With a geographic area of just 1.2 square miles, the city [...]]]> In the minute city of Sansom Park, just outside Fort Worth, the city’s police chief and three other recently resigned officers have had a litany of charges leveled against them by their co-workers on the force, according to a Fort Worth Star-Telegram report.

With a geographic area of just 1.2 square miles, the city employed a total of 11 officers until four abruptly resigned after a letter by five “loyal officers” was sent to the city council in September.

Probably the most disturbing allegation was made against former Sgt. Thomas Milner, who was accused of repeatedly giving known pedophiles the home address of a teenage assault victim as part of a sex sting operation despite being order not to do so. The city’s administrator conceded that no one from the city ordered police to stop the sex sting operations but did complain about “bringing pedophiles into the city.” Milner was also accused of passing around photos of a rape victim, flashing photos of naked juveniles, some of whom were performing sexual acts, and not reading suspects their Miranda rights. In addition to denying other claims, his attorney said that Milner was never ordered to stop the pedophile investigations and that he only gave the address of a vacant house.

Approximately 60 complaints of misconduct were leveled against the department. While former Police Chief Tony White’s performance review as of March of this year gave him good and excellent ratings, about a third of those complaints were made against him. Those include providing insufficient or inoperable equipment to patrol officers, buying breakfast with confiscated money, and permitting the use of racial and sexual slurs during staff meetings.

Some of the allegations the Star-Telegram reported against resigned officer Josh Smith were “padding his time sheets with added overtime and not responding to call” for backup. Former officer Andrew Young was accused of responding to shootings in Fort Worth and eating lunch outside the city limits.

The city’s attorney, Lee Thomas, said an investigation into the matter was dropped because they received the letters of resignation from all four officers, so we will likely never know the merits (or demerits) of these allegations. He is quoted by the Star-Telegram as saying, “It was in the best interest of the city and the officers to go their own way.”

On that point, Thomas is probably right. It probably is in the best interest of the city government for this just to blow over. They have little interest to investigate why a city with a population of just over 4000 people, as of 2000, would need 11 police officers. What isn’t so clear is that the interest of the government of Sansom Park and interest of the residents of Sansom Park are one in the same.

The four unemployed officers are free to depart their separate ways to wiggle into another police department. Even if these allegations are completely baseless, this sends a message to other officers in Sansom Park that they are pretty much untouchable and can do as they please. They can be accused of some pretty sick stuff and just walk away, just move to another from city and learn what to do so as not to get caught in the future.

Accountability is a lost concept for those in a position of authority such as government. The ballot box, it seems, is more a means of making rulership among their nearly identical representatives seem more palatable for the average subject. The nature of the practice of collectivism brings with it the perverse incentives that the interest of the collective, which is really just the interest of the those in charge of the collective, must be put first. Like F.A. Hayek warns, there can be no limit in collectivism to what individuals who comprise the collective must be prepared to do, no conscientious limit to prevent individuals from committing an act that superiors have commanded. The ones who thrive in that atmosphere are the most deprived, the most ruthless. The willingness to perform those evil deeds provides a way to power that is not available in the (free) marketplace. The anointing of leaders thus becomes a question of willingness rather than wisdom.

Fort Worth councilman Joel Burns received nationwide media attention [...]]]> Some of the latest work posted to the DFW Alliance of the Libertarian Left’s blog are a commentary supportive of the efforts of those in the GLBT community to bring awareness to some difficult issues and an announcement of a new reading club event.

Fort Worth councilman Joel Burns received nationwide media attention last month for his speech during a city meeting in which he revealed some of the torment and abuse he faced as a gay teen. I also address the controversy of a transsexual Dallas high school student who was denied an opportunity to run for homecoming queen. I conclude with some remarks on the underlying source of the cultural challenges faced by those with an alternative sexual orientation and how libertarian principles can be used to overcome them.

On Dec. 6, DFW ALL will host reading club a featuring “The Production of Security” by Gustave De Molinari, who is considered by many to be the father (perhaps grandfather) of market anarchism. In his classic work from 1849, Molinari analyzes the possibility for the stateless supply of defense and arbitration services.

Even taking that at [...]]]> A supposed justification for a monopoly government is the need for an impartial judiciary to resolve conflict.The idea is that, in a conflict, people will be biased in their own favor, so an independent third party is needed so that a fair hearing can be had to prevent a further escalation.

Even taking that at face value, it is no justification why everyone should submit to the same party, including those conflicts in which that party is engaged. Of course, it is better if a government has checks and balances and divides power into separate branches of the government. But nonetheless, judges at the federal level are appointed, promoted and confirmed by the other branches, paid with the taxes legislated and collected by the other branches, rule on laws written and enforced by the other branches, and are subject to other various social influences.

There is no such property right that entitles someone to be the ultimate arbiter of disputes. People who claim this right for themselves rightly would be called mad, but somehow citizens are able to delegate to government a right they do not have.

What brings this to mind is a Fort Worth Star-Telegram story about federal district judge John McBryde, who has appointed himself to decide the verdict and punishment for an accusation he made against four men who supposedly “raised questions about his impartiality.” After this incident, who could blame them? It could hardly be called a fair fight if their accuser is the judge and jury.

If sanctioned, the men can appeal their punishments, which might possibly entail forfeiture or suspension of their law licenses. The appeal would still be decided by federal judges looking to maintain their professional and social reputations among colleagues for possible appointment to higher courts, among other reasons. The men who stand accused do not have the opportunity to mediate the conflict with a party of their choosing; the ultimate verdict rests with the government-managed court system.

A common alternative proposal to abolishing institutionalized aggression is to reform government in such manner as to account for its deficiencies. Some of the ideas like term limits, campaign finance controls, and government transparency programs are well intentioned for the most part. Those popular proposals, while often rooted in a worthy desire, confuse the approximate causes with the ultimate cause for why democratic governments remain unaccountable to the needs of the people they purport to represent. Some of the approximate (or immediate) causes are a result of an uninformed electorate, voter apathy, rent seeking on behalf of special interests, political corruption, and regulatory obstructions in the electoral process itself.

The ultimate (and for the most part unexamined) cause for government’s destructive nature is its popular legitimacy to aggress against others. So long as it remains viewed as proper among a predominant number of residents to govern over others, the government is irredeemable. If coercion is the answer to social problems, those most willing to coerce others will be elevated to power. Government is collectivist by nature and tends to centralize power, so those who are willing to use the powers of government are going to conflict with an individualistic ethics.

These four men accused of misconduct might be the lucky ones and escape with only a loss of their time and a slap to their reputation. Even if they avoid the judge’s wrath, the institution of government will function as it was designed to do all along — to maintain authority. Those under its boot or riding its coattails exist as ancillary players. Those in power serve themselves. When the government controls education and manipulates the mass media through patriotic ceremonies and propaganda, it is no wonder why so many long for peace and equality from an entity enshrined in coercion and injustice.

Already the most expensive weapons program in history and years behind schedule, writing of approximately 35 million lines of computer code and other testing could cost an additional $5 billion [...]]]> The tax sinkhole known as the United States military is projecting more development cost overruns in connection with the F-35 joint strike fighter.

Already the most expensive weapons program in history and years behind schedule, writing of approximately 35 million lines of computer code and other testing could cost an additional $5 billion on top of the already projected $50 billion to be spent for development alone, according to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Despite promises to the contrary, the estimated maintenance costs have also soared to some 250 percent than that of the plane the joint strike fighter is designed to replace.

By Justin Raimondo’s account, the plane was designed primarily to knock out Iranian tank forces following an American-endorsed invasion. Depending on your outlook, then it might be considered good news that the time schedule for deployment was recently pushed back an additional year for the Air Force and Navy versions and by as many as three years for the Marine version. Given that Israel will be the first foreign government to acquire this next-generation fighter, Raimondo’s belief has some merit.

In a Star-Telegram article earlier this year, the Defense Department acknowledged that the production estimate of $115.5 million for each plane, even after accounting for price inflation, was nearly twice the original estimate when the program began in 2002.

Chalmers Johnson and Tom Engelhardt call this practice “front loading.”

Front-loading is the practice of appropriating funds for a new weapons project based solely on assurances by its official sponsors about what it can do. This happens long before a prototype has been built or tested, and it invariably involves the quoting of unrealistically low unit costs for a sizable order. Assurances are always given that the system’s technical requirements will be simple or have already been met. Low-balling future costs, an intrinsic aspect of front-loading, is an old Defense Department trick, a governmental version of bait-and-switch.

Military contracts can hype promised results, offer rosy cost estimates, and profit from continuous modifications and repairs that are a consequence of the shortened testing schedule demanded by the military under political pressure to deliver a final product.

In their defense, Lockheed-Martin, the main contractor responsible for building the F-35, has said these estimates are much higher than the company’s own estimates.

Whatever the final price tag comes to be, the true opportunity costs of having to borrow money the government does not have will be exceedingly higher. The government plunders resources from honest people. If it doesn’t tax directly, the inflation tax strikes at the least advantaged among us. Even if we took a simple view and added up the government expenditure and calculated the the subsequent loan payments to finance the program expenses for 30 or more years, the total present-value cost in today’s dollars would likely be double. None of this factors in the higher costs for consumer goods, the higher interest rates for capital investments (and thus lower productivity), the resources and lives lost in conflicts, nor the positive effects of a division of labor with other so-called enemies nations that have a comparative trade advantage.

Ironically, Lockheed’s tagline for this program is “Unconventional. Unprecedented.” No, not at all, and that is part of the problem.

In 2006, Sylvester Davis accused his former employer, military contractor Lockheed Martin, of following “unsafe and fraudulent practices in developing flight control software for the F-35 joint strike fighter,” according to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Siding with [...]]]> A recently dismissed whistle-blower lawsuit highlights the double standard of those who derive privileges from government aggression.

In 2006, Sylvester Davis accused his former employer, military contractor Lockheed Martin, of following “unsafe and fraudulent practices in developing flight control software for the F-35 joint strike fighter,” according to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Siding with Lockheed, a U.S. district judge dismissed the suit on grounds that Davis could not provide adequate enough evidence to support his claims.

Under federal law, anyone who reveals knowledge of improperly performed or unfulfilled work done for the government can receive a portion of the money recouped by a judgement or lawsuit settlement.

Regardless of how credible Davis’ claim might be, Lockheed’s stance on the allegations reveals an important point about the nature of government-granted privilege.

Authority is a one-way street. As evidence of this, are Lockheed’s corporate managers so demanding of evidence from and judgemental of F-35 pilots who fire on agrarian Afghani farmers accused of being terrorists? I think not, which goes to the strategy for achieving a libertarian society.

Governments have many forms of intervention into the market, some involving blatant wealth confiscation in the form of subsidies and monopoly protections. Elsewhere the state’s managers direct counterbalancing policy crutches, like welfare, so as to gin up support for existing self-inflicting policies.

The priority of libertarians should be first to knock down structural interventions so that the government’s half-hearted measures to help those in need are no longer in such demand. Kevin Carson described it “as removing the shackles before removing the crutches (e.g., eliminating corporate welfare before welfare to the poor)” in his “Organization Theory: An Individualist Anarchist Perspective”.

Granted, part of the problem with this claim is the source of the funding for the study in the first place. The consulting firm, HDR Engineering Inc., is widely known for [...]]]> A recent study funded by the city of Fort Worth concluded that streetcars would be “financially viable,” said a Fort Worth Star-Telegram article.

Granted, part of the problem with this claim is the source of the funding for the study in the first place. The consulting firm, HDR Engineering Inc., is widely known for government transit planning and has a reputation to maintain among government bodies. If HDR began releasing findings that predicted the overall unfavorable consequences of government meddling, then HDR might begin to receive fewer government contracts.

Making this even more suspect, the original source of funding for the Fort Worth study came from the Regional Transportation Council, an arm of the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG), totaling approximately $1.6 million. Nearly one million dollars went to HDR. For those who do not already know, the NCTCOG has been on a tear in recent years to push for tolled lanes on existing free highways and for an extension of existing government-managed mass transportation.

So is it any surprise that the city council of Fort Worth and the NCTCOG got exactly what they paid for?

Purely from an economic perspective, if HDR’s studies empirically proved that a profit was to be had, then it stands that private investors, not their political handmaidens, would be thrilled to invest in streetcar transportation. In fact, this was the case in Fort Worth prior to the city government refusing to renew the franchise of the Northern Texas Traction Co. prior to World War II. Even businesses along the bus routes might be willing to invest if they were convinced it would boost sales.

The truth is that government-managed transportation systems are fatally flawed from a moral and practical perspective. Just in Tarrant County, the government-managed mass transportation system lost over $65 million [PDF] dollars for each of the past two years, costing $11 in taxes for every dollar it generated in revenue from riders.

There are also fundamental problems with the study itself. The way HDR projected future revenues for prospective streetcar routes was by studying how many passengers were willing to take free rides on buses decorated as old-fashioned trolleys.

Whereas approximately 132,000 rides per year were taken on free Molly the Trolly buses, the city predicts a ridership of over 1.3 million per year on a single paid streetcar route. They expect ridership to increase ten-fold after charging more. I am not kidding [PDF]. Even those figures do not give the full picture, because HDR is making these claims based on a projected $26 million federal grant the city would receive to help pay for construction of one or more lines.

Part of their thinking is that Molly the Trolly is twice as popular as the traditional bus service, so actual streetcars would be even more popular. But what accounts for some of the popularity of the Molly the Tolly buses is that they are free to ride.

That leaves us to conclude that these streetcars are “financially viable” in the same sense that home invasions are viable to a thief so long as he does not get caught.

Here is the deal. The inevitably massive losses will be recouped in money collected through property taxes. An earlier assessment, when the plan was just half the track length as currently devised, found that streetcars would cost $3 million more than they collected in fares. Within 15 years, however, HDR’s project manager predicted that property values will increase by an additional $900 million along the “influence zones” of one of the proposed routes. That means additional property values could be sucked up by the tax eaters in the Fort Worth city government. As HDR’s project manager said, this is “fundamentally an economic stimulus project.”

By using the project to divert investments and wealth to politically favored upscale condominiums and business districts, city planners are making affordable housing and small-business entrepreneurship for the poor and middle class even further out of reach under the pretense of government-managed sustainable development and “smart growth.” Government authorities are not looking at the unseen consequences of their actions. The projected property value increase are being generated by removing economic opportunity from businesses with a longer outlook on things than the next election or administrative promotions elsewhere.

You can read [...]]]> I sent a letter to the editors of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram with regards to the widely publicized suspension of a local high school student wrongly accused of marijuana use in the wake of his father’s death. It had been more than a year since I last wrote to the editors.

You can read more about the latest flap on the DFW Alliance of the Libertarian Left’s blog, among other places. Below is the letter I sent last week.

Regarding the story of the suspended high school junior exonerated of using marijuana (See “Grieving student who was accused of marijuana use is allowed back in class,” Thursday), a lot of people will be hand wringing the school administrators, but they will ignore the more underlying problem of trying to prohibit consensual acts, where there are no victims to make a complaint. Criminalizing consensual behavior enables big-government policies to invade honest people’s personal lives.

The use of government force and planning — fascism, really — to change behavior has not worked that well in the past. Maybe, that’s why 40 years after the war on drugs began, the government is in continuous need of more sacrifices of our liberties and our income. The war on marijuana can only be sustained by criminalizing peaceful users of their right to property, by abusing taxpayers out of hundreds of billions of dollars, and by sacrificing the privacy of us all.

To those of us who respect the peaceful decisions of others, let me remind you that returning our privacy and property rights do not require us changing the law. We only have to make it irrelevant.

I knew there would be a fair share of Republicans hitching [...]]]> I attended the Wake Up America Tea Party in Fort Worth on Saturday as part of a nationwide tea party event. While volunteering at the Campaign for Liberty booth, I got a lot of positive reaction talking with attendees about conventional constitutional ideals.

I knew there would be a fair share of Republicans hitching onto the liberty message, so I thought it was important to present a more comprehensive small-government message, even if I do not subscribe to those views myself. Mostly, I emphasized the importance of decentralizing political power and scaling back American foreign policy.

I was there with Debbie McKee, the CFL state coordinator in Texas, and her daughter Adrienne. Our most popular item was CFL’s newly released pocket constitution that included the Declaration of Independence and the Kentucky and Virginia nullification resolutions written by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, respectively.

A few people scoffed when the saw Ron Paul’s Revolution or End the Fed on our table. We also had Bruce Fein’s new book American Empire. (I have not read Fein’s book, but here is an interview with Scott Horton on Anti-War Radio.) However, many more I spoke with expressed that they thought the government’s belligerent foreign policy was doing more harm than good.

The most talked-about speakers were Bridgette Gabriel, who preached the dangers of “Islamic supremacism,” and conservative commentator Ann Coulter. They received the loudest applause lines I heard from the booth outside the auditorium. From a post on “The Whited Sepulchre,” Gabriel asked all the military veterans to stand and take an applause, which garnered a thunderous applause. The veterans obediently remained standing well into her speech.

Debra Medina, the founder of We Texans, spoke of the declining freedom in Texas. She said that Texas has went from a top-10 state in terms of economic freedoms and has fallen 23 spots to 31st in the nation since Rick Perry has been in governor’s office. Despite an impressive showing against establishment candidates in the Texas Republican gubernatorial primary, Medina had a distinctly less friendly reception because she highlighted that conservative rhetoric does not match the empirical evidence of a decade of Republican rule in Texas.

A few minutes before I was planning to leave, a man who described himself to me as a “constitutional conservative” wandered to the CFL booth and said he did not want to listen to Coulter. I gave a sympathetic nod. He said that he wanted nothing do with the Coulter and went on the explain that she attends meetings with pro gay-rights groups. That, he said, was unacceptable.

He talked about the source of this information, and how a website had been tracking Coulter for the past 18 months. As I recall, he went on to say “There is no place in the Republican Party for homosexuals or anybody with them.” From my reading of the state party platform, he is probably right. I guess he felt comfortable confiding this nugget of bigotry with those of us at the booth.

I kindly asked if he supported making it illegal to practice homosexuality. Without hesitating, he said he would and that it already is according to the Bible. I asked, then “would you think that all sins should be made illegal under political government?” So I asked about divorce. I went on the say that the Bible calls divorce a sin, and I asked if he thought it should be illegal too.

He danced around the question, so I asked again. He said that couples who have underwent counseling before marriage and before splitting up should be allowed to divorce on the condition that they would forfeit custody of their children to already-married couples.

After some prompting, he reiterated that the Republican Party was a party for Christians only, and that I would have to do some “soul searching” before becoming a genuine Republican, which I have no desire of becoming anyway. He said I should become a Democrat instead. I didn’t bother telling him, but neither sound that appealing. I should have told him, “Fuck You (Very Much).”

Completely devoid of historical evidence, he then went on to explain for a second time that libertarianism and socialism were spawned by Karl Marx in “his communist books” and the political environment of revolutionary France.

Tea Party Reflections

The tea party has no founding principles on which the movement is based, and most of its grassroots members are political newcomers who have a deep-seeded resentment for the direction that the country is going. It does not take long to realize that the government has been royally screwing up, and not just for the last 20 months.

Originally, the tea party movement was focused on excessive government spending as a reaction to the bailouts of the same large financial bodies that enabled the current economic collapse. The loudest voices were crying “Socialism” when Barack Obama was just adding to the same policies of his predecessor. Even still, so long as the movement was a reaction to fiscal mismanagement, there was some possibility that it would affect positive policy changes. But more and more, the tea party has less to do with battling run-away spending than it does with embracing cultural conservatism. The undertones of the currently embodied movement are based in the fears of white Christians of losing political power, fear that the same government many white Christians have exploited to their own advantage will be turned against them. “To take back our country.” That is the root cause for the present wave of backlash against Muslims and immigrants.

A poll [PDF] published in March from the University of Washington said that those who strongly support the tea party had more hostile views of gays, racial minorities and immigrants. On average, tea party supporters consistently thought less of the intelligence, trustworthiness and work ethic of blacks and Latinos than did the average Republicans. In a separate poll [PDF], and for all their talk about liberty, supporters of the tea party were far more likely to favor indefinite detention without trial of anyone accused of a crime, less privacy, and racial profiling. They were also less supportive of equal rights.

Even for the self-described constitutional conservative I talked with, he was more than willing to set aside any pretence of a modern society for an opportunity to enforce his morality on peaceful people. The momentum I witnessed Saturday will springboard into big electoral gains for Republicans, including many of the same responsible for this mess, in the mid-term elections. It will not amount to many policy changes for more liberty. No major tea party candidate is calling for cuts to any of the largest expenditures, not the military empire nor entitlement programs like Social Security.

It is a sad reality, but the ditching of any libertarian sentiments is inevitable so long as tea partiers are concerned with gaining the reins of power instead of abolishing that power altogether.

The lack of accountability is something expected when political interests are granted a legal [...]]]> I published some new posts on the DFW Alliance of the Libertarian Left’s website about some outrageous police brutality in Fort Worth (which Thomas Knapp kindly included in his news digest) and a case of statewide discrimination against same-sex couples.

The lack of accountability is something expected when political interests are granted a legal monopoly in providing widely sought-after services in the community.

A recent court ruling that upheld discrimination against gays wanting to divorce reveals the level of hypocrisy of some small-government conservatives and their allegiance to theocratic prejudices.

Leonard Read, the founder of the Foundation for Economic Education, said principles are not compromised; they are abandoned. Principles, by their nature, are utilized or they are not.

That is an important reminder for those who believe the maximum role of government should be the protection of life, liberty, and property [...]]]>

Leonard Read, the founder of the Foundation for Economic Education, said principles are not compromised; they are abandoned. Principles, by their nature, are utilized or they are not.

That is an important reminder for those who believe the maximum role of government should be the protection of life, liberty, and property — which I think, logically construed, means self-government; however, I respect that others disagree. Our time is going to be most wisely spent improving ourselves and building relationships with like-minded liberty people. Even still, while the conventional political process is still dominant, there are ways for principled people to use political tools for their own benefit.

The conventional political dichotomy is a struggle between short-term opportunism and long-term progress. I think there is a simple reconciliation that can be made between the two camps. That is, under no circumstances, never ever, should we ever support an expansion in the role of government or a further restriction on a peaceful person’s liberty. Second, any policy support should be done with the explicit purpose of decreasing the role of government and directly benefiting peaceful individuals.

Any strategy or policy goals that we recommend or follow should be consistent with the purpose of restoring individual liberty and responsibility. I understand the importance of intermediate goals or markers to help fully achieve our ultimate purpose. But our means of achieving that purpose should not be contradictory to that end. For example, a lot of politicians try to justify tax cuts because they believe it will actually increase the total revenues to the government treasury. I believe this is wrong and sends an inconsistent message.

The goal of a tax cut should be to reduce the burden of government. Again, we should not advocate the re-legalization of cannabis on the grounds that it will raise tax revenues, but because prohibition is immoral and counterproductive. Expanding government and further restricting the liberty of others to correct another ill-fated government policy is an abandonment of principle. As Ron Paul said, “Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive.” Reducing the level of coercion in people’s lives is a worthy goal.

Principles in Practice

The goals that we have should be radical — not liberal- or conservative-lite. This serves two purposes. First, it provides cover for not-so-radical views to be considered more mainstream, thus limiting the fear of ostracism people might have for holding these slightly less radical views. It provides an objective guidepost — like a lighthouse — for gauging the success of our efforts during darker times.

I would also like to suggest two methods of communicating these ideas. We should definitely take the time, on an intellectual basis, to refute anti-liberty or collectivist ideas. But we must acknowledge that the people advocating these mistaken ideas are not dimwitted. In fact, many know exactly how they benefit from these policies. They are ripping us off, so we must make direct, populist appeals that reveal that fact.

By its nature, government is crude and unaccountable, so there will be an infinite supply of aggrieved individuals. Ideally, that means that we don’t have to convert individuals fully to the virtue of liberty before taking action together. Over time, I hope that those who are “liberty minus one” or “liberty minus whatever” come to see the error of their ways.

Some Ideas to Bat Around

Sometimes, pick losing issues to get the message out by presenting a pro-liberty analysis. I’m not saying be a stick-in-the-mud. The situation might provide an opportunity to get some free media publicity or lay the groundwork for winning progress on the issue in the future. Liberals have deployed this technique by pushing socialized health insurance and environmental regulations.

Now, I don’t even know how possible this next one is. Those arrested for committing consensual crimes could be high-target prospects for the liberty message. When I’m passing out Fully Informed Jury Association literature on jury nullification, those called for jury duty are naturally receptive to the material I am providing. I’ll usually stay a little past the time when potential jurors are due to report in downtown Fort Worth in order to catch any stranglers. When I do, I just happen to pass out literature to defendants, and they are just as interested in the concept of jury nullification as potential jurors, if not more so. There has got to be a way of contacting those folks by getting ahold of  some public records.

On April 18, the officer responded to the family’s emergency call and proceeded to fire two Taser shots [...]]]> After the Tarrant County medical examiner ruled in August a mentally ill man’s death was a homicide, a grand jury failed to indict the Fort Worth officer responsible for his murder, it was announced today.

On April 18, the officer responded to the family’s emergency call and proceeded to fire two Taser shots into the man for being “combative.” The man died within an hour of being attacked with a 49-second electric shock.

Last month, Police Chief Jeff Halstead said the department had finished its internal investigation into Jacobs’ death and voluntarily provided of a copy of their report to the FBI and Justice Department for review.

He also said that the police department also plans to increase training in how to deal with mentally ill people and in the use of force, including Tasers.

On Aug. 31, Jacobs’ parents filed a federal lawsuit against the city and the police officer. The suit asserts that Phillips used excessive force and that Jacobs’ death was caused by “the gross neglect of the city of Fort Worth in failing to properly train and supervise its police officers in the proper use of Tasers.”

As can be seen in the story’s comment section, some will insist on blaming the victim and his family. They are not to blame. They just wanted to help Michael to the hospital so he could get help. What they got was an unaccountable menace that haunts the peaceful people of Fort Worth. I appeal to those peaceful people. There has to be a better way.

That sums up the worldview of Dean Gotcher, founder and director of the Institution for Authority Research, who presented his Bible-based critique of Marxist dialectics at a local church event I [...]]]> The 60s are out. Forget about liberals. Non-Christians, not a chance. Homosexuals can stick it somewhere else, figuratively speaking. Independent thought, “deviant.”

That sums up the worldview of Dean Gotcher, founder and director of the Institution for Authority Research, who presented his Bible-based critique of Marxist dialectics at a local church event I attended in Fort Worth last week.

He takes two muddled hours to explain that you can’t make any sense from combining fundamentally opposing ideas. That’s what fundamental differences mean, after all. He neglected to discuss other forms of dialectics such as the Sacrotatic method, among others.

To Gotcher’s credit, he was able to tie together a whole grab bag of ideas as diverse as the central nervous system to Patriarchal rule. I also appreciated how he cast human morality in strict, black-or-white terms. Christians like Gotcher do provide a framework of rights and wrongs, good and bad.

However, that framework is gloomy arbitrariness, not rational judgments. Just take him at his word. “This is a book of suffering,” he said, referring to the Bible. He continued, “Apart from God’s word, you have no opinion.”

The loathing of human beings with his expressions like “Man is bad” and “Deny yourself” are not rooted in reason. They just are not. The proper purpose of morality benefits human virtue rather than shame it. Later, Gotcher is more direct. “I’ve met the enemy,” he said. “He’s not out there; he’s inside.” He again repeats his assault,”You are wicked. There is no hope in you.”

Gotcher berated gays, liberals, and women again and again.

Referring to gays, he said, “Dialectics is built on homosexuality.” I think he meant the other way around, but he didn’t correct himself, either.

“[Benjamin] Bloom is secularized Satanism,” he said. Holding a copy of Bloom’s “Taxonomy of Education,” he added, “For liberals, this is like candy.”

He said women and children should also know their role, which it turns out doesn’t amount to much. As a guiding rule for fathers, “When he tells his son ‘take the trash out,’ that is the word of God,” Gotcher said, pointing to his chest. To husbands, “In your homes, you rule.”

I quickly tried to write down his most memorable lines but I didn’t get everything, and I also have no interest in listening to the audio taping.

After returning home, I just felt soiled by his ideas. Though, the experience was not a waste in the slightest because I got to hear Pastor Jim Borchert give a short impromptu address to the group. He’s a real contrarian. I heard him for about five minutes, and now I have no shortage of respect for him.

Oh, yea. The title is a paraphrase of H.L. Menken’s line, “Say what you will about the Ten Commandments, you must always come back to the pleasant fact that there are only ten of them.”

Here’s another good one by HLM. “It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities.”

[Update: After comparing notes with another attendee, another good line of Gotcher's we caught was that "The imagination is evil."]