Links and Minifeatures 2008 01 31 (Thursday)

Cavalcade of Risk

(I didn't submit that post, which was previously published two years ago, but they linked it so I'm linking back)

Absolutely disgusting: Blood-boiler: Berkeley vs. the troops

How about DOD or even the entire US Government adopts a policy that there will be no contractors or subcontractors in the city of Berkeley. In fact, No federal services provided at all, since their representatives are unwelcome. Bye-bye, student aid at UC Berzerkley. Good bye, academic grants and matching funds and housing assistance and poverty grants and all of that good stuff. Send a message that if they're a part of the United States, they've got to accept what they may personally disagree with as well as everything else.

There are government programs I thoroughly despise. But it's a package deal - nobody is allowed to pick and choose. Berkeley can work to abolish the military if they want - but unless and until it happens, they need to allow the armed services to do their jobs.

Volokh Conspiracy has much more

I'd like to add to his contrast: "Adult" businesses are not agencies of the US Government. The military is. If the US Government can use interstate commerce to regulate a farmer raising grain for his own pigs, then they can certainly use it to control restrictions upon US Government activity. Suppose the city of Berkeley wanted to ban the Federal Bureau of Investigation? How far do you think that would get? And unlike the United States Military, the constitution does not, as I recall, mention the Federal Bureau of Investigation, let alone BATF. Or most other government agencies. How about if a libertarian state should decide to prohibit the activities of the Social Security Administration?

Abu Laith al-Libi Dead!

I may not be glad he's dead, but I am glad he won't be planning, supervising, funding, or encouraging any more terrorist activity.

For some folks, it's the only way to be sure.

Another cop killed in a no-knock raid over an insignificant amount of marijuana. Another innocent civilian tried for capital murder because the police want to play "Commando". Only the names have changed

This stuff has got to stop. Unless the police have reason to believe innocent lives are in imminent danger, there's simply no excuse for a "no knock" raid.

Of course, I don't agree that consumption of marijuana should be illegal, anymore than tobacco or alcohol. So long as you follow some rules designed not to endanger your fellow citizens, consenting adults and all that. I can't come up with a single positive thing to say about tobacco, and only the pain and nausea control for certain medical patients about marijuana. However, since it doesn't endanger anyone else per se, the government has no business getting involved beyond beyond rules to protect those who may not have made the decision of a competent adult to imbibe. I'm sure someone thinks it's wasteful of my life to play video games, surf the internet, or write an online website. That's no reason why it should be illegal.

HT Instapundit

I think I could support the Greenspan Amendment.

I liked Fred Thompson for many reasons, but one of the lesser ones was that running for President wasn't an all-consuming task for him. Having withdrawn from the race, he's back to doing other things.

A Banking Christmas Carol (part I) and A Banking Christmas Carol (part II)

Insider corroboration of things I was writing two years and more ago.

The Presidential elections are like two marathons. First, two groups of people run one marathon to see who gets to compete head to head in a second marathon. Not only that, but the criteria for competing in the two marathons are different. In the first race, you can only use one leg (right for Republicans, left for Democrats). In the second, you must use both legs.

That said, right now nobody has over ten percent of the delegates needed for nomination. So while the candidates have been training for months or years, they're maybe two miles into the first of the actual marathons. We may be down to five runners already (Clinton, Obama, McCain, Romney, and Huckabee), but it's waaay too early to call a winner even for the first set of marathons.

With that said, I'd rather have a RINO that can win the general than a "pure" Republican partisan who goes down to defeat against a hard left radical in centrist's clothing. Especially since I'm a libertarian in most things.

You want a better candidate to run next time? Start encouraging them now. Start laying the groundwork for them to succeed, even though they might not be the perfect candidate. We don't get the luxury of choosing some hypothetical candidate with no baggage (and therefore, no experience or proven ability). All three of the candidates I really liked have already dropped out, having met little success. Since one of these five people left standing is pretty certain to be taking the oath of office come January 20th, I'm going to vote for the best (or least bad) of the actual choices before me.