Morning Links

Wednesday, August 13th, 2008
  • I meant to blog this months ago, but last May, Esquire interviewed torture memo author John “Testicle Crusher” Yoo, and in the introduction noted that Yoo has–wait for it–a “libertarian temperament.” Are we bad at explaining what this whole liberty thing is all about?
  • UK cops break into the wrong home, leave message for owner with refrigerator magnets.
  • Coming to San Francisco: the composting police! Get your corn cobs in your coffee grinds and you’re looking at a $1,000 fine.
  • The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism has been in the works for quite a while. Looks like it goes on sale next week.
  • FCC commissioner says “fairness doctrine” could apply to the Internet. I happen to be sympathetic to Commissioner McDowell on this issue, and I’d certainly be the last one to underestimate the government’s desire to control just about everything, but this sounds a bit far fetched. I can’t even envision what an “Internet Fairness Doctrine” would look like. Would I have to hire conservative and libertarian bloggers? Would libertarians even be factored into the “fairness?” How about Greens? Nazis? Who gets to decide what ideologies get a chunk of spectrum?
  • Mississippi Innocence Project Director Tucker Carrington has been appointed to head up the state’s DNA task force, which will draw up recommendations for collecting and preserving DNA evidence. Carrington’s a terrific choice. Good on Mississippi for getting this one right.
  • The New York Times’ Timothy Egan has some nice words for our reason cover story on Nanny State cities, and some harsh words for nannyism. The comments, however, are disappointing.
    Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark
  • 11 Responses to “Morning Links”

    1. #1 |  Sithmonkey | 

      Are we bad at explaining what this whole liberty thing is all about?

      Well…in Mr. Yoo’s line of work, they feel they should have the liberty to crush another man’s jubblies. A kind of governmental utilitarianism…or something like that…

    2. #2 |  nicole | 

      Ugh, where does the Times even find these commenters? It is not “natural” to eat junk food–”So your argument doesnt cut it. ” And the suggestion that “There were probably similar reactions to the enforcement of seatbelts.” Part of me wants to laugh, but most of me wants to cry.

    3. #3 |  Marty | 

      Here’s one of a handful of comments in the UK magnet story that made reference to dogs getting shot-

      ‘How do you know the police have been in your house in America?

      All your pets are shot dead and there’s piss on the toilet seat.’

      When the Brits make fun of you, you know you’re doing it wrong!

    4. #4 |  Highway | 

      So is San Francisco selling soil to the chinese now, along with the paper they’re making people sort?

    5. #5 |  Dog's New Clothes | 

      One of the commenters on the magnet story posted this picture from a similar raid.

    6. #6 |  chance | 

      My last attempt to comment was destroyed by the tubes of the interweb, so instead of three paragraphs, here’s my short answer to your question: “Are we bad at explaining what this whole liberty thing is all about?”

      Yes you are.

    7. #7 |  Matt Moore | 

      chance – Liberty is pretty much the opposite of whatever you support.

    8. #8 |  chance | 

      Exactly my point.

    9. #9 |  Nevada midwife | 

      The Fairness Doctrine might be a funny exercise. I wonder how long it would take folks to get it that “I support more taxes for police and prisons to address all societal ills” and “I support more taxes for gargantuan social programs to address all societal ills” are not remarkably different points of view. I wonder if “I support smaller government, lower taxes, and a policy of minding our own business to address all societal ills” would ever be presented as an opposing viewpoint.

    10. #10 |  random guy | 

      I could only read about three of those NYT comments before I had to turn away in disgust. Are people really that weak that they think everyone else needs a government supervisor in their lives for everything they do? Are they actually so arrogant that they think that only their pet policies have justification? I just can’t believe they can say with a straight face that banning gambling, prostitution, strip clubs, etc, is ridiculous and then in the very same sentence support government fines for mis-sorting your garbage, in the name of, all things, the environment. Never mind that all are unnecessary, nosy, and stupid. I mean a banana peel rots just as fast in a landfill as it does in a compost heap, and you don’t have to send out two garbage trucks to pick up the same garbage. Can’t they see that the resources they are wasting on this bull*hit will inevitably do more long term damage to their environment and budget then simply throwing it away? Or are they really so shallow that they don’t care about any of that so long as they look good in front of the neighbors?

      All those questions are rhetorical of course. I’m just glad I read Orwell, cause if I didn’t know the term doublethink I might just go mad trying to fathom the blissfully stupid comments on that article.

    11. #11 |  James D | 

      From Drudge:
      FLASH: RASMUSSEN Poll release at Noon Eastern:

      47% Favor Fairness Doctrine for Radio, TV…

      31% Want Government Requirement for Bloggers to Abide by Guidelines…

      Anyone REALLY think things will be better when the Socialist (er, Democratic) party has complete control?

    Leave a Reply