The Web Home of Shane Killian

Well, it’s time once again to place our marks onto ballots and pretend that it actually makes a difference. The most important point to remember is that sometimes not making any mark at all makes the biggest difference.

Let’s get the easy one out of the way first:

US Senate: Mike Beitler. The only other choices are Richard Burr, who’s less fiscally conservative than Bill Clinton, and Elaine Marshall, who seems to think that printing more money will somehow work all of a sudden. Beitler, on the other hand, is truly for smaller government, including bringing our troops home and ending senseless, expensive, and failed policies like the War on Drugs. No contest.

US House: None. Let’s face it, it’s between Patrick McHenry—another pesudoconservative—and Jeff Gregory, who thinks that we can solve everything with magical tax cuts and not have to worry about cutting spending to match (also, worst website ever!).

Constitutional Amendment: Is it just me, or does anyone else think they should publish the exact text of the amendment on the ballot? Anyway, here it is. This is a bad idea for several reasons:

• First, North Carolina has a lot of dumb laws on the books, making it illegal to do things like give someone an alcoholic beverage in a room where people are pretending to gamble (NCGS § 14-293) or stealing pine needles (NCGS § 14-79.1).

• Second, a lot of people commit felonies when they’re young and make mistakes. Many of them develop into good, honorable people despite—and in some cases even because of—these mistakes.

• The very concept of a system of individual liberty means that someone should have their full rights restored upon completion of their sentence. All of them. Including the right to seek public office, even sheriff.

• A candidate’s background—including his criminal record—comes into play when running for office. The voters can certainly decide to reject a candidate because of his criminal record. (And if their choice is diminished in this, it can only be because of North Carolina’s hideously restrictive ballot access and election system.)

• It’s also interesting that this is confined to the office of sheriff, and not (say) to County Commissioners or state legislators. How many legislators would we no longer have if this were the case? (I’ll refrain from making a crack about Commissioner candidate Loy Dellinger. His case was most likely a bad rap—which actually supports my points here, anyway.)

What it all boils down to is, I’m voting against the Constitutional amendment.

State and local offices below the fold.

I just sent the following letter to my Senators:

I am writing to oppose S.3804, the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act. I believe that the real purpose of this act—like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act before it—has a more sinister hidden purpose.

It has never been found that file-sharing sites harm the profits of content makers. In fact, studies show just the opposite: by increasing awareness of their intellectual property, they have sold far more content than they otherwise would have. The results of these studies are so consistent, and so easily accessible, that it is laughable to think that the media corporations are unaware of them. All of their lobbying to protect themselves from these “pirates” is disingenuous.

The internet is free. On the internet, we have true liberty where all are equal. A rock band recording in a living room, an independent filmmaker with a home studio, and an amateur journalist all are on the same equal footing with the manufactured and controlled output of big media corporations. This is what they are really seeking to suppress, since file sharing allows these smaller, independent players to gain attention for their product.

With the DMCA, the first mp3.com was shut down, even though it required you to have a physical copy of the CD containing the music you subscribed to. They shut down programmers who were trying to make a DVD player for Linux (instead of paying the corporations for the means of viewing content they had legally purchased). Programmers were even arrested for trying to make ebooks accessible to the blind.

On YouTube, DMCA abuse is a serious problem. If someone posts a video opposing something you believe, or criticizing you or your agenda, simply file a DMCA claim, and without providing even the first shred of proof, the video is taken down. Countless videos have been lost, and even entire channels banned because of action taken against videos that had no infringing content, because of a dishonest few.

This bill would expand this to entire web domains. Under this bill, like the DMCA before it, just the claim of infringement—again no evidence required—will result in not only the removal of infringing content, but the entire domain as well. Not merely affecting the individual who allegedly infringed a copyright, not merely remove the alleged infringing content, the action is against the entire domain—meaning the entire website, and any other websites sharing that domain, are rendered completely inaccessible. People will not only be prevented from accessing the alleged (but not proved) infringing content, but also the legitimate content of independent providers for whom this is the only real means of competing against the big corporations. All of this, without the Attorney General so much as even filing an action. The site is declared guilty until proven innocent. This is mercantilism at its worst, the very thing our forefathers rebelled against when they dumped British tea into Boston Harbor.

Even worse, this bill has chilling ramifications for freedom of speech. An entire website can be shut down by an unproved claim; what is to stop abuse from happening all over the internet? This bill has, so far, been suppressed from appearing on the GPO’s website; I was able to read it because someone posted it to scribd.com, where users can post documents. This site is potentially vulnerable to the ramifications of this act. Imagine if people in Congress authoring such a bill in the future could take action against this site, or WikiLeaks, or any other such site just because they claim there’s infringing material somewhere on the site. This would deny everyone the benefit of all of the content on the site—including important, time-sensitive information like this.

Even if some content can be shown to infringe a copyright, that can be no justification for the wholesale denial of speech. As John Perry Barlow said about the internet more than a decade ago, “We cannot separate the air that chokes from the air upon which wings beat.”

If you’ve been paying any sort of attention to this site, you’ve seen the link to the World’s Smallest Political Quiz in the sidebar. One criticism some people have levied against the quiz is that the use of "Yes" to refer solely to the Libertarian position introduces a bias; another is that the user knowing which questions are in the Personal category and which are Economic could bias their answers as well, even unconsciously.

I’ve written a script to appeal to those critics. I’ve taken each of the questions and written a negative counterpart. My script randomizes both the order of the questions and which form of the question is presented; sometimes a Yes will mean more liberty, other times it will mean more government.

So if you’ve taken the quiz before and thought it was biased, try this form—and see if it gives you the same result.

And if it does, consider that it just might be accurate.

This is one of those pass-along things on Facebook, where you tell something about yourself to your friends. I liked doing this one so much I thought I’d post it here as well. The idea is to come up with the 10 books that have stuck with you the most—not necessarily the best, but the ones that had the most effect on your life. Here’s mine, with Amazon links:

1. How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World by Harry Browne. Although it wasn’t written as a self-help book, it’s probably the best self-help book ever written! Browne gives you a practical, logical, no-nonsense approach for everything from relationships to taking on obligations. Read it and take charge of your own life!

2. Cosmos by Carl Sagan. The classic PBS series made such an impression on my 12-year-old mind when it first aired. This being the days before VCRs (or at least before we had a VCR), this book, written as a companion to the series, helped me not only relive the series but grow and develop my mental skills. Carl Sagan was truly a master at both astronomy and writing.

3. The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein. A masterful work of science fiction with so much food for the mind that I’ve read it again and again, from teenage years into adulthood.

4. Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time by Michael Shermer. I must admit I had no idea who Dr. Shermer was when I first read this book, but I was so taken with it I just had to read more from him.

5. Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression by Mary J. Ruwart. Imagine being taken on a journey to a place so enlightening your life will never be the same. Now imagine that every single step of that journey is based on logic and rational inquiry. That is precisely what this book does as Dr. Ruwart shows, almost to a scientific certainty, that aggression in all its forms—even when unseen—causes the harm we see throughout society.

6. The Mask of Nostradamus: The Prophecies of the World’s Most Famous Seer by James Randi. By all rights, this should be his book Flim-Flam!, but the truth is I only read that after I was a confirmed skeptic. The Nostradamus book got me on my way. I’d never heard of James Randi, and I was researching Nostradamus for a paper I was writing in college. I came across this book, completely rewrote the paper as a result, and my approach to research and learning has never been the same since.

7. Whatever Happened to Penny Candy? by Richard Maybury. As one of the Uncle Eric books, it’s intended for children, but great for adults, too. Probably the best introduction to economics (at least, its most important aspects) that I know of.

8. The Voyage of the Beagle by Charles Darwin. Although his science books The Origin Of Species and The Descent of Man rightfully have their place as two of history’s most important books, this earlier book detailing his years on the HMS Beagle tells an inspiring story of Darwin’s love for all humanity and how he was truly a man ahead of his time.

9. Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. Written in the 1940s but still just as relevant today, this one simple lesson is not only a good lesson for economics, but for everyday life as well.

10. Murder on the Orient Express by Agatha Christie. Poirot rocks. That’s just all there is to it. Christie had a genuine talent for making improbable stories very real, with very real characters, and this masterpiece of hers has to be the best mystery novel ever written. Even if you’re not into mysteries, even if the identity of the murderer has been spoiled for you, this book is still a wonderful treat for the little grey cells.

In a previous blog entry, I speculated as to what a lunar eclipse might look like on the moon (which, from that point of view, would be a solar eclipse). No more speculating—the Japanese Kaguya probe took a picture of exactly that!

Now, this isn’t a fully total eclipse, as you can see from the sun brightly peeking out from the lower right, but it is enough to show the halo. Due to refraction, the parts of the halo near the sun turn red, while the parts of the atmosphere further away scatter blue light. All of this is for the same reasons that the sky is blue and sunsets are red. If the sun were directly behind the Earth, you likely would see a red halo all the way around.

It’s not only a beautiful sight, but it’s also wonderful when you consider that no human being in history has ever seen this before!

2009 is the International Year of Astronomy. Astronomy isn’t just about studying things in the sky that have nothing to do with our life here on Earth. Discoveries of extrasolar planets allow us to have an insight into our own world, and other discoveries such as Dark Matter and Dark Energy serve as a reminder of how little we know, and how profound and wondrous the universe really is.

However, there are a lot of things we do know. One of the most amazing is the fact that we know with accuracy the components that make up the universe (even if we don’t understand the nature of most of it). We also know the age of the universe to within 1%. Another fact which is not only amazing but also has the added benefit of upsetting creationists is the fact that we can even extract energy out of a complete vacuum—literally getting something from nothing!

So, enjoy the Year of Astronomy, and keep enjoying it for many years to come. You don’t have to spend any money, or do any studying, and there’s no math involved if you don’t want to do it. You don’t even have to buy a telescope. Just spend a little more time outside at night looking up.

In 2004, I calculated that a bare minimum of 129,717 North Carolina voters cast a vote for at least one Libertarian on the ballot. I achieved this by taking the largest vote total for us statewide (Christopher Cole for Lt. Governor), looking at counties where a Libertarian received more votes, and adding those to the total after subtracting Cole’s votes for that county.

I just did that again for our 2008 totals. This time, it was Mark McMains, who ran for Commissioner of Insurance, who garnered the most votes statewide (153,515). Using the same method, I have calculated the minimum number of North Carolina voters who voted for at least one balloted Libertarian. Caveats and analysis are below the fold, but I’ll go ahead and give you the total:

Again, these are unique votes for at least one balloted Libertarian, and is a minimum. The real number is certainly higher, although there’s no way to tell by how much.

Once again, it’s time to go over the Lincoln County sample ballot and select my picks for the people who are going to pretend to be in charge of things for awhile. We’ll start at the top:

President: Bob Barr. He’s not ideal—not only is he not Libertarian ideal (despite his party affiliation), he’s not even Ron Paul ideal, and if you’d told me in 2002 I’d be voting for him for President I’d have laughed in your face—but he is a darn sight better than either of those other two bozos. Plus, a vote for Bob Barr is a vote for ballot access for Libertarians in North Carolina.

US Senate: Christopher Cole. Great guy. I never have any qualms about voting for him.

US House: This was tough. Not that I was ever considering voting for McHenry, but the choice was Daniel Johnson or nobody. In the end, I figure the Democrats need all the help they can in this district, so I’m voting for Johnson. (Why, oh why couldn’t I live in BJ Lawson’s district?)

Governor: No question about it, Mike Munger. He owned the debates. My favorite was when, after McCrory and Perdue had given their usual non-answers (can Purdue say anything other than a string of sound bites?) he began an answer with, "Well, I’m actually going to answer the question…" He was the only candidate putting forth specific solutions for the problems facing North Carolina, and he did it without compromising his Libertarian principles or coming across as a radical. See? It can be done!

Lt. Governor: Phillip Rhodes. Like Chris Cole above, no qualms whatsoever. Great Libertarian, great guy.

Lesser offices below the fold.

So, now they’re talking about bailing out the mortgage companies. Let’s put this into perspective.

Bailing them out will mean more deficit spending, which will increase inflation. That inflation will eat into our earnings by resulting in even greater prices at the checkout counter, and the gas pump, and everywhere else, and more significantly it will eat into savings, including our retirement accounts.

So, really, what they’re proposing is to take wealth from people who have saved and spent their money wisely, and give it to people who made foolish investments and paid the price.

Sounds like a typical government reaction, doesn’t it?

I’ve always been confused about how some people think that judges are above the corruption and elitism inherent to politics. After all, what are they but politicians in black robes?

Case in point: our recent ballot access lawsuit here in North Carolina was struck down. The judge gave no credence to the liberty-based arguments of how oppressive and unconstitutional North Carolina’s ballot access restrictions are, choosing instead to simply sign his name to an opinion written by the state. As the Greensboro News & Record reports:

A judge has upheld North Carolina’s high standard requiring tens of thousands of signatures to be collected before a group is officially recognized as a political party, ruling there’s no fundamental right for the party of a voter’s choice to be on the ballot.

Translation: You only get to make the choices we permit you to make.

Superior Court Judge Robert Hobgood, who heard the case in a non-jury trial earlier this month in Wake County, ruled late Tuesday that the “state has a compelling interest in requiring a preliminary modicum of support before recognizing a political party and placing its candidates on the ballot.”

Translation: You don’t expect those incumbents to just let people run against them, do you?

Hobgood wrote that the state has an interest “in avoiding confusion, deception and even frustration of the democratic process in the general election.”

Translation: You’re too stupid to be able to handle more than two (or, in some cases, one) options on the ballot. Aren’t you so lucky to have the government here to make it simpler for you? Now, go away and let mommy and daddy decide what’s best for you.

What’s it going to take for people to want to descend on our politicians with torches and pitchforks? How much of this blatant oppression are we going to take?

One thing I keep hearing from family, from friends, and online, is that we will never make any real progress in this country as long as Congressmen and Senators can stick whatever they like in any old bill. They slip in pork spending, and horrendous legislation such as the Real ID Act (attached to a bill for defense spending and tsunami relief), with even the most conscientious legislator sometimes left with no choice but to vote for it to get a necessary bill passed.

All of these people need to write to Congress to support DownsizeDC’s One Subject at a Time Act.

The hopeful try to create a new party. The naive try to reform their own. The wise go to DownsizeDC.org.

So former Congressman Bob Barr just narrowly beat out Dr. Mary Ruwart for the Libertarian Party’s Presidential nomination.

I’m REALLY bummed this wonderful lady didn’t get our nomination. She really would have been our best foot forward, in so many ways. I’m sorry the other delegates couldn’t see that.

But, being the hopeless optimist that I am, I’m going to give Barr a fair chance. If I think he’s a net plus for liberty, I’ll vote for him. If I think he’ll be a good representative for the party, I’ll support him.

But I have to say, this is the first time since I started voting Libertarian in 1992 that I haven’t been excited about our Presidential candidate.