Next time you protect me from a harmless druggie, could you not step on my foot?

Once upon a time, one saw signs at liquor stores and the like that said “If you’re lucky enough to look 26 or younger, please be prepared to show proof of age.” (Or maybe it was 24.) Over the years the cutoff has crept along; I’ve seen at least one that said 40.

Today it occurred to me: could that be because amphetamine addicts age rapidly?

Eric Raymond argues in favor of the war. Or rather, he argues in favor of some ideal war that will crush Islamic dreams of worldwide empire. What’s missing is any defense of the war actually in progress.

I like Russ Nelson‘s attitude:

How do you stop terrorism?

By not being terrified. By not overreacting. By not giving up essential liberties to obtain a little temporary safety. By not wasting treasure on useless tactics.

. . .

If terrorists came to America and killed 1,000 people a year, it wouldn’t even begin to show up on the causes of death. We can safely ignore terrorism. . . .

The above was published on Dave Farber’s IP list. I received several “attaboy”s and one comment saying “Anyone with a single brain cell would agree that we need to stop terror.” I disagree. Do we need to stop earthquakes? Hurricanes? Tornados? Volcanos? Blizzards? Or do we need to survive them?

Over in Volokhia, Jim Lindgren (cited by Tom W Bell) points out a presumably unintended consequence of the atrocious Kelo decision: if commercial activity is “public use”, then it’s not taxable. Hee hee.

“I think the world has been run long enough by well-meaning professionals. We might give the amateurs a chance now.”

—Carol Fisher in Hitchcock’s Foreign Correspondent (1940)

Dean Ing’s first novel Soft Targets (1979) suggested that against terrorists the most effective weapon is mockery. Since the London bombs I’ve seen hints of such an approach.

Arthur Silber (2006: that link is gone bad, here’s another) gets in a dig at another faction that favors indiscriminate violence:

. . . one has the sense that this kind of hawk (which is most of them now) can’t grasp the nature of a convincing argument. It is as if they believe that by shouting, over and over again, “But terrorists are really, really, really, REALLY evil!,” they will finally convince everyone who doubts or criticizes Bush’s foreign adventures that Bush is entirely right about everything. . . .

“Lady Liberty” says it well:

So rest peacefully in your assumption that none of the invasive new laws or procedures applies to you because you don’t have anything to hide. You’ll be just fine as long as the police never make a mistake. You won’t be a target of an investigation as long as you don’t want to do anything to generate suspicion, like drive, work, open a bank account, or rent an apartment. . . .

From the Boston Globe last week:

The top US military commander in the Middle East warned yesterday that troops are questioning whether the American public supports the Iraq war and implored political leaders to engage in a frank discussion about how to keep the country behind a mission that the armed forces believe is ”a war worth fighting.”

Does this strike anyone else as putting the cart before the horse?