A few days ago, I posted a story about a shotgun that seemed to be unloaded when it actually was loaded. Today, I’d like to talk about a different kind of safety violation—the one ultimately responsible for probably the majority of all gun accidents: putting your finger on the trigger. But a movie is worth 10,000 words, so watch the videos, and then we’ll talk.
So to reiterate, Jeff Cooper’s four laws of gun safety:
All guns are always loaded
Never let the muzzle cover anything you don’t want to destroy.
Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target [and you are ready to shoot].
Always be sure of your target.
Jeff Cooper is reported to have said that the 3rd law alone could probably prevent something like two thirds gun accidents. Of course putting one’s finger on the trigger is the first thing most gun newbies (and even oldbies) do. Remember when Vice President Dick Cheney shot a hunting partner by accident? Finger on the trigger. The guy in the second video? Finger on the trigger when he fell? The guy in the third video? Violations of rules 1, 2, and 3. (And the next time you think only cops should have guns, remember that he was the only guy in the room professional enough to carry a Glock 40.)
People who have been using guns for years often put their finger on the trigger when inappropriate, even so-called professionals. Why? Well, ignorance and bad role models most likely. But even if you have the bad guy in your sights, your finger should still be off the trigger unless you want to shoot. We’ll discuss why in a moment. But it’s not enough to simply not put your finger on the trigger; you shouldn’t even have it in the trigger guard. Your finger should be straight and placed on the frame of the gun above the trigger guard.
Bad Role Models
Hollywood is replete with bad examples. Pick almost any movie where characters use a gun, and you’re likely to find people with their finger on the trigger. It seems that the generic bad guys tend to have better finger discipline than the stars. Take Jack Bauer of 24 for example. For the first five seasons, he consistently has his finger on the trigger.
Finally somewhere between season six and seven, he gained a small amount of finger discipline—at least on the poster—but in the actual show, his trigger finger discipline seems to disappear. Contrast that with the character of Samantha Carter in Stargate SG-1, and you’ll find that her trigger finger discipline is always impeccable. Still the bad examples outweigh the good ones ten to one (at least).
And you’re ready to shoot…
Generally speaking, Randy Cain doesn’t like it when people try to rearrange or edit the Four laws, but for rule three, he most certainly expounds the “and you’re ready to shoot addendum.” Go watch the first video again. The female policeman…person…officer had her sights on the target, but she most assuredly did not want to shoot. The problem is that our hands are made so that our fingers work together. Try this exercise. Hold your hand out straight. Now keep your pointer (trigger finger) straight while you curl your other three finger inward (like you’re holding a gun). I bet you can’t do it. There is a fancy name for it that escapes me at the moment (something like sympathetic grasp reflex), but the bottom line is, when you are in a stressful situation, adrenaline pumping, and you’re holding on to that gun for dear life, the stronger your grip, the more likely you are to accidentally pull the trigger due to the sympathetic grasp.
So the take home message is, don’t put your finger on the trigger unless you intend to actually shoot.
A few years ago, an obesity researcher at the University of Washington named Adam Drewnowski ventured into the supermarket to solve a mystery. He wanted to figure out why it is that the most reliable predictor of obesity in America today is a person’s wealth. For most of history, after all, the poor have typically suffered from a shortage of calories, not a surfeit. So how is it that today the people with the least amount of money to spend on food are the ones most likely to be overweight?
Drewnowski gave himself a hypothetical dollar to spend, using it to purchase as many calories as he possibly could. He discovered that he could buy the most calories per dollar in the middle aisles of the supermarket, among the towering canyons of processed food and soft drink. (In the typical American supermarket, the fresh foods–dairy, meat, fish and produce–line the perimeter walls, while the imperishable packaged goods dominate the center.) Drewnowski found that a dollar could buy 1,200 calories of cookies or potato chips but only 250 calories of carrots. Looking for something to wash down those chips, he discovered that his dollar bought 875 calories of soda but only 170 calories of orange juice.
As a rule, processed foods are more “energy dense” than fresh foods: they contain less water and fiber but more added fat and sugar, which makes them both less filling and more fattening. These particular calories also happen to be the least healthful ones in the marketplace, which is why we call the foods that contain them “junk.” Drewnowski concluded that the rules of the food game in America are organized in such a way that if you are eating on a budget, the most rational economic strategy is to eat badly–and get fat.
This perverse state of affairs is not, as you might think, the inevitable result of the free market. Compared with a bunch of carrots, a package of Twinkies, to take one iconic processed foodlike substance as an example, is a highly complicated, high-tech piece of manufacture, involving no fewer than 39 ingredients, many themselves elaborately manufactured, as well as the packaging and a hefty marketing budget. So how can the supermarket possibly sell a pair of these synthetic cream-filled pseudocakes for less than a bunch of roots?
For the answer, you need look no farther than the farm bill. This resolutely unglamorous and head-hurtingly complicated piece of legislation, which comes around roughly every five years and is about to do so again, sets the rules for the American food system–indeed, to a considerable extent, for the world’s food system. Among other things, it determines which crops will be subsidized and which will not, and in the case of the carrot and the Twinkie, the farm bill as currently written offers a lot more support to the cake than to the root. Like most processed foods, the Twinkie is basically a clever arrangement of carbohydrates and fats teased out of corn, soybeans and wheat–three of the five commodity crops that the farm bill supports, to the tune of some $25 billion a year. (Rice and cotton are the others.) For the last several decades–indeed, for about as long as the American waistline has been ballooning–U.S. agricultural policy has been designed in such a way as to promote the overproduction of these five commodities, especially corn and soy.
That’s because the current farm bill helps commodity farmers by cutting them a check based on how many bushels they can grow, rather than, say, by supporting prices and limiting production, as farm bills once did. The result? A food system awash in added sugars (derived from corn) and added fats (derived mainly from soy), as well as dirt-cheap meat and milk (derived from both). By comparison, the farm bill does almost nothing to support farmers growing fresh produce. A result of these policy choices is on stark display in your supermarket, where the real price of fruits and vegetables between 1985 and 2000 increased by nearly 40 percent while the real price of soft drinks (a k a liquid corn) declined by 23 percent. The reason the least healthful calories in the supermarket are the cheapest is that those are the ones the farm bill encourages farmers to grow.
A public-health researcher from Mars might legitimately wonder why a nation faced with what its surgeon general has called “an epidemic” of obesity would at the same time be in the business of subsidizing the production of high-fructose corn syrup. But such is the perversity of the farm bill: the nation’s agricultural policies operate at cross-purposes with its public-health objectives. And the subsidies are only part of the problem. The farm bill helps determine what sort of food your children will have for lunch in school tomorrow. The school-lunch program began at a time when the public-health problem of America’s children was undernourishment, so feeding surplus agricultural commodities to kids seemed like a win-win strategy. Today the problem is overnutrition, but a school lunch lady trying to prepare healthful fresh food is apt to get dinged by U.S.D.A. inspectors for failing to serve enough calories; if she dishes up a lunch that includes chicken nuggets and Tater Tots, however, the inspector smiles and the reimbursements flow. The farm bill essentially treats our children as a human Disposall for all the unhealthful calories that the farm bill has encouraged American farmers to overproduce.
To speak of the farm bill’s influence on the American food system does not begin to describe its full impact–on the environment, on global poverty, even on immigration. By making it possible for American farmers to sell their crops abroad for considerably less than it costs to grow them, the farm bill helps determine the price of corn in Mexico and the price of cotton in Nigeria and therefore whether farmers in those places will survive or be forced off the land, to migrate to the cities–or to the United States. The flow of immigrants north from Mexico since Nafta is inextricably linked to the flow of American corn in the opposite direction, a flood of subsidized grain that the Mexican government estimates has thrown two million Mexican farmers and other agricultural workers off the land since the mid-90s. (More recently, the ethanol boom has led to a spike in corn prices that has left that country reeling from soaring tortilla prices; linking its corn economy to ours has been an unalloyed disaster for Mexico’s eaters as well as its farmers.) You can’t fully comprehend the pressures driving immigration without comprehending what U.S. agricultural policy is doing to rural agriculture in Mexico.
And though we don’t ordinarily think of the farm bill in these terms, few pieces of legislation have as profound an impact on the American landscape and environment. Americans may tell themselves they don’t have a national land-use policy, that the market by and large decides what happens on private property in America, but that’s not exactly true. The smorgasbord of incentives and disincentives built into the farm bill helps decide what happens on nearly half of the private land in America: whether it will be farmed or left wild, whether it will be managed to maximize productivity (and therefore doused with chemicals) or to promote environmental stewardship. The health of the American soil, the purity of its water, the biodiversity and the very look of its landscape owe in no small part to impenetrable titles, programs and formulae buried deep in the farm bill.
Given all this, you would think the farm-bill debate would engage the nation’s political passions every five years, but that hasn’t been the case. If the quintennial antidrama of the “farm bill debate” holds true to form this year, a handful of farm-state legislators will thrash out the mind-numbing details behind closed doors, with virtually nobody else, either in Congress or in the media, paying much attention. Why? Because most of us assume that, true to its name, the farm bill is about “farming,” an increasingly quaint activity that involves no one we know and in which few of us think we have a stake. This leaves our own representatives free to ignore the farm bill, to treat it as a parochial piece of legislation affecting a handful of their Midwestern colleagues. Since we aren’t paying attention, they pay no political price for trading, or even selling, their farm-bill votes. The fact that the bill is deeply encrusted with incomprehensible jargon and prehensile programs dating back to the 1930s makes it almost impossible for the average legislator to understand the bill should he or she try to, much less the average citizen. It’s doubtful this is an accident.
But there are signs this year will be different. The public-health community has come to recognize it can’t hope to address obesity and diabetes without addressing the farm bill. The environmental community recognizes that as long as we have a farm bill that promotes chemical and feedlot agriculture, clean water will remain a pipe dream. The development community has woken up to the fact that global poverty can’t be fought without confronting the ways the farm bill depresses world crop prices. They got a boost from a 2004 ruling by the World Trade Organization that U.S. cotton subsidies are illegal; most observers think that challenges to similar subsidies for corn, soy, wheat or rice would also prevail.
And then there are the eaters, people like you and me, increasingly concerned, if not restive, about the quality of the food on offer in America. A grass-roots social movement is gathering around food issues today, and while it is still somewhat inchoate, the manifestations are everywhere: in local efforts to get vending machines out of the schools and to improve school lunch; in local campaigns to fight feedlots and to force food companies to better the lives of animals in agriculture; in the spectacular growth of the market for organic food and the revival of local food systems. In great and growing numbers, people are voting with their forks for a different sort of food system. But as powerful as the food consumer is–it was that consumer, after all, who built a $15 billion organic-food industry and more than doubled the number of farmer’s markets in the last few years–voting with our forks can advance reform only so far. It can’t, for example, change the fact that the system is rigged to make the most unhealthful calories in the marketplace the only ones the poor can afford. To change that, people will have to vote with their votes as well–which is to say, they will have to wade into the muddy political waters of agricultural policy.
Doing so starts with the recognition that the “farm bill” is a misnomer; in truth, it is a food bill and so needs to be rewritten with the interests of eaters placed first. Yes, there are eaters who think it in their interest that food just be as cheap as possible, no matter how poor the quality. But there are many more who recognize the real cost of artificially cheap food–to their health, to the land, to the animals, to the public purse. At a minimum, these eaters want a bill that aligns agricultural policy with our public-health and environmental values, one with incentives to produce food cleanly, sustainably and humanely. Eaters want a bill that makes the most healthful calories in the supermarket competitive with the least healthful ones. Eaters want a bill that feeds schoolchildren fresh food from local farms rather than processed surplus commodities from far away. Enlightened eaters also recognize their dependence on farmers, which is why they would support a bill that guarantees the people who raise our food not subsidies but fair prices. Why? Because they prefer to live in a country that can still produce its own food and doesn’t hurt the world’s farmers by dumping its surplus crops on their markets.
The devil is in the details, no doubt. Simply eliminating support for farmers won’t solve these problems; overproduction has afflicted agriculture since long before modern subsidies. It will take some imaginative policy making to figure out how to encourage farmers to focus on taking care of the land rather than all-out production, on growing real food for eaters rather than industrial raw materials for food processors and on rebuilding local food economies, which the current farm bill hobbles. But the guiding principle behind an eater’s farm bill could not be more straightforward: it’s one that changes the rules of the game so as to promote the quality of our food (and farming) over and above its quantity.
Such changes are radical only by the standards of past farm bills, which have faithfully reflected the priorities of the agribusiness interests that wrote them. One of these years, the eaters of America are going to demand a place at the table, and we will have the political debate over food policy we need and deserve. This could prove to be that year: the year when the farm bill became a food bill, and the eaters at last had their say.
As the first decade of the twenty-first century draws to a close it is worth reviewing topics that may impact every man, woman and child. The disastrous Bush Administration pulled the legs out from under the baby boomers retirement with his inability to veto any spending bill. He has even crippled the future of the unborn. Lil’ Bush launched a global war on an adjective (terrorism) without any strategic objective. Previous wars had nouns as the subject. Social spending increased as well, not to mention the subversion of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Obama HAS taken up right where Lil’ Bush left off. Immense deficits and a monstrous national debt are threatening to consume us. As awful as this scenario is these are abstract concepts to Joe Public, something that plays little or no part in their daily lives. What about the impending eco-doom and the fact that we are running out of oil? These are abstract concepts that all the benighted masses can reify for themselves.
The conventional wisdom is that the burning of fossil fuels is leading to a global catastrophe that must be averted. At the same time we are running out of oil so quickly, the story goes, that oil production will plummet any day now sending the American lifestyle and economy into a tail spin from which it will never recover. This phenomenon called Peak Oil means that oil production has peaked and that existing fields are near depletion with no new significant oil fields being found.
I have beaten Al Gore like a government mule on multiple occasions in these hallowed pages. Al Gore is the Teflon ecologist as none of his lies, misrepresentations, and twisting of facts stick to him. Even for a politician he sets records for mendacity; Al lies like a rug. No longer in office this crank ecologist managed to get a Nobel Prize for not actually knowing anything about climate science. Al’s mantra must be that he never lets the truth interfere with a good story. This man is unbounded; there is literally nothing that he will not take the credit for (creating the Internet, saving the whole planet, blah blah blah …) with no more credentials than being a rich man’s son and dropping out of graduate school. Not exactly the credentials most Nobel laureate’s possess.
I have written about peak oil before in LRC. The most recent piece can be found here. The basic thesis is quite simple: we are not running out of oil. Hubbert is as wrong as wrong can be. The facts backing up this assertion are simple: every year in the past 60 years has had more petroleum reserves at the end of the year than at the beginning. This is certainly an odd phenomenon to be sure for something that is dooming the entire planet. This is pretty much the exact opposite of what Hubbert forecasted. Let’s get some reification: in December of 2009 world petroleum reserves were estimated to be 1.31 trillion barrels aka 131,000,000,000 of them. A barrel as a concept is only useful to a petroleum engineer. A barrel is 42 gallons. So a trillion barrels is 5,502,000,000,000 gallons, aka 5.5 quadrillion gallons, which is actually a whole lot. Experts will say that reserve estimates are crude (no pun intended) at best, and that variance can be as large of 10% or more. Ecologists always round these numbers down presaging disaster, and marketing people will round them up. Nevertheless entrepreneurs continue to explore; which is a powerful statement that the free market makes about the future profit potential. Petroleum exploration is very expensive using techniques that are right on the forefront of science and engineering.
Even if skeptics will quibble about the number I have chosen the point is still obvious: how can we be running out of something we always seem to have more of, even including the 100 million barrels or so that we consume each and every day. The balance of justice will tip in my favor, Hubbert is wrong and I am right at least in the short run. Clearly there is not an infinite reserve of petroleum because everything is finite in the very long run.
The gas giant planets of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are largely composed of hydrogen and methane which indicates that crude petroleum feedstock is abundant in our solar system. Thus there is some reason to think that some of this lies in the interior of our planet which slowly but surely percolates through the rock to the upper layers of the crust. Along the way methane gets oxidized into longer chain molecule as byproducts of methanogen metabolism. Man sees rocks as solid, but scientists know that they are porous at the molecular level; a large sponge, retarding, and filtering, but not stopping migrations thanks to Archimedes’ Principal, aka buoyancy. Oil exploration does not look for oil directly. They look for the rock formations that trap oil migration through the crust. This is the abiotic theory of petroleum creation. Thomas Gold raised 25 million dollars (USD) and sunk a well 6 miles into the Swedish bedrock. Sweden is a country without any known petroleum reserves. Gold found methane; methanogen’s and longer chain organic molecules. His excellent book The Deep Hot Biosphere should be on everyone’s reading list, except apparently Al Gore’s.
The earth’s oxygen is not a product of planet formation but has been and continues to be a product of primitive organism metabolism. Plants and other organism’s convert carbon dioxide into the oxygen we breathe. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a food to this ecosystem. In some ecological sense the burning of petroleum is a symbiotic relationship between man (no other animal consumes the petroleum found in the crust) and the plant world. Mankind produces CO2 as a byproduct of petroleum consumption and the plants respond by producing oxygen.
Global warming is the catastrophe which has been hyped by the media and has thus been transmogrified into a cultural bogeyman targeting humanity. Global warming is the direct result of increased atmospheric CO2 which is produced by mankind in their insidious combustion of petroleum. Global warming will cause the north and south poles to melt which will destroy all waterfront property around the world; it will cause new biological threats to develop. New strains of influenza and other viral and bacterial threats will see the additional few parts per million of CO2 as the go signal to run wild. This is of course a pile of crap, but indicative of the shallow reasoning environmentalists use. Most of us learned this as a fable in grade school: "Chicken Little". Smokin’ Hot Al Gore runs around the world like a power-drunk Chicken Little searching for ignorant rubes that he can save. Runs is not accurate: Al flies around the world on private jets like a power-drunk Chicken Little. There are no TSA cavity searches for this vanguard of mankind. Still Al’s fable always ends the same way he is anointed king and the environmental ninnies open up concentration, I mean, reeducation camps. Al was so close to the levers of power that he cannot get it out of his mind. His fever dreams are replete with scenarios where he would act Presidential and force people to do the right thing. To date the American people and the Constitution have kept him at bay. He is not deterred; he spews his eco-madness non-stop as an attention-getting tool lest the public forget who their savior is.
Unfortunately the climate science to support these assertions is actually very thin even if present in copious amounts. It consists mainly of computer simulations of questionable predictive value. These models must be carefully tuned in order to converge at all. This same tuning can show many results like a perpetual ice ball planet or a raging inferno similar to Venus. A reputable climate scientist will admit this in professional publications but these facts always seems to get dropped from discussion in propaganda venues like Time, Newsweek, Financial Times, or the Economist. These models can generate many forms of disastrous outcome in glossy four-color graphics. What they can’t do is accurately predict the climate future. No amount of spending on supercomputers (always taxpayer funded) will change this fact. It is an initial condition boundary value problem for a system of coupled non-linear partial differential equations that can never be compensated for. If you read the hyperlinked data the problem is in the smoothness (the weather can never be smoothed out).
Temperature data over the last 150 is a worthless statistic when you consider that this planet has been around for 4.5 billion years, and that life emerged only in the last 600 million years. For millions of years the Earth was covered by a massive ice sheet that prevented sunlight from striking the ground. In the last hundred thousand years there have been multiple ice ages and warm periods, yet life prevails.
The mendacity of this "science" threatens all of humanity. The third world struggles to get into the first world. They do this by increasing their energy consumption in their daily lives by working in some form of hampered market economy. This increase in energy consumption allows them to produce goods like running shoes, trendy fleece jackets, and iPods. If either global-warming or peak petroleum cranks have their way energy consumption across the planet will decrease. New laws will only serve to strangle the economy of utility to be found from the division of labor. This strangulation will be most severe in the developing world; it literally threatens billions.
Socialism kills millions when confined to a single country (China, Russia, and Cambodia). If adopted on the world scale it threatens billions. Democracy is the god that the west is trying to get the whole world to implement. Ecologists and Socialists have failed miserably as the body politic knows to reject their eco-prophets at the polling place. Al Gore, John Kerry, current communist bozos and Ralph Nader have all been rejected in their manifold attempts to have their hands on the most powerful levers in the world: the American Imperial Presidency.
It is the developing world that will be punished the most. It should seem odd that a celebrity like Al Gore can have a mansion that consumes twenty times the monthly average utilities in the town where he lives, Nashville. He can also fly around the world in private jets to spew his provocative mendacity. His eco-devotee worshippers never question big Al’s carbon footprint either personal (currently) or the 8 years of president on-deck imperialist to Clinton. Big Al will tell us with a straight face that global cooling is really global warming that has gone into a stealth mode, just to fool us. Bill Clinton is now a fulltime buffoon and acts like one; he knows where he belongs. Gore takes himself serious and is very dangerous to mankind thanks to his Nobel status.
The Intra-Government Panel on Climate Change spews questionable science at the entire world through mass media replication of the mendacious façade of impending doom. Taxpayers around the world get bilked for this science. Their tentacles reach into all other domains via regulation. If the triple threat of climate change, petroleum production, and intra-governmental socialism are successful then billions will suffer and millions will certainly perish.
These clowns who cannot predict the weather next week want to predict it forever. Unlike TV weathermen political predictions turn into laws thanks to prevaricating politicians like Al Gore. These laws are directly targeted at capitalism to destroy it. Politicians know that capitalism via Human Action is their mortal enemy as it strips them of all their power. Politicians are just ordinary citizens that have power over others. It is this power that they crave to yield. Capitalism and Political "Science" are in a death match to the end because one cannot exist without destroying the other.
Socialism is the stealth political platform that peak oil and climate doomsayers promulgate. It is a thinly veiled menace to the body politic of the first, second and third worlds. Socialism via ecological regulation will punish the taxpayers and workers of the entire planet. The first world can adapt to some extent as they have shown through all the market crashes, recessions, regulations wars and market hampering of the twentieth century. It is the developing world that will be damaged the most, and these are the planet’s most endangered ecosystems. Energy and market transactions are the only way out of the cruel misery of poverty and ignorance. They do not love their children or their cultures any less than the developed world and should be accorded the same chance to prosper.
Let’s make the next decade one in which reason takes the field of the political debate and rolls back the twin threats of "Peak Oil" and Climate Change socialism. Ignore the Hubbert’s and Gore’s of the world. Let us welcome the developing nations like China, India and others into the fraternity of peace and prosperity through capitalism.
December 31, 2009
George Giles [send him mail] is the founder of the Gonzo School of Economics, the radical branch of Austrian Economic Theory. He was the youngest Republican ever elected in 1972 at age 17. You could be elected at age 17 if the office was not assumed until after age 18. It only took 3 months of local GOP meetings to become a virulent Libertarian ever after.
When I was a journalism student at the University of Tennessee 35 years ago, one thing we were told over and over again was that journalism served a “watchdog” role in keeping tabs on government. I had assumed (naïvely, of course) that the term “watchdog” meant serving as a counterforce against the predations of the state.
Alas, what I have found that it really means is that modern journalists and their mainstream organs like the New York Times, Washington Post, Vanity Fair, Time and Newsweek, not to mention a gaggle of numerous smaller wannabe publications, are making sure that the state is using all of its powers and then some to push people into line. As a college professor who works on a faculty that is overwhelmingly left-liberal, the one thing I hear time and again from my colleagues is that people need a tough, “kick-ass” government to make them behave.
The modern mantra of journalists is “comfort the afflicted, afflict the comfortable,” and we see that theme pursued time and again. This leads to situations that tell me that the press sees itself as the entity that will ensure that the government keeps all of us in line, as we cannot be trusted with anything as individuals. And Lord help someone who really thinks that the Bill of Rights was a restriction against the powers of the state against individuals; such thinking is “so 18th Century” or worse.
Take the Martha Stewart case, for example. According to the Usual Pundits on both the right and the left, the conviction and imprisonment (albeit rather brief) of Stewart represented a triumphant moment in which we once again affirmed the Principle that No One is Above the Law. Actually, it demonstrated a more fundamental condition fully supported by the mainstream media (or MSM): the state and its prosecutors are above the law, and the press will make sure of that.
Why do I make such a charge? There was no way the feds could charge Stewart with insider trading, and they knew it. Thus, they hatched a plan with the NYT and Wall Street Journal being complicit in lawbreaking: prosecutors fed secret grand jury information to those papers that was designed to damage the stock price of Martha Stewart Living and compel Stewart to meet with prosecutors and investigators in order to stop the bleeding. (In fact, Stewart was convicted of lying to investigators during that fateful meeting.)
It is a felony to leak grand jury information and is punishable by up to five years in prison. Yet, the feds did it and no one – no one – in the media complained about this episode of lawbreaking which was done in order to trick someone into committing a “crime” so that the press could have its Big Story and the prosecutors could indict and convict its Big Fish.
So, who is above the law here? The “watchdog” media assured federal prosecutors and their minions that both they and the media could do what they darned well please, and the law be damned. (After all, the law only is for “little people,” not for Important People like prosecutors and reporters for the NYT.) There was no mention of this situation on any editorial pages of our “prestigious” newspapers; instead, we saw only the self-congratulation that happens when the media allies itself with dishonest prosecutors to railroad “chosen” people into prison.
Lest anyone think I am simply “defending the rich” (which, apparently, is a crime in and of itself in this present time), I also look at the behavior of prosecutors across the country who regularly violate the law and certainly the U.S. Constitution, all with the blessings of the media, both right and left. It is very rare that any news organization calls for any sanctions to be placed on prosecutors who are exposed as lawbreakers.
Tom Kirkendall, a Houston attorney who actually cares about the Bill of Rights, has written many posts on his blog about the prosecutorial wrongdoing in the Enron case and the prosecution of R. Allen Stanford. (The only thing the feds have not done in the Stanford case is to declare him an “enemy combatant” and hold him in the same conditions they held José Padilla.)
Yet, there is no outrage in the media. Ironically, Stanford’s treatment is not much different than the treatment given in Russia to Mikhail Khodorkovsky, a businessman who apparently angered Vladimir Putin. However, the NYT had a lengthy article condemning Khodorkovsky’s imprisonment, but apparently believes that denying bail to an American businessman and holding him in conditions reserved for those on death row is perfectly acceptable.
As one who was involved in the infamous Duke Lacrosse Non-Rape, Non-Kidnapping, and Non-Sexual Assault case, I can tell you that the MSM will swallow just about anything from prosecutors, providing it fits the anti-capitalist and anti-Bill of Rights narrative that dominates the American media today. Even though most journalists think of themselves as being far superior in intelligence than most Americans, the leaders of the “Newspaper of Record” were True Believers in the “Magic Towel” that allegedly appeared in the Duke case, a towel that managed to make the DNA of Crystal Mangum appear while not wiping away the DNA of anyone else.
Yes, the same journalists who want us to believe that simple cotton towels have magical properties also want us to believe that it is OK for government-funded “scientists” to fake data and engage in outright fraud just to save us from the fate of “climate change.” Oh, and these are the same people who believe that Al Gore is a genius, an “intellectual’s intellectual.” (Actually, I had some dealings with Gore when I worked in Tennessee and can tell readers that the guy was just another fat, scripted politician who enjoys average intelligence at best.)
Indeed, the MSM is no “watchdog” of government. Journalists are lapdogs of the state, and little more than that. As for the constituency of liberty, I do find it telling that the one politician who does speak out for real liberty, Ron Paul, is derided in the MSM as a “kook” and a “nutcase.” Somehow, that makes sense to me, given what I have seen in the media. From Sean Insanity at Fox News to Rachel Mad Dog at MSNBC, we see that the media loves dictators, “take-charge” people who throw around their weight. As for liberty, well, that is passé at best and dangerous at worst.
December 29, 2009
William L. Anderson, Ph.D. [send him mail], teaches economics at Frostburg State University in Maryland, and is an adjunct scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.He also is a consultant with American Economic Services. Visit his blog.
Hollywood is replete with bad examples. Pick almost any movie where characters use a gun, and you’re likely to find people with their finger on the trigger. It seems that the generic bad guys tend to have better finger discipline than the stars. Take Jack Bauer of 24 for example. For the first five seasons, he consistently has his finger on the trigger.
Finally somewhere between season six and seven, he gained a small amount of finger discipline—at least on the poster—but in the actual show, his trigger finger discipline seems to disappear. Contrast that with the character of Samantha Carter in Stargate SG-1, and you’ll find that her trigger finger discipline is always impeccable. Still the bad examples outweigh the good ones ten to one (at least).
Recent Comments