Daily Archives: April 28, 2004

Smoking Assault

Radley Balko warns of creeping nanny-statism:

The California state assembly is now considering a law banning you from smoking in your own car if your kids are riding with you.
Make no mistake, they’ll be in your home next.

Radley, you are correct. There shouldn’t be any additional laws necessary regarding this. Assault it pretty straightforward and the kids could certainly sue concurrently or later. It shouldn’t take many assault convictions and successful law suits to pretty much eliminated this problem.
I consider adults who smoke in cars or even in their homes with accompanying children to be a bit senseless, if not stupid.
On the other hand, if it is a privately owned establishment that is clearly labeled as a smoking environment then consenting adults should be free to patononize or work there without any outside interference.

End the Dole

I’m not a big fan of the WTO. Amongst other issues I have the WTO seems to operate behind a mask of secrecy that might even make the bush administration blush. However, there may be some positives:

When the US government gives away some $4 billion to American cotton farmers in return for a crop that’s valued at only $3 billion, something’s amiss.

And cotton subsidies are just a portion of the $19 billion that the federal government pays to boost US agriculture and its exports each year.
This week, the Geneva-based World Trade Organization made a preliminary ruling that the United States must end cotton subsidies because they distort global trade.
The WTO, which the US helped create as a way for consumers to benefit from open markets, has dealt a blow to the biggest stumbling block to expanded trade. Governments in rich nations need to use this ruling to persuade domestic farm lobbies that they can no longer delay the inevitable: no subsidies, only free competition.

It should not need WTO rulings to help persuade farm lobbies that the time for subsidies have ended. The people funding the subsidies should just say no!
Yep, that’s you and me paying these subsidies via taxes.
Update (4/29): Jane Galt has some good words about this ruling.

Freedom’s Just Another Word

In his remarks at the Republican National Committee Presidential Gala on October 8, 2003 bush says:

But the war on terror is more than just chasing down the killers or holding tyrants to account. The war on terror — our security comes in the war on terror from the spread of human liberty. (Applause.) See, free nations do not develop weapons of mass destruction. (Emphasis added) Free nations do not intimidate their neighbors. Free nations are peaceful nations.

bush claims to mean what he says so just how does he explain this:

Yet the Department of Energy is spending an astonishing $6.5 billion on nuclear weapons this year, and President Bush is requesting $6.8 billion more for next year and a total of $30 billion over the following four years. This does not include his much-cherished missile-defense program, by the way. This is simply for the maintenance, modernization, development, and production of nuclear bombs and warheads.

I still looking for definitions of “free” and “weapons of mass destruction” that eliminate the dissonance.
bush quote found via Dubya Speak and the Slate article is via Niall Kennedy.