often used to judge someone as sexually conservative and no fun.

Being a prude could also describe a person who doesn't know very much about sex because of a lack of experience, or who doesn't do something sexually that someone else wants her/him to do.

So what exactly would a girl who wanted to go out as a prude for Halloween wear, anyway?

I found a goofy online "Are you a prude?" test which had a couple of images:

Well, that looks downright Victorian to me. And while the Victorians were known for being prudish, today that look is considered "Gothic" -- and therefore cool and trendy!

At least as trendy as the "elegant Gothic Lolita" look:

And that's perverted right?

So it wouldn't do for a youngster who's trying for the prude look.

The test site also has this schoolgirl uniform:

I guess that's prudish, but I see a problem right away with the prudishly strict school uniform thing. While the schoolgirl uniforms might be intended to be prudish, it's a well known fact that perverts in Japan (and probably here) get turned on by them.

Which leads this sort of thing to be marketed:

It's so slutty and disgusting that it ought to be illegal, right?

Which is obviously why it's being marketed as a Halloween costume. But the problem is, it derives from prude wear!

If yesterday's prude look becomes today's slutty look, I see no way for parents to win.

I truly apologize for the fact that this became waaaay perverted.

To think that I imagined I could write a modest proposal for prudish Halloween uniforms!

I should probably stay the hell away from fashion and stick to pumpkins.

Dennis Perrin is one of those guys who isn't content merely to disagree with what people say. He has to make things up and put words in their mouth.

Accordingly, in his latest attack on Little Green Footballs, Perrin wasn't content with disagreeing or even name calling; he had to smear LGF (by putting anonymous words in his mouth by way of commenters' remarks):

The commenters never addressed my actual arguments; they simply went after me personally, telling me that I was insane, anti-American, pro-Saddam, probably a fag, or better yet, transsexual. Once they read certain key words, their brains clicked into auto-assault mode, and nothing, n-o-t-h-i-n-g, could stem or alter their spewing. At Little Green Footballs, several commenters bluntly advised me to leave the site, or they would track me down via my IP address and kill me. Probably hot air, but there are plenty of crazy people in the world, and arguing at an anti-Arab racist site wasn't worth taking the risk, however slight.

Asked to produce evidence of a death threat, Perrin stated that he wasn't threatened in his own name, but that of an alias:

What that tag was I have no idea, since I posted there maybe five years ago, two computers and three hard drives in the past.

I knew very little about that site's politics at the time, as I was relatively new to the Web, so I thought I could argue from a different perspective in good faith. Umm, right. My biggest mistake was insisting that the Palestinians are human, which is science fiction to Chazzy's tribe. Several commenters told me to leave, and one said that if I didn't, he'd track my IP address and "hunt" me down, encouraged by a few others. Now, whether this was possible or not, I don't know, but as I said in my earlier post, I figured, f*ck it, and moved on.

With a standard that sloppy, I could leave a comment in one name, then threaten it in another name, and then claim that I received an anonymous death threat, but that I can't remember who I was or who made it.

Glenn Greenwald, call in your angry vengeful Brazilian boys!

As it happens, I have been threatened with death. Right here on my own blog! And if I'm responsible for comments left at my own blog, doesn't that mean I am responsible for death threats made against me? And considering the fact that the commenters were also threatening each other, perhaps all the threats are my fault.

This is just sheer nonsense. (And that's even if you believe that Mr. Perrin really was threatened and really can't remember what his pseudonym was nor the pseudonym of whoever allegedly threatened him.)

Considering what Perrin has written in the past, I am inclined not to believe him now. Years ago (in response to Perrin's rather unhinged attack on James Lileks) I wrote a post analyzing his attacks on Christopher Hitchens, and there was something disingenuous about the way he smeared Hitchens with ad hominem invective -- all the while calling him an old friend -- that made me distrustful. I also found the way he injected race into sports not only distasteful, but largely the product of his own hyperactive imagination:

"many white men...are transfixed by black flesh in motion. Dizziness occurs....Perhaps this is why, equilibrium returned, they despise black jocks in celebration."

elements like racism, religion, patriotism, and blood lust intertwine with the love of sport to produce phenomena like Texas high school football fanatics, Hoosier hysteria, and the Yankees' Bleacher Creatures

I knew it! Sports fans are bloodthirsty, racist religious bigots! Not only that, they're (gulp) patriotic!

I see no reason to believe his latest allegations about five year old anonymous death threats to a pseudonym he can't remember.

You may call it "nonsense" if you like,' she said, ` but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary.

-- The Red Queen

Michelle Dallacroce was hopping mad when she received a letter from Mothers Against Drunk Driving demanding she change the name of her organization, Mothers Against Illegal Aliens.

"I couldn't believe it," Mrs. Dallacroce said. "I don't know who would be confused by this. We don't even have the same acronym."

Mrs. Dallacroce, president of the Phoenix-based advocacy group, received a certified letter Oct. 10 stating that MADD owns the rights to the name "Mothers Against" and giving her 10 days to stop using it.

There's Mothers Against Brain Injury, Mothers Against War, Mothers Against Guns (who don't get a link), Mothers Against Sex Predators, Mothers Against Sexual Abuse, Mothers Against Predators, Mothers Against Pornography Addiction, Mothers Against Peeing Standing Up, Mothers Against Video Game Addiction amd Violence, and last but not least on my list, Mothers Against Blogging. ("It's sucking the life out of my kids," proclaims the site! My mom would probably join it were she alive.)

In fact, there are so many "Mothers Against" organizations that I feel like starting the "Mothers Against Mothers Against Invention." But the fact is, I'm not a mother. Not that a detail like that has stopped the president of MADD, who's a man.

Anyway, MADD has not taken legal action against the Other Mothers. Only against MAIA.

All Mothers should be aghast.

MADD's sleazy, heavyhanded tactics remind me of what MoveOn.org tried to do to it's critics. Robert Cox (via Glenn Reynolds has a report, and Michele Malkin details how the organization with all its vast Soros resources decided to bully a small independent t-shirt seller:

I heard from one of the independent T-shirt sellers targeted by MoveOn.org last week. The seller is a lifelong Democrat and member of the military. Incensed by the attack on Gen. Petraeus, the retailer opened up a shop at online store CafePress. The homemade designs at the PoliStew Cafe (www.cafepress.com/polistew) were stark and simple: "Move Away from Move On!" "MoveOn.org NoFriend to Dems." "General Petraeus has done more for this country than MoveOn.org."

For daring to raise a voice and raise some money for the troops (all proceeds from the sale of his items go to the National Military Family Association charity), this T-shirt seller earned the wrath of MoveOn.org's lawyers. MoveOn.org chief operating officer Carrie Olson brought down the sledgehammer. She sent a cease-and-desist letter to CafePress demanding that PoliStew Cafe's items and other anti-MoveOn.org merchandise be removed from the store.

Olson warned: "We have been alerted to an entire page of items on your website that infringes on our registered trademark, and we request that you remove all items immediately, and ask the poster to refrain from shipping any items purchased on this webpage. We also request that you give us contact information for the company / person who posted the items. This content has certainly NOT been authorized by anyone at MoveOn.org, nor anyone affiliated with MoveOn."

It's worth noting that this obnoxious form of censorship has been attempted for years across the political spectrum. From Michael Savage to Al Franken to the New York Times, the idea is to use copyright and trademark laws to thwart free speech and especially silence critics.

The theory of protecting names from misappropriation for personal gain is being perverted into the the banning of ordinary words, and into the outrageous idea that critics should not be allowed to name what they're criticizing.

The ultimate idea is "You cannnot criticize me, or I'll sue you for using my name!"

It's like something from Alice in Wonderland.

I better stop, because if the Red Queen© reads this post, she might sue me for mentioning her! ("NOT IN MY NAME you don't!")

Last night, I stayed up till all hours writing my first ever Pajamas Media column.

I have to say, I didn't expect sparks to fly in the Democratic presidential debate, but fly they did -- with Obama and Edwards and Dodds really zeroing in, and Hillary looking every bit the waffling, finger-to-the-wind political hack that she is. In my view, her greatest "strength" is that many people would love to see her husband as president again. Last night, this wishful nostalgia just wasn't cutting it. Nor were the numerous attacks on Bush. My fix was that she had a bad night -- beginning with her lousy Halloween-style makeup, and ending with a disastrous waffle on the alien issue:

Hillary certainly did not win tonight's debate. (I think Obama did, although Dodd's articulate and solid performance was quite a surprise.) While I wouldn't say Hillary is in trouble, tonight I saw a few small cracks beginning to appear in her facade of invulnerability. She lacks her husband's legendary teflon, she lacks his common sense ability call a spade a spade, and she lacks his sense of humor.

If this keeps up, the race will actually start to get interesting, and appear to be less of an inauguration.

And for comic value, nothing can beat Dennis Kucinich, who pops up and squeaked "IMPEACH BUSH" like a malevolent Jack in the Box at every opportunity, and finally stated on national television that he had seen a UFO. (If only they'd had some 1950s science fiction music at that point, the night would have been perfect.) It may sound surreal, but last night really was the Night of the Aliens. Hillary waffled on the "alien" issue, while Kucinich held firm as a true believer. (But if they can pilot flying saucers, maybe they are qualified to drive.... After all, last night was almost Halloween.)

So please go check out my post.

My thanks to Pajamas Media for allowing me what turned out to be an exciting opportunity.

UPDATE: Clinton feels the heat.

MORE: Former Clinton strategist Dick Morris thinks Hillary was finally "on display and visible to all":

Hillary Clinton finally got too cute by half in her explanation of her convoluted position on giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. The American people saw her tying herself into a knot over the issue, trying to have it both ways.

AND MORE: My thanks to Glenn Reynolds for linking the Pajamas Media post!

I am going to be on the radio. Blog Radio. Always On Watch has invited me and Karridine to discuss I Wanna Go Home and to talk about our give away of 1,000 Free Copies on blog radio. You can tune in here and listen live and call in at 19:00 GMT (12:00 Pacific Std. Time) or listen later at your convenience.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

A sex scandal being deliberately kept under wraps by the news media?

Involving a Democratic candidate?

Anyway, it appears that something is brewing. Glenn linked both of the above, but I can't find any news reports with real dirt or names. Here's what Ron Rosenbaum said:

So I was down in DC this past weekend and happened to run into a well-connected media person, who told me flatly, unequivocally that "everyone knows" The LA Times was sitting on a story, all wrapped up and ready to go about what is a potentially devastating sexual scandal involving a leading Presidential candidate. "Everyone knows" meaning everyone in the DC mainstream media political reporting world. "Sitting on it" because the paper couldn't decide the complex ethics of whether and when to run it. The way I heard it they'd had it for a while but don't know what to do. The person who told me )not an LAT person) knows I write and didn't say "don't write about this".

If it's true, I don't envy the LAT. I respect their hesitation, their dilemma, deciding to run or not to run it raises a lot of difficult journalism ethics questions and they're likely to be attacked, when it comes out--the story or their suppression of the story--whatever they do.

Hmmm...

Am I allowed to at least ask whether it's a male candidate?

A story in today's Inquirer illustrates a strange and disturbing irony, and it's the second one of it's kind to make the local news. I speculated about the line between animal hoarding and animal rescue in an earlier post about a Philadelphia school teacher/author/animal "rescuer" whose house had been rendered uninhabitable by a huge number of cats.

This time, Pennsylvania's animal control bureaucracy stands accused of ignoring a much larger, ongoing problem at a professional animal rescue outfit called "Faithful but Forgotten Friends":

HARRISBURG - Several members of the state dog law advisory board are calling for an investigation into why it took so long for the state to raid a kennel in southwestern Pennsylvania and seize 215 dogs, many of which were emaciated and diseased.

Board members say the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement, charged with inspecting the state's 2,700 licensed kennels, ignored poor conditions in the kennel and pleas from rescue groups that began almost a year before the raid was ordered on Faithful but Forgotten Friends and Best Buddies kennel.

By the time animal cruelty officers arrived at the Fayette County kennel late last week, it was too late for 50 dogs that had to be destroyed because of severe mange - an irritating skin disease that if caught early is treatable.

Board member Doug Newbold of Malvern, who saw dozens of the surviving dogs - and several that had to be destroyed - at the Pennsylvania SPCA in Philadelphia said she found it hard to believe that the wardens could have missed the signs of a progressive disease and did not take action after earlier inspections.

Others said the bureau's delay was evidence that the welfare of dogs in kennels was still at risk a year after Gov. Rendell began overhauling bureau operations.

Rendell, a dog-lover, has sought to improve conditions for thousands of dogs in large commercial kennels in Pennsylvania, which has been called the "puppy mill" capital of the East.

"This was a major enforcement action" against someone who has filed lawsuits against the bureau and tied it up in court for years, said Smith. "It doesn't mean there's a major breakdown here."

But Howard Nelson, director of the Philadelphia-based Pennsylvania SPCA, which conducted the raid and took in 35 of the seized dogs, believed a review of the bureau's inspection procedures was in order.

"It sounds healthy to have a review to make sure it doesn't happen again," said Nelson, whose shelter had to euthanize nine of the sickest dogs.

Rendell's spokesman, Chuck Ardo, said the governor was "distressed" to hear that animals were being kept under bad conditions, but had yet to determine what steps he would take.

"We'll review the facts of the case and make a decision on how best to proceed," said Ardo.

Faithful but Forgotten Friends kennel, located 300 miles west of Philadelphia, billed itself as a "rescue," picking up dogs from overcrowded shelters, including 76 dogs from Philadelphia Animal Care and Control Association (PACCA).

The kennel license for operator Paula Lappe Barber had been refused in April 2006, after a failing inspection, but a new license was issued to her daughter, Rachel Lappe Biler, at the same location four months later.

The kennel got unsatisfactory inspections twice this fall before the raid was ordered.

"On a cruelty scale of 1 to 10, this is a 10," said PSPCA humane officer Reba McDonald, who led the raid. "The kennels were in poor condition. In some cases, there were 10 to 12 dogs in one pen. The dogs were very thin, and some were suffering from mange or dermatitis."

Interestingly, the Faithful but Forgotten Friends operation has been in the news before

Normal people looking for a dog would have to go to a considerable amount of trouble to "adopt" a dog from this outfit. From the group's website:

....We have an adoption contract for you to complete. If you want to adopt one of our friends, the adoption fee will generally be $150.00 to $300.00 for a spayed/neutered adult dog and $250.00 to $400.00 for a puppy. At times we do charge a higher adoption fee and such pet is labled as a fundraiser pet. Fundraiser pets are trypically chosen as fundraiser pets because they are in high demand and their adoption can generate revenue needed to care for other animals in the rescue's network.

Cohabitating couples who have not married or joined to each other via a civil union need not apply to adopt our pets. Please do not argue with us; there are many other rescues who will adopt to unmarried couples so we suggest that you contact them.

We do not knowingly abort pregnant dogs or cats. Some rescues do abort pregnancies in their animals. We do not abort for two reasons: first, the babies are living creatures and the abortion is virtually the same things as simply killing them after birth and we do not involve ourselves in the killing of good tempered pets. The second reason that we do not abort is the risk that the abortion will harm or kill the mother. We are always interested in hearing from people who are willing and able to foster pregnant pets and their babies. We provide food and medical care for all moms and their babies in our network.

It's not as if the dogs know that they are being "saved" -- much less from what.

There are a lot of articles about this organization's ongoing struggle. They have previously complained about harrassment by the authorities, and in 2005 it appeared that they were almost closed, but they engaged in a lengthy dispute. Now that they're closed, the neighbors are relieved.

The whole thing is quite sad. I don't like seeing animals mistreated, whether by unscrupulous breeders or animal hoarders who imagine they're doing unwanted animals a favor when their conditions are as bad or worse than puppy mills.

I suspect there will be more of these stories, because there is a war between dog breeders and self styled animal rescuers. It's a war over two competing views of morality -- one which considers animals property, and another which considers them like death row inmates, or like slaves.

It's an emergent form of morality, and it strikes me as analogous to the culture war (although I think the distinction between man and animal involves more than just a culture or lifestyle clash).

In any event, feminist blogger Jessica Valenti ran smack into it recently, because she committed an immoral act. What did she do that was so immoral?

Jessica Valenti bought a dog.

No big deal. Certainly it's nothing that I consider immoral in the least. (Far from it; it's something I support, and I have repeatedly warned people about the consequences of non ownership of animals, most recently in the Ellen DeGeneres context.)

I think the Salon article exposes a dirty little secret which is not receiving the discussion it should. There are a growing number of people who consider Jessica Valenti's act of buying a dog (a normal and legal act repeated by millions of Americans) to be inherently evil, as literally akin to human slavery. There is a huge and growing cultural disconnect. By admitting to a dog purchase, Valenti generated an uncomfortable moral debate. As Salon puts it,

people were confronting a difference at the very core of their morals and the great lengths people went to show how deeply irrational the other side was being.

BEGIN EXTENDED QUOTE HEREI can’t believe I just read this. From a thread on Feministing responding to a cute video of Jessica’s puppy Monty, in which several people excoriated Jessica for getting Monty from a breeder, and demanded she justify her decision because she’s a feminist and dog breeding is somehow a core feminist issue:

There is absolutely no need to breed animals for profit, be them for pets or meat. It’s slavery and it’s wrong.

I just — that’s offensive to me on so many levels; I simply can’t imagine how that feels to someone whose ancestors survived the Middle Passage only to be sold at auction and kept in bondage for the rest of their lives; someone whose relatives in living memory were denied civil rights, equal access to education, and subject to lynching for nothing more than looking at a white person funny.

That's just so willfully blindly privileged, and tin-eared, and utterly cruel, and racist all at the same time. But I suppose, given PETA’s history of racist and anti-Semitic ads, where images of black slaves and Jewish inmates at extermination camps were set alongside images of cattle going down a chute or chickens in battery cages, that this is not so uncommon an attitude among the animal-rights set. From Steve's* post about Ingrid Newkirk's dismissive response to the objection of James Cameron, the director of America's Black Holocaust Museum to PETA’s “Slavery” campaign: (my emphasis)

Remember, [Dr.] Cameron almost died at the hands of a lynch mob. They were screaming “get the nigger” and had yanked him out of his cell. Only the lone voice of a woman saying “leave that boy alone” saved his life. But this harrowing experience means nothing to Newkirk, his pain is irrelevant to her. I thought I had seen cruel responses to Mrs. Sheehan. But this tops them. By a mile.It's the same kind of ignorant cruelty Cindy Sheehan is facing. Newkirk is simply incapable, like most fanatics, of seeing any side but her own. And she is blind to the outrage this will cause. She has no idea of how her response is not going to go over with black people. Even her explaination is as tone deaf as George Bush. That may go over well with her donors and allies when she makes a mistake, but it will fall on deaf ears with black people. I dare her to defend this on any black radio show, or even Air America.

Now, not only is PETA refusing to apologize, as they did with the Holocaust ad, they intend to continue the tour, well until they're denounced on Tom Joyner and from church pulpits. To compare black people to animals is the gravest insult a white person can do, and no matter how “liberal” PETA says it is, this will dog it until their tour is cancelled. Because she is fucking with something she does not understand in any way, shape or form. Angry isn't the word. I'd be surprised if Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton aren't outside PETA HQ at the end of the week.

So, given that this is the mentality of PETA's leadership, do you think it's fair to call them racist, now?

Somehow, it's even crueler when the animal in question is not a steer being led to the slaughterhouse, but a well-loved puppy from a responsible breeder.

I'm just gobsmacked.

And after I originally wrote this, the commenter explained herself:

Regarding Zuzu's comments about slavery: Only people who think their lives are more important than non-human animals' lives can be offended by the comparison of human slavery to animal slavery. The definition of slavery is to treat another as property. Property is the essential concept of slavery. Property. The only way you can be offended is if you think it's OK to treat non-human animals as property. I've had this discussion on my blog before: http://www.elainevigneault.com/politics-of-power-and-peta.html

so you can read more if you're truly interested in understanding my perspective. Or you can just ignore my criticisms and right me off as a loon, like you normally do.

I just really don't know how to respond to that.

You?

(cross-posted here)

* God, I miss Steve.

END EXTENDED QUOTE.

This blogger quoted it, and the issue was interesting enough for Salon.

But it's an issue with which few are comfortable (and I suspect that's why the post was pulled.)

I'm fascinated by the slavery analogy though. Wrong as it is, I think it raises some fascinating points about the morality of reproduction. If animals and people are equal, what gives humans the right to possess intact genitalia, but not animals? If dogs are like slaves, but should not be allowed to breed, does that mean slaves should not have been allowed to breed? Or does it mean that the dogs should be freed from captivity entirely and only then allowed to breed?

Or should humans not be allowed to breed? I mean, aren't there too many unwanted humans?

Frankly, I think the animal rights people are out of touch with reality. If humans are like animals are like humans, then why should there be different standards?

It is not immoral to buy a dog, because dogs are property. What is immoral (IMO) is to create a new morality based on the premise that dogs are like humans and should have the same rights.

This new morality degrades humanity, because ultimately it means that there's no reason that humans shouldn't be treated like dogs. (Licensed, controlled, impounded, sterilized....)

So why isn't it being condemned more resolutely?

UPDATE: Zuzu, the author of the post I quoted above, left a helpful comment below:

The post wasn't pulled from Feministe, but the link in that post isn't working now because Feministe migrated to a new host briefly, then back when it didn't work out as planned; as a consequence, links from that period aren't working. Here's the post: http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/09/05/holy-crap/

I'm glad to see that I was in error in making that assumption.

The major news story involving the presidential race today seems to be which candidate would make the scariest choice for a Halloween costume. Hillary Clinton is winning:

Once again, Hillary Rodham Clinton leads in a poll. This time, she was top choice when people were asked which major 2008 presidential candidate would make the scariest Halloween costume.

Asked about costume choices, 37 percent in an Associated Press-Ipsos survey this month chose New York Sen. Clinton, the front-runner among Democratic presidential contenders. Fourteen percent selected former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who leads Republicans in national polls.

No other candidate exceeded 6 percent.

Clinton was the choice of four in 10 men and one-third of women. While a predictable two-thirds of Republicans picked her, she also was the choice of 18 percent of Democrats. Among members of her own party, that made her second only to Giuliani as the scariest costume.

I did find Hillary masks apparently still for sale at these two online stores, but I didn't confirm it by trying to actually ordering one. They might be out of stock, and it might be too late to get one in time for Halloween.

Ebay has two Hillarys for sale; this one costs more but if you buy now, they claim you can get it in time.

But I don't think it's a waste if it arrives late, because masks of political figures are by no means strictly Halloween-only items. For example, I've seen a lot of Bush masks worn by protesters at demonstrations. And like it or not, Hillary seems unlikely to go away as a cultural icon any time soon. These masks are therefore probably good investments, and can be used for special occasions all year round!

As to Rudy, I found a mask for sale here, but I think it needs updating.

(Sorry, none on ebay.)

The New York Daily News says that Obama masks were the most popular in stores there, but they've completely sold out.

What I'm curious about is the gender crossover issue. While it's been some time since I was a boy, I never dressed up as a woman character until I was an adult, * and I don't remember other little boys doing so. Sure, there were witches, but the witch costumes were worn by girls.

How does Hillary fit? Not only don't I have kids, but I never get trick-or-treaters so I'm probably too out of touch with the pulse of today's Halloween issues. Still, I'm wondering.

What's scarier?

A boy who wants to be Hillary? Or a girl who wants to be Giuliani?

* And, please, let's not confuse the issue by talking about what Rudy might wear, OK?

Defence News has a story up on the death of Dr. Robert Bussard in which they state that the US Navy has put up nearly $2 million to continue the research on the Bussard Reactor.

Robert Bussard, inventor of a promising method for producing energy from nuclear fusion, died Oct. 6. He was 79.

Bussard received nearly $2 million under a U.S. Navy contract in August to continue work on an inertial electrostatic confinement reactor he had developed. The reactor uses magnetic fields to confine electrons, whose negative charge causes protons and Boron 11 atoms to fuse. The fusion sets off a chain of reactions that produces electricity.

You can find out more about the Bussard reactor at the following urls.

Bussard Fusion Reactor
Easy Low Cost No Radiation Fusion
Bussard Reactor Funded
Dr. Bussard's Final Interview
IEC Fusion Newsgroup
IEC Fusion Technology blog

Cross Posted at Power and Control

The linchpin of a republic under civilian rule -- as well as faith in the armed services by a cross-section of Americans -- is an apolitical military.

Greenwald has an earlier post here in which he makes the same argument.

In the traditional, World War II sense, "apolitical" meant staying out of ordinary domestic partisan politics. Military leaders tend to shy away from making political endorsements, and thus Eisenhower would have been unlikely to tell the troops which party to vote for, notwithstanding his personal beliefs.

However, because it is the job of the military to fight and win wars, matters that go to the heart of the war -- such as wartime propaganda -- are not ordinary partisan politics. For example, in World War II, the United States had to contend with enemy propaganda, and enemy propagandists. Tokyo Rose and Lord Haw-Haw are two examples. It is always the job of the military to oppose and counter enemy propaganda by any means possible. This is all the more true in a propaganda war, which the current war is.

Factor in the maxim that war is the continuation of politics by other means, and Greenwald's sanctimonious moral posture becomes questionable, if not disingenuous.

What bothers me the most about Greenwald's argument is that he goes out of his way to take the side of an accused enemy propagandist, Bilal Hussein, who has been detained in Iraq for being a suspected terrorist agent.

After right-wing blogs loudly complained for months about the supposedly Terrorist-sympathizing journalism of Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein in Iraq, the U.S. military in Iraq detained him with no charges (and, just by the way, continues to detain him for a year-and-a-half now with no charges). While the military refused to talk to A.P. or any other press outlets about its photojournalist, they leaked the story of his detention to Michelle Malkin -- one of the principal agitators who had spent months calling Hussein a Terrorist-lover and calling for his arrest -- and then, with her military-delivered scoop, she excitedly announced his detention.

Hmm...

I guess that means I should at least disabuse readers of the idea that Hussein was arrested pursuant to some order issued by General Malkin. According to the Wiki entry, Michele Malkin was not even present at the scene of his capture, but only blogged about it later (presumably from the United States). Moreover, the military claims to have found Hussein with an al-Qaida leader:

The military said that Hussein was found with two insurgents, including Hamid Hamad Motib, an alleged leader of al-Qaida forces in Iraq.[1] According to a May 7, 2006 e-mail from U.S. Army Major General Jack Gardner, "He has close relationships with persons known to be responsible for kidnappings, smuggling, improvised explosive device (IED) attacks and other attacks on coalition forces."[1] Gardner continued, "The information available establishes that he has relationships with insurgents and is afforded access to insurgent activities outside the normal scope afforded to journalists conducting legitimate activities."[1]

"right wing bloggers" complained; and

the military detained this guy.

OK, let's look at the "sides" in this political partisanship equation. On one "side" are the supporters of Bilal Hussein, and on the other are those who think that he should be released because the military has no right to hold him.

Sorry, but I don't think these two "sides" constitute political partisanship -- certainly not in the traditional context. Let's compare Bilal Hussein to Tokyo Rose. While she was arrested -- and "detained for a year by the U.S. military" -- this was after World War II had ended. But let's suppose that she'd been grabbed earlier, and detained. Without charges. Suppose some anti-war group had formed a "Tokyo Rose Freedom Committee." While that could have been considered "politics," I submit that to call it the sort of politics implicated in the "apolitical" tradition Greenwald invokes is to torture the primary role of the military in war, which is to win.

I realize that the debate over the war is inherently political, but I don't think the debate over how the military fights war propaganda (or propaganda which helps the enemy) is quite the same thing. Yet Greenwald claims that support for an enemy propagandist constitutes "politics," and that by taking action against a suspected enemy propagandist (and by refusing to cooperate with his sympathizers), the military is being partisan.

Would it have been "partisan politics" for the military to refuse to cooperate with, say, reporters for the German American Bund during World War II, or Communist reporters (say, the People's Daily) during the Korean or Vietnam wars? I don't see how.

An additional problem is the reduction of this issue to "right wing" and "left wing."

How, pray tell, is Greenwald defining right wing blogs? Pro-military blogs that wants the United States to succeed in the war? Greenwald gives a clear hint that he defines right wing as pro-war when he complains that "the military had even been providing conference calls and other briefing sessions seemingly reserved exclusively for right-wing, pro-war bloggers."

Does this mean that if the military does not want to deal with anti-military, anti-war blogs that wants the United States to fail in the war, that they are behaving in a political manner?

I have a question about right wing versus left wing.

How is support for this war any more "right wing" than support for the war against Nazi Germany or imperial Japan?

Are Democrats who support this war to be considered right wing also? This is no exercise in sophistry or rhetorical hair-splitting, and not only because there are still a number of pro-war Democrats.

Yesterday, I wrote a post about the right wing anti-war movement, which is growing. There are the Buchananites, the MSU-YAF people, the Ron Paul people, the libertarian Antiwar.com people, and there are a number of right wing 9/11 Truther types. All of these groups (and I'm sure there are more) are right wing, and anti-war.

On top of that, look at the inherent nature of the enemy. People who want to impose a fundamentalist theocratic dictatorship which oppresses women, executes gays, forbids theater, film, and music and all sorts of personal freedom can be called a lot of things. I call them "Islamofascists," and while I realize not everyone uses that word, they are certainly far right in the conventional sense of the word, and I see no way that any reasonable person could consider them left wing. Thus, it is fully legitimate to say that the U.S. military is to the left of the enemy it is fighting.

For all these reasons, I think the claim that "pro-war" is synonymous with "right wing" is bogus and misleading.

However, if the goal is to accuse the military of being politicized, then by all means it is necessary to insinuate right versus left into these things.

Considering the totality of the circumstances, is it entirely fair to consider Glenn Greenwald a left wing shill?

Seriously, can't he also be seen as a right wing shill?

I really think he can. (Although it's getting tougher and tougher to know the difference between reality and sarcasm.)

On the other hand, I hate to further politicize what Greenwald is already doing his best to politicize.

But then, I'm not the one who declared that supporting the war is "right wing."

UPDATE: Anyone who thinks being pro-war or anti-war comes down to a neat little question of Republican versus Democrat should read this:

White was one of about 300 people who attended the anti-war rally in downtown Orlando. Many at the rally said Democrats need to do more to bring the troops home.

"I'm at a loss," said Nancy O'Byrne, a Democrat from St. Augustine who attended the United for Peace and Justice rally. "Democrats aren't any better on the war issue than the Republicans. Very few would get our troops out and home and not leave any behind. A lot of candidates are backpedaling on their stance on the war and I'm not sure why. Seventy percent of Americans want this war to end."

The question is under what circumstances. Most Democrats supported this war when it started.....

UPDATE: Thanks to Lance at A Second Hand Conjecture for the link!

Suppose you have a machine that depends for its proper operation on wooden pegs in wooden holes. Say that it has been traditional, if wooden pegs were not available, that brass pegs were an accepted substitute. Now suppose the government outlawed the use of brass pegs and decreed that if you didn't have wooden pegs only gold pegs were acceptable. Would that be right?

What am I getting at? Brain chemistry.

The holes are receptors. The wooden pegs are the body's naturally made receptor fillers. The brass pegs are substances you imbibe (in one way or another) to make up for a lack in the bodies' natural chemistry. What would the gold pegs be? Dr. prescribed medicines.

Let us take the case of marijuana. Mice have been developed which do not naturally produce enough CB1 receptor fillers. They are genetically different. They have long term memories of fear situations. They live in fear and that fear is easily excited. Not a pleasant way to live. Modern medicine has developed substances that can relieve that constant fear. Doctors are allowed to prescribe such substances. However, marijuana can also fill those receptors and relieve constant fear and anxiety. We have made marijuana illegal even though there is no objective difference between the doctor prescribed medicine and marijuana (with respect to brain chemistry). Is that right?

This line of thought came to me in an e-mail discussion of Treatment Vs Recreation and Class War.

You can read more on this line of thought - I have been at it for six years - at the following articles:

PTSD and the Endocannabinoid System
Addiction or Self Medication?
Genetic Discrimination
The War On Unpatented Drugs.
The Pain In The Brain
Addiction Is A Genetic Disease

and way more articles at:
The Nature Of Addiction

Cross Posted at Power and Control

Does opposing Islamofascism mean being anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic, anti-gay, and racist?

Yesterday I was reading Pat Buchanan's latest WND tirade against Giuliani:

Pro-abortion, anti-gun, again and again he strutted up Fifth Avenue in the June Gay Pride parade and turned the Big Apple into a sanctuary city for illegal aliens. While Ward Connerly goes state to state to end reverse discrimination, Rudy is an affirmative-action man.

Gravitating now to Rudy's camp are those inveterate opportunists, the neocons, who see in Giuliani their last hope of redemption for their cakewalk war and their best hope for a "Long War" against "Islamo-fascism."

I will, Rudy promises, nominate Scalias. Only one more may be needed to overturn Roe. And I will keep Hillary out of the White House.

A Giuliani presidency would represent the return and final triumph of the Republicanism that conservatives went into politics to purge from power. A Giuliani presidency would represent repudiation by the party of the moral, social and cultural content that, with anti-communism, once separated it from liberal Democrats and defined it as an institution.

Rudy offers the right the ultimate Faustian bargain: retention of power at the price of one's soul.

It's not that there's any one thing standing alone that especially bothers me. I mean, normally, I would have overlooked the Buchanan piece, just as I ignored Ann Coulter's recent winking at anti-Semitism, because, I figured, she's an entertainer. (Yeah, she also winked at the use of the word "faggot" and she was fired by the NRO for winking at converting all Muslims to Christianity. Winking at something means never having to really come out and be the thing, I suppose.)

I'll say this for Ann Coulter. At least she didn't wink at Holocaust Denial. The MSU YAF Buchananite crackpots who mounted the latest attack on LGF have done more than wink at Holocaust Denial; they've sponsored a lecture by a Holocaust Denier.

In the aggregate, there's now too much to ignore.

Anyway, when LGF complained, the YAF group responded responded by calling LGF "pro-Muslim," "left-wing," and more:

The Little Green Footballs blog decided to condemn MSU-YAF for hosting Nick Griffin. In case you do not read Little Green Footballs, the blog is pro-Muslim, left-wing, politically correct, and basically a front for neoconservative foreign policy (instead of defending their culture, they want to build schools in the Anbar province). They are basically a puppet of the multiculturalists and believe that Islam is not the enemy of Western civilization and Christendom. Only Bush-bots read the Little Green Footballs blog.

Instead of writing about threats to Western civilization, the LGF blog has recently attacked organizations who are fighting the culture war by doing more than just posting stuff on a blog that only like-minded people read.

The YAF blog links Pat Buchanan's blog as number one, lists four of his books, and I think it's fair to characterize them as Buchananite and solidly within the Paleoconservative camp. More on the group here.

The LGF post also links the group's leader Kyle Bristow, who has managed to get himself photographed with nearly every prominent conservative in America. Anyone can get a picture taken with a politician, though, and it does not mean that they all endorse Bristow's views or tactics. Not only do the latter include the display of signs saying things like "Straight Power" and "End Faggotry," but Bristow claims he wants to "protect" the public:

Bristow goes on to say, "YAF members find homosexuality and other forms of sexual deviancy to be disgusting. The Boy Scouts, military and the American public need to be protected from these degenerates."

But there is a sort of "let the buyer beware" principle here. And there are also political realities. For whatever reason, this group is giving the left (which already believes anti-Islamofascism is anti-Muslim bigotry) a lot of ammo to argue that "a critic of Islamofascism is an anti-Muslim bigot is a neocon." And meanwhile, the isolationist, xenophobic Paleocons promote the argument that "a war supporter is a neocon is a trilateral commission-supporting, One-World-Order, homolovin' bilderbuggerin' Bush-lovin' Jew."

They may be right wing fringe, but by assisting in an ideological war against those who oppose Islamofascism, they're providing an incalculable service to the left.

They're also providing an invaluable service to the Islamofascists, who'd probably love to see a resurgence of American right wing isolationism and xenophobia. (To say nothing of anti-Semitism.)

Strange bedfellows all.

UPDATE: Thank you, Glenn Reynolds -- especially for quoting this post.

Welcome all!

That's a scary thought. And it's a narrative I try to keep in the closet, because I never agreed to become a journalist, and I have maintained -- often vehemently -- that I am not one. However, blogger Michael Costello (linked by Glenn Reynolds yesterday for saying "If The Fu Hsits") discovered that as a blogger he used the same process that conventional journalists do:

I had my narrative in anticipation of facts that I could mold to fit it.. Fortunately for me, I didn't have to make them up. They were just buried in history. I only needed to dig them up. Or, more accurately, find someone else who had dug them up.

Even if bloggers and journalists are doing the same thing, both have a problem with The Other.

In general, while bloggers don't want to be The Other, journalists don't want to seem to be The Other. This is why bloggers stubbornly, constantly admit their biases, while journalists stubbornly and constantly do not.

While my dark side often suspects that bloggers are honest journalists, while journalists are dishonest bloggers, you can't say things like that without being misunderstood, so I should probably keep such thoughts safely locked away in the narrative closet where they belong. Besides, I tend to misunderstand myself, and it occurs to me that there's no way to call a blogger an "honest journalist" if he won't admit to being a journalist at all.

(Unless there's such a thing as honest dishonesty.

But there can't be. For that would mean that bloggers are closeted journalists. (And journalists are closeted bloggers.)

I don't see why people are having such a hard time over the connection between global warming and arson, but they are, along the usual predictable political fault lines. While the California fires were still raging, the Democrats were quick to spot the cause as global warming. But then, when it turned out that the proximate cause was arson, the global warming claim died down, a new finger was pointed at Blackwater while Republican commentators brayed about the fire's human origin.

Many sarcastic claims were made that "global warming causes arson." (Which, if you think about it, isn't all that different from saying that global warming causes terrorism, violence or even nightmares in children.)

Both sides are IMO, overlooking a common area of potential agreement. If you rearrange the words, and use a little logic, isn't it obvious that arson causes global warming? Arson equals fire which equals not only the release of heat, but the release of more C02, right? So all who believe in AGW theory ought to be able to agree on arson as a contributory cause, and even the skeptics ought to be able to allow that arson does at least heat up the area where the arson is committed.

In fact if the entire world were set on fire, few would argue that it wouldn't be hotter.

The more I thought about this (and I tried to be very careful and scientific), the more I was drawn to a remarkable conclusion, on which we can all agree. FIRE IS HOT.

The rest is a simple step.

Can we all get along now?

More red light camera news (involving prohibitorily expensive but "mistaken" filing fees to contest the tickets) via a link from Glenn Reynolds, who provided plenty of evidence last year as to why these things do not work.

The red light cameras, while they have increased revenue, have not stopped carnage in Philadelphia. (Probably because people drive like hell to avoid the yellow lights, then slam to a stop if they turn.) Nevertheless, the Philadelphia Inquirer supports extending them, and in a recent editorial, is now calling for the much more intrusive speed cameras:

The red-light cameras, though, have not stopped the carnage along the 12-lane highway through Northeast Philadelphia. In the last year or so, a dozen pedestrians have been killed along the road. So it makes sense for city officials to look at further measures to make the Boulevard safer, as well as other traffic trouble spots.

Earlier this year, Council entertained a range of costly safety strategies - from adding more pedestrian bridges, to closing traffic lanes, to boosting patrols and safety programs.

All good ideas, but the first one to be tried could provide another "cameo" for reckless drivers: State Rep. George T. Kenney Jr. (R., Phila.) proposes legalizing speed-detection cameras.

As with red-light cameras, the speed cameras would snap vehicle tag numbers of speeders, with appropriately hefty fines to follow.

People need to stand up to this tyranny, and exercise their constitutional right to see and confront their so-called "accusers" in court.

I'm sick of living in a world in which legal trouble can be generated by robots.

UPDATE: In case anyone was wondering where the red light camera revenue money goes, today's Inquirer has a front page story titled "'Running amok' at the PPA" (Philadelphia Parking AUthority, which runs the cameras). The PPA uses the money to fuel a gigantic political "patronage machine, pinching drivers for $192 million a year while giving only a pittance to the city's general fund":

All told, the authority now squeezes $192 million a year out of Philadelphia drivers.

That's tough enough for many to take, even assuming that the cash is being used for a clear public good: hiring teachers, say, or paving city streets.

But as an Inquirer analysis shows, the Parking Authority has become a self-replicating patronage machine that has used its new revenue principally to double the size of its staff and to inflate the salaries of its myriad managers.

Despite revenue growth of 54.5 percent since fiscal 2001, the authority has delivered only a pittance of extra help for the city's general fund: an average of $740,000 a year, or 4 percent, when adjusted for inflation.

"The city is sucking air in a lot of areas, and we look and see a Parking Authority that's twice as big, that's seen a wild running-up in staffing numbers," said Joyce Wilkerson, Mayor Street's chief of staff. "I'm not sure the Parking Authority should have first dibs on that revenue when we have trouble keeping libraries open."

Others share that view. Parent organizations are calling on the agency to write a $20 million check to the public schools. City Controller Alan Butkovitz is poring over the organization's books. Gov. Rendell plans to grill the authority's board of directors, and lawmakers in Harrisburg may call for hearings.

"It appears that it's running amok," said State Rep. Dwight Evans (D., Phila.), who has been a longtime supporter of the authority.

(No wonder they're clamoring for speed cameras...)

UPDATE: My thanks to Glenn Reynolds for linking and for quoting this post! A warm welcome to all.

I'm especially honored to be linked in the same post that links an important article by Glenn ("Stop, in the Name of 'Bots") which discusses the use of robots in a much more sinister context.

Don't miss it.

I especially liked the conclusion:

When the power to enforce the law is delegated to software employed by people who don't -- or can't be bothered to -- understand it, no one is safe. When you hear that people are using machines to enforce the law, remember the old computer-geek saying: "Garbage In, Garbage Out."

According to today's Inquirer report, Dillon Cossey (the overweight bullied kid I posted about before) has confessed to plotting a Columbine style attack:

A troubled 14-year-old admitted yesterday to plotting a detailed, Columbine-style assault on Plymouth Whitemarsh High School.

Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce Castor said Dillon Cossey confessed he planned to use chains to secure the high school doors so occupants could not escape, fire a rocket launcher - which he did not own - and use a car as an "ammo dump," an idea gleaned from a Columbine video on YouTube.

Cossey, who named his rifle "Reb" to honor Eric Harris, one of the Columbine killers, admitted in Montgomery County juvenile court yesterday to criminal solicitation to commit murder, risking a catastrophe, and possessing instruments of crime.

Although police did not find ammunition for the firearms Cossey possessed, his "severe social maladjustment" resulted in a frightening plan that could have ultimately been implemented, Castor said.

Castor said Cossey, who will now get the help he needs, admitted telling friends that he wanted to "kill bullies" at the Plymouth Meeting high school, but the teen told authorities he could remember only three times that he was victimized.

Farrell said his interviews revealed that Cossey was subjected to "protracted peer abuse," something most victims are reluctant to admit.

"Klebold and Harris are heroes to kids who are bullied," Farrell said, adding that such thinking is fueled by violent Internet postings. Dylan Klebold joined Harris in the Columbine massacre that left 13 people dead. Cossey created "a fantasy that was beginning to cross the line," Farrell said.

"He's very remorseful," Farrell added.

Cossey waived the 20-day period for his disposition hearing to allow time for mental and physical evaluations that will assist the judge in selecting an appropriate rehabilitative program.

Tressler explained that the length of treatment will depend on Cossey's progress.

That's because, if you think about it, on what basis is this Columbine hero cult to be condemned? Because they were murderers? And murder is bad?

Well, what about the Cult of Che Guevara? Klebold and Harris killed twelve people, while Guevara killed nearly 2000, including the witnessed killing of a 14 year old boy. And how about the Cult of Mumia?

I'm having trouble understanding how Che and Mumia can be heroes, but not Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris.

Not that everybody considers Che and Mumia to be heroes. Far from it. Fortunately, these are fringe cults.

But don't they have a certain legitimacy? Put yourself in the position of a school principal, and suppose some admirer of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (yes there are groups like these) decided to wear a t-shirt with one of their pictures. Everyone would be horrified, right? The school would ban the t-shirts, right? But would they ban the Che t-shirts and the Cult of Che?

This is not a new problem. Oleg Atbashian wrote a great Pajamas Media piece about it, and included this:

Considering Che a hero while blaming the NRA for kids who go bad?

In a twisted way, there's a certain logic to it.

MORE: It's probably worth adding that young people are not being taught that Che Guevara is a murderer. Far from it. They are being taught that he was a victim. Who only "wanted to help people":

Annoying as the Che adulation is, a recent comment by a 14-year-old on an online movie message board was truly disturbing: "I just saw The Motorcycle Diaries, which further made me question: Why is communism bad? . . . Young people are told how bad communism is, but we are not told why. . . . The Motorcycle Diaries showed me how Ernesto Guevara wanted to help people. . . . But this did not explain why he was such a 'bad' person and apparently deserved to be murdered by the U.S."

MORE: In a different context, Clayton Cramer argues that "hero" is "a devalued word in the news media."

It's a pity. But when villains are turned into heroes, when anti-heroes become heroes, heroes and heroism are annihilated.

UPDATE: My thanks to Glenn Reynolds for linking this post, and a warm welcome to all!

UPDATE (10/29/07): President Bush visited the Philadelphia area today for a fund raiser, and while here he also honored the 14 year old who blew the whistle on Dillon Cossey's Columbine plan:

Lew Bennett III was credited by Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce Castor with helping to avert a potential tragedy after he told police on Oct. 10 that Dillon Cossey, 14, had acquired a semiautomatic rifle from his mother to use in a planned attacked on Plymouth Whitemarsh High School.

Bennett was in a line receiving Bush at the airport. They shook hands and Bush was seen putting his arm around the youth.

Castor said he gave Bennett's name to Sen. Arlen Specter (R., Pa.), who apparently made the arrangements with the White House for Bennett and his parents, Lew Bennett Jr. and Terry Bennett, to meet the President.

"I told Sen. Specter that it would be a good idea if the president could recognize the young man, as a way to send a message throughout the country that it is a good thing to come forward to avert a tragedy," said Castor. "I would hope others would step forward."

I had a post up at Classical Values called So Insensitive. Nothing unusual. I do lots of posts at Classical Values. What was special was a commenter who signed himself Muslims Against Sharia. He provided a link to (what else?) Muslims Against Sharia. So let us see what they have to say about Islamo Fascism Awareness Week which has just passed.

Muslims Against Sharia congratulate David Horowitz FREEDOM CENTER and Mike Adams, Tammy Bruce, Phyllis Chesler, Ann Coulter, Nonie Darwish, Greg Davis, Stephen Gale, David Horowitz, Joe Kaufman, Michael Ledeen, Michael Medved, Alan Nathan, Cyrus Nowrasteh, Daphne Patai, Daniel Pipes, Dennis Prager, Luana Saghieh, Rick Santorum, Jonathan Schanzer, Christina Sommers, Robert Spencer, Brian Sussman, Ed Turzanski, Ibn Warraq and other speakers on the success of the Islamofascism Awareness Week.

Islamofascism (or Islamism) is the main threat facing modern civilization and ignorance about this threat is astounding. We hope that this event becomes regular and reaches every campus.

A great many Westerners do not see the clear distinction between Islam and Islamism (Islamofascism). They need to understand that the difference between Islam and Islamism (Islamofascism) is the same as the difference between Christianity and Christian Identity Movement (White Supremacy Movement).

You should visit them and find out more. Good people.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

Glenn Reynolds links a very thoughtful piece by Melanie Scarborough which brought back old memories for me. Apparently, Washington DC police are blocking off streets when they feel like it and then demanding ID from people who simply want to walk from place to place. Ms. Scarborough asks some good questions:

Which statute requires law-abiding citizens to produce ID to walk down a sidewalk? What law says that citizens must explain to police where they are going and why?

A call to the police departments general counsel asking that question was not returned. Unfortunately, there likely is some badly written statute that the Metropolitan police can contort into affording them sweeping powers -- similar to the Secret Service's ability to operate virtually unchecked by claiming it is protecting someone or something.

In Brown vs. Texas 443 U.S. 47 (1979), the Burger court reversed the conviction of a man for:

refusing to comply with a policeman's demand that he identify himself pursuant to a provision of the Texas Penal Code which makes it a crime to refuse such identification on request.

The statute, as drafted and as construed by the state court, is unconstitutionally vague on its face within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to clarify what is contemplated by the requirement that a suspect provide a "credible and reliable" identification. As such, the statute vests virtually complete discretion in the hands of the police to determine whether the suspect has satisfied the statute and must be permitted to go on his way in the absence of probable cause to arrest.

Melanie Scarborough argues that citizens should refuse to comply with such "laws" and claims of authority:

Such laws are more dangerous than any group of protesters.

Keep in mind that the Bill of Rights is essentially a list of impediments to police. The Founding Fathers understood that a free society can exist only when there are strict checks on police powers. It is not supposed to be easy for cops to corral citizens as they do -- and too few Americans object.

Instead of submissively behaving as if a policeman's word is law, Americans should demand to know why their movements are being restricted. When a police officer capriciously demands to see identification, the proper response is "no." That is not defiance toward authority; it is an obligatory defense of freedom.

Well, this is exactly what Ms. Scarborough is describing, and I think it's appalling.

I helped work with Edward Lawson (who was arrested 15 times under 647(e) during the time I knew him) when I was a pre-law student, and I'm proud that I played a small part, as he handled the Kolender vs. Lawson case in propria persona before the ACLU finally got involved. Edward was the furthest possible thing from being a criminal; the problem was that the cops just plain didn't like his attitude, his race, or his dreadlocks (which frightened cops in those days). If asked for ID, he would pull out his notebook and start writing down badge numbers -- something which did not go over very well with people accustomed to having their authority go unquestioned. The thing was, he didn't drink or do drugs or anything, so he was always clean, and it drove the cops crazy, because they are so accustomed to everyone being afraid and having something to hide. He also had a great, booming, deep voice which sounded like a Harvard professor from the 1930s on steroids, with perfect enunciation and a very erudite manner of speaking (which many police officers interpreted as making them look like ignorant louts). Basically, he defied the stereotypes, would politely and patiently refuse to cooperate, and never budged on his rights, no matter how long it took.

It takes a real dedicated kook to do stuff like that, and it took him many years of dedication to get the law struck down.

We need more such kooks.

MORE: As seen on YouTube!

As recently as May 18, 2007, Edward Lawson still attracts undue police attention. The encounter Edward describes with a police tactical anti-gang unit in El Segundo is so typical of the sort of thing that used to happen to him when I knew him, and it will give readers an idea of what I was talking about.

I was surprised to find it on YouTube, maybe I shouldn't have been.

According to Edward, the police began the encounter by saying, "how many probation violations do you have?"

Says Edward, "It's a cartoon. You're trapped in this Saturday morning cartoon."

Be sure to watch Part 2, in which they decide he's a "gang member," refuse to take a urine sample without explanation, take away his rented car, and finally tell him he "was" arrested for "being under the influence of a controlled substance." (Edward's "the last thing I am is a gang member" is a vintage classic.)

As for drugs, I knew and lived with Edward for years, and I can tell every reader that he did not take drugs. It's a matter of principle with him -- which Edward explains in Part 3. In part 3, Edward characterizes this as "racial profiling gone bad." and I agree. It began as ordinary racial profiling, and was then aggravated by Edward's refusal to fit the "profile."

And finally, there's Part 4.

"It has happened to me over and over and over."

(Yes, it has. I remember it back in the 70s.)

"Does this bother me? I've become used to it. That's worse than bothering me."

"Any cop who wants to can make up any story he wants and any jury would believe it."

Finally, he signed a form under duress in order to be released.

"These four deputies fabricated a crime against me because I was not the gang member they were looking for. How many more times are they going to do this on a daily basis?"

It's all so ridiculous, and all so typical of the encounters I remember. I guess not much has changed in all these years. (I have long suspected that the primary problem in most of these incidents is that Edward is smarter than the cops.)

What gives cops the right to arrest people for being under the influence when they are not, and refusing to give them a blood test? Can the police just accuse sober people of being "under the influence" because they don't like them? (Obviously they can.)

I remember walking down the street with Edward in Berkeley back in the 70s, when a police car drove by. In an ominous tone, the loudspeaker suddenly blared out (for no particular reason) "You're not a student, Lawson!"

Trust me, cops just don't like this guy. Not everybody does.

But what has that to do with law enforcement?

Apparently, everything.

I have never thought of myself as a "conservative," although a lot of people who know me think I am conservative.

I realize that's not much of an insight. In fact, it looks like an outright waffle. So, in the hope of further self analysis (and in the hope of making this discussion as entertaining as possible), I just took the first online "liberal versus conservative" online test I could find.

Here are the results:

Your Political Profile:

Overall: 80% Conservative, 20% Liberal Social Issues: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal Personal Responsibility: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal Fiscal Issues: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal Ethics: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal Defense and Crime: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal

Regardless of how true the label is, does it give me any duty? To anyone? If so, under what theory? And what does it give me a duty to do? Police myself? The thoughts I have which might cause people to label me are mine, are they not? Does the mere fact that some test (or some person) might cause a label to be bestowed on me give me a duty to uphold it, as if I've sworn an oath of allegiance to a term I never selected?

Similarly, I have never thought of myself as a doctrinaire libertarian -- not even when I was registered Libertarian. Nor am I "middle of the road." And I am certainly not a "liberal," unless that is defined in the classical sense.

I really don't care about the definitions, because I don't seek them. The problem is, they seem to seek me, and they have a way of becoming what other people think are Their Business. It's one of the reasons I started this blog, and one of the things that has kept me going for over four years is that people keep either trying to reduce me to a definition (which is insidiously similar to identity politics), or else threaten to withold a definition from me. Like I'm supposed to care.

I'll never forget being