In re John Walker

quoth Sgt Stryker:

My only question is, Can I drink beer? That is the standard by which all nations are judged. If the answer is yes, then you’re cool with me. If the answer is no, then you’re a barbaric and savage race worthy of destruction. Beer is a civilizing force in the world and should be accorded the proper respect by all peoples.

I never did learn to enjoy beer, but I agree with the sentiment. In this the Sergeant echoes the (fictional) judgment of the Lord Chancellor in denying extradition of a British subject who, while engaged in the honest trade of exporting Scotch whisky, shot and killed a pirate in the pay of the United States:

There are certain rights, customs, liberties, and practices which have been accepted by the enlightened peoples of the world as necessary to the life of civilized men. There is the right to personal freedom – the negation of which is slavery. There is the right to freedom of worship according to the conscience and belief of the individual – the negation of which is religious persecution. There is the right of all men to the peaceful use of the seas – the negation of which is piracy. And there is the right of free choice in such matters of personal behaviour, dress, and diet as do not affect the safety of the realm or the rights of other individuals – the negation of which is Prohibition.

My Lords, those who are guilty of slavery, piracy, or religious persecution are regarded rightly as hostes humanis generis, outlaws of the world, persons who have violated the common laws of mankind. Such persons or peoples forfeit the rights which are commonly attached to nationality or sovereignty and may be apprehended or punished by the first-comer; and in that shameful category I include without hesitation those who are guilty of the policy or practice called Prohibition. . . . It is intolerable that at the present stage of civilization peaceful traders should be assailed with fire-arms on the high seas for no offence other than the conveying from place to place of the wine of their own country. . . . Yet it is a nation confessedly guilty of such conduct which now demands of us a privilege extended, as a rule, ex gratia only, and only to a trusted friend.

(In re John Walker, as reported by A.P.Herbert in Uncommon Law)

Prohibition with a capital P was repealed, but the policy remains. It would be naughty to suggest, at a time when We Must All Stand Together, that killing narcs would not be wicked; so I won’t. Instead, I could be boringly conventional and ask why in hell I’m paying to put American soldierettes in Saudi Arabia.

Posted in drugwar | Leave a comment

two kinds of metaphorical web

“Too much security is scarier than dirtbags”, from Joe Soucheray of Pioneer Press, through Glenn Reynolds by way of Swen.

Years ago when my main outlet was APA-L, I predicted (in response to a grumble from Fred Patten, if memory serves, about the proliferation of lowbrow magazines) that, thanks to the falling costs of publication, the number of niche periodicals would grow enormously; and that an interesting article in Model Train Coupling Quarterly might be reprinted not only in Model Trains Week but also in The Journal of Real Train Couplings.

And, of course, it is happening. The Blog Scene (which I’ve been reading only for a few months) seems a bit more inbred than it needs to be, but still it exposes me to plenty of good stuff that I wouldn’t see otherwise, and what more can one ask?

Posted in futures, security theater | Leave a comment

the tortures of Tantalus

Today some clown invited me to “Save over 300% on MEDICATION!”
Sadly, the spam contained no valid address from which I might learn more about this offer to pay me $2 when I order $1 worth of Viagra.

Posted in spam | Leave a comment

guns and cars

The meme “why not regulate guns like cars?” was much blogged last week. Anthony Swenson wrote:

The real reason we should dislike the driver’s license model: Driving is not in the Bill of Rights. The right to keep and bear arms is.

I wrote to him:

Are you sure that driving is not in there?

Freedom to travel is as fundamental as self-defense; it’s near the top of the Articles of Confederation (“the people of each state shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other state”, Art.IV); and therefore is covered in the Ninth Amendment if anything is. Just as the RKBA does not go away with new technology, neither does a 9A right to exercise the normal means of travel.

In my humble opinion.

Swen wrote back:

I guess my short response would be: Fine, you defend your vision of rights and I’ll defend mine. The long answer would have something to do with the ‘Commerce Clause’. But this is thought provoking.. would you mind if I blog this?

Better yet, set up a blog – it is an awful lot of fun..

So I did.

Later: See also.

Posted in constitution | 1 Comment

you know my name, look up the number

Peeve: Redundantly numbered lists, such as this list of 134 worst movies, numbered in alphabetical order from 1 to 102.

The median date of the champion turkeys, by the way, is 1988. Amazing.

Update (December 2003): They took the numbers off!

Posted in cinema | Leave a comment

soap films

I’ve begun to learn to use Ken Brakke’s Surface Evolver. Haven’t yet found whether it has the one feature that would make it ideal for my exploration of nonspherical ‘dome’ forms: ability to constrain the edges to equal length.

The documentation says non-orientable surfaces are allowed, but so far Evolver has not allowed me to make a Klein bottle.

Posted in eye-candy, mathematics, neep-neep | Leave a comment

are you threatening me?

Sinfest borrows a riff from Whose Line Is It Anyway?.

Posted in cartoons | 1 Comment