Friday, July 29, 2011

Protect Internet Privacy -- Fight HR 1981


Demand Progress reports:


"A direct assault on Internet users" is what the ACLU is calling it.

Yesterday a U.S. House committee approved HR 1981, a broad new Internet snooping bill. They want to force Internet service providers to keep track of and store their customers' information -- including your name, address, phone number, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, and temporarily-assigned IP addresses.

The American Civil Liberties Union, the American Library Association, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Demand Progress, and 25 other civil liberties and privacy groups have expressed our opposition to this legislation.

Will you join us in opposition by emailing your lawmakers right away? Just click here.

They've shamelessly dubbed it the "Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act," but our staunchest allies in Congress are calling it what it is: an all-encompassing Internet snooping bill.

CNet Reports: Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, who led Democratic opposition to the bill said, " 'It represents a data bank of every digital act by every American' that would 'let us find out where every single American visited Web sites.' "

"The bill is mislabeled," said Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the panel. "This is not protecting children from Internet pornography. It's creating a database for everybody in this country for a lot of other purposes."

Please click here to join the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Consumer Federation of America, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, Demand Progress and 25 other civil liberties and privacy groups in opposing this legislation.

Thanks for fighting for Internet freedom.

-- The Demand Progress team

P.S. The bill just passed committee, so it's time to push back hard. Will you please ask your friends to take action too?


=====================================

Sunday, July 24, 2011

J. Neil Schulman's Lady Magdalene's Wins at Anthem Libertarian Film Festival

On July 16, 2011, J. Neil Schulman won the "Special Jury Prize for Libertarian Ideals" for his comedy suspense film, Lady Magdalene's.

The award was presented to Schulman by Anthem: The Libertarian Film Festival.

A longtime Karl Hess Club attendee, Schulman has frequently presented lectures on libertarian philosopy at the KHC.

Friday, July 08, 2011

Ben Pleasants Holds a Reading for Ghosts of Pumpkin Park

Frequent Karl Hess Club attendee Ben Pleasants held a reading for his new play, Ghosts of Pumpkin Park, earlier this summer. It was hosted at Frances Rose's home.


Last May, Pleasants discussed his recent literary works at the Karl Hess Club.

Fellow KHC attendee Joseph O'Neill (below, far left) was among the guests, who read parts from Ben's play. Pleasants's wife, Paula, is sitting behind O'Neil.


Kathleen Rose took these photos at the event.

Apart from his plays, Pleasants's is a novelist and journalist, whose articles include When Bukowski Was a Nazi, Dan Fante: Man on Fire, Charles Bukowski Taught Me 'How to Write a Short Story', When Ask the Dust Was Forgotten, and Hawaiian Princess: Marc Forby Tells the Tale of Princess Kaiulani.


Pleasants's novels include Spearmint Leaves, and his latest, The Victory of Defeat.

Tuesday, July 05, 2011

Santa Monica Councilman Kevin McKeown's Hypocrisy

A few weeks ago, I submitted a Letter to the Editor to the Santa Monica Daily Press. They published it in their July 5th issue:


Editor:

You report that City Councilmember Kevin McKeown "urged commissioners to resist [rent] increases on low-income tenants during these rough economic times ("Rents to rise by 3.2 percent," June 11-12," page 1)."

Yet McKeown supported raising Santa Monica's sales tax — which even low-income residents must pay — despite "these rough economic times."

Apparently, McKeown believes City Hall cannot meet increasing expenses without raising revenue, but that landlords can magically do so.

Thomas M. Sipos, Santa Monica



Santa Monica is a city with both strict rent control and high property and sales taxes. McKeown (like many city officials) thinks that rising cost-of-living expenses justifies keeping rents low. If food and gas prices rise, it's "unfair" for tenants to pay higher rents. Never mind that landlords' expenses have also risen, including the cost of maintaining, repairing, and heating the tenants' apartments.

Yet hypocritically, rising expenses justifies the city raising its sales tax (which went up another half a percentage this year), even on low income tenants.

The total sales tax in Santa Monica (state, county, and city combined) was 10.25% until only a few days ago -- one of the highest rates in California.

Since the state sales tax went down 1% on July 1st, it's now 9.25% in Santa Monica -- still one of the highest rates in California.

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Video War Games -- Teaching Tool of the Welfare/Warfare State

When I was young and stupid, I loved to play war with my friends. Board games when we were indoors. Sticks and plastic guns when we went outside. Either that, or plastic toy soldiers.

The State counts on children's distorted, romanticizing of war. As cynical, wounded combat veterans return home, and are dropped into an underfunded V.A. health care system, a new generation of warrior wannabes is always waiting to grow up quickly so they can join the battlefield.

War toys have improved since I was young. Video wargames are addictive, and their images ever more realistic -- but minus the actual pain. What better way to desensitize children into becoming tomorrow's lean, mean, killing machines?

Get them "hooked" on the high of fighting virtual battles, without any consequences -- until they grow up, go to an actual war, and lose a limb or two...)

It's called militainment -- and a new documentary examines this creepy trend. Read the Hollywood Investigator's Returning Fire: Docu Examines How Video Game 'Militainment' Promotes War.

Sunday, June 12, 2011

Jerry Jewett on Gary Chartier's The Conscience of an Anarchist

Jerry Jewett reviews The Conscience of an Anarchist Why It's Time to Say Good-Bye to the State and Build a Free Society, by Gary Chartier.


Who hasn't felt that the State is a little bigger than it ought to be, or that it tries too hard, or perhaps that it is hostile to common folk? Such sentiments can scarcely be out of place when the State wields Leviathan-like power.

What would a stateless society look like? What principles could carry it? What would life be like?

Doesn't everyone knows what democracy is, and that, for all its failures, it beats all else?

How closely one analyzes things determines whether this glib answer will stand.

A democracy is one way of running a State -- and so it is much like an authoritarian regime or a monarchy, in that respect. Not having a State at all is the alternative seldom explored, and almost never seriously explored. Of course, when the State superintends instruction and designs the curriculum, a good deal of State-reverencing and lore-building gets taught from the young up, to build brand loyalty.

Although all Karl Hess Supper Club members likely know better, lots of people think of nihilists when they hear of anarchy, for nihilists like to have fits in public under the name of protest, and break things -- ideally expensive things wealthy people might own or like to own -- to protest perceived injustice.

But though some nihilists may claim to be anarchists, they have no claim to anarchy. Just as the libertarian perspective rests on a solid foundation of principles, so, too, does anarchy, though the story has a garbled history with many early missteps.

Who are anarchists and what would their ideal society look like? Although Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Emma Goldman, and other anarchists of the middle to late 19th century preached violence, revolution, and either elimination of private property or its confiscation and redistribution, violence is the thing real anarchists shun, for it smacks so much of the preferred technique of the State.

As Randolph Bourne insightfully pointed out long ago, "War is the health of the state." Anarchists would say the peace is the health of society, and worth the struggle to get it, as the expense of losing the State. The American strain of anarchy traces back many generations, with Albert Jay Nock, Frank Chodorov, and Murray Rothbard carrying the torch in the 20th Century.

This recent book explores the high points of anarchy in 114 pages. As J. Neil Schulman has said of the Reardon Metal span that bridges the gorge in Atlas Shrugged Part I, that such a light and beautiful structure can bear the weight it carries is remarkable, referring both to the bridge itself and metaphorically to the movie. Much the same could be said of this book.

Rather than crafting a ponderous tome laden with obscure facts and arcane terminology, Professor of Law and Business Ethics at La Sierra University Gary Chartier has written a survey that covers enough ground to show the personal and spiritual reasons to want to be free of the onerous, devastating burden of the State in a smooth, easy-reading yet utterly coherent manner.

The vaunted legitimacy of the State gets inspected and rejected in the course of the book, since any coercion of unwilling others simply to impose one's own vision of what proper social order should look like falls of its own unsupported weight.

Although the author cheerfully admits to being of the libertarian left, many of his thoughts, insights, and queries resonate well with those of another flank of libertarianism, the anarcho-propertarian element.

The book is not doctrinaire nor partisan. The book does not pretend to supply all the answers, but it certainly poses a bundle of extremely stimulating questions to feed the discussion.

Anyone for whom real liberty both personally and socially is more than mere lip service might do well to read this book. Its greatest value will lie in its ability to simply and directly reach people not of the agorist tradition, people who do not understand libertarian themes or the peaceful ideals of anarchy.

Thursday, May 12, 2011

Ron Paul: Killing Osama Bin Laden Not Necessary

Rather than war and assassinations, Ron Paul believes that U.S. foreign interests can be better achieved through a policy of 1. international cooperation, and 2. the rule of law.

Writing for Politico.com (5/12/11), Juana Summers reports:

Ron Paul says he would not have authorized the mission that led to the death of Osama bin Laden, and that President Barack Obama should have worked with the Pakistani government instead of authorizing a raid.

"I think things could have been done somewhat differently," Paul said this week. "I would suggest the way they got Khalid [Sheikh] Mohammed. We went and cooperated with Pakistan. They arrested him, actually, and turned him over to us, and he's been in prison. Why can't we work with the government?"

Asked by WHO Radio's Simon Conway whether he would have given the go-ahead to kill bin Laden if it meant entering another country, Paul shot back that it "absolutely was not necessary."

"I don't think it was necessary, no. It absolutely was not necessary," Paul said during his Tuesday comments. "I think respect for the rule of law and world law and international law. What if he'd been in a hotel in London? We wanted to keep it secret, so would we have sent the airplane, you know the helicopters into London, because they were afraid the information would get out?"