000917.html

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Mon, 28 May 2001 12:20:22 GMT
I watched Ian Thorpe, the "Thorpedo" win one of the swimming contests. His size 17 feet really do work like flippers according to this NBC article.

From kaba:

I am tired of seeing people get attacked for speaking the truth and the hecklers not being able to prove their point other than scorn or ridicule. Liberals can't refute the truth so all liberals instead attempt to make the truth bearer into a buffoon hoping to draw the public's attention away from the message! I will tell you a secret and I hope that you learn from it! If I hear something being debated pertaining to a subject that I am not cognizant of, therefore impartial, I examine the manner of the debate and conduct. I know who is telling the truth and who is lying by the tactics employed - the liar always attacks the opposing person and the truth teller always attacks the opposing premise! What great person or debater has ever proven their point by ridiculing people? Did Jesus use this method? Who has ever used ridicule other than those who can't refute the truth, such as what the Pharisees did to Jesus? Truth is never defended with ridicule. Facts speak for themselves. -- "Doc" Tavish

From Free Kentucky's Most Basic Right page:

The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. -- Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone's 1768 Commentaries on the Laws of England.

Michael Alex Wasylik at WOIFM - Vote for Harry Browne: Mr. Wasylik decides to support Mr. Browne. Yay! [latte]

Todd McCormick at Marijuana News - Todd McCormick's Letter from The Hole: "I say that we should not fear. I'm in the heart of the monster and feel no fear." Todd McCormack was denied the right to defend himself in court along with Peter McWilliams. They've killed Peter. Todd is now in solitary confinement (the hole) because he tested positive for cannabis (the first test with no initial sample to see what would actually imply recent use). He would love to get letters. I doubt the address below is exactly what the prison usually tells folks, but it is apt:

Todd Patrick McCormick
P. O. W. #11071-112
P.O. Box 3007
Terminal Island, CA 90731
God bless you, Todd. So how long are we going to put up with this? When will the time come to storm the prisons and free the POWs?
When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic. -Dresden James

Kevin Tuma - Social Justice 101: Cartoon commentary on hate crime legislation with a tip o' the hat to George Orwell.

CNEWS via Cannabis News - Legalize Hard Drugs, Colombians Tell Organization: Legislators in Columbia are finally following the money and realizing that the way to take away organized crime's power is to take away their drug profits. How? Legalize. Elementary my dear Watson. [cn]

Restrepo cited well-established economic arguments that you can't work against the laws of the market, and all demand generates its own supply.

"The prohibitionist laws in the States in the 1920s are a clear example that violating the law of the market is equivalent to kicking the goat."

Restrepo acknowledged that the topic of legalization is taboo among many, but he said it must be explored.

"Demythicization of this topic could be a great asset in the search for unconventional solutions to the problem of international trade in illegal drugs," he said.

"Legalization could mean depriving drug traffickers of the powerful economic ingredient that makes this illicit activity so lucrative."

Dan Gardner at The Ottawa Citizen - You Can't Keep a Banned Drug Down: Guess what? There is no evidence of any link between a drug's legality and its rate of use. Claims to the contrary are based on the claimer's false intuition. Duh-uh. [cn]

Stephen P. Halbrook at NRA-ILA - An Armed Society: Mr. Holbrook reports on a visit to Switzerland, a country with no standing army that defends itself with its citizen militia. Every Swiss male owns an assault rifle or three, and many of them use these rifles often to put tight groups of holes in paper targets. [lew]

My friends listened in disbelief as I explained that the then-pending "Crime Bill" in America would make it a five-year felony to possess a firearm magazine holding over ten cartridges if the magazine had been made after 1994. They laughed contemptuously at the anti-gun claim that "assault rifles" have but a sole purpose: to kill as many people as quickly as possible. To these Italian Swiss, a fucile d'assalto (assault rifle) has only one purpose in peacetime: to shoot as many bullseyes as quickly as possible.

There's a new article in The Libertarian series by Vin Suprynowicz:

    • Will rewrite nation's history to suit new tenant: a review of Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture by Michael A. Bellesiles. Mr. Bellesiles uses probate records to show that early Americans did not have many guns. Vin points out clearly why this "science" is completely bogus. I can add my own experience to this one. My Dad used to own at least 10 long rifles of various calibers and a number of handguns. He has given many of them away to his sons and intends to sell the rest before he dies. If you look at his probate records, you will see no guns listed. Concluding that he owned no guns is completely wrong. He was a competition rapid fire pistol shooter. He sent thousands upon thousands of rounds down range. He used his rifles to put meat on the table every year.

      Thomas Sowell at TownHall.com - Social Security -- a 'risky scheme': algore has labelled GW's plan to partially privatize Social Security as a "risky scheme". Mr. Sowell tells us why it is Social Security itself that is the "risky scheme". Ponzi scheme is more like it, IMNSHO. [mind]

      Private pensions belong to you. Government pensions are controlled by politicians who can change the rules any time they want to. That is what makes Social Security a risky scheme.

      Add comment Edit post Add post