Reinke Faces Life

http://www.wftv.com/news/9160265/detail.html

Father Faces Felony Charges For Rushing To Injured Daughter's Side
POSTED: 12:22 pm EDT May 4, 2006
UPDATED: 6:53 am EDT May 9, 2006

***Begin Quote***

NEW PORT RICHEY, Fla. — A panicked father who pushed past rescue workers to get to his injured daughter at the scene of a car crash now faces felony charges.

Karl Swanson of Holiday, Fla., told the St. Petersburg Times he got a call from his daughter's cell phone late Tuesday: "Listen," the caller said, "your daughter's been in a terrible accident. She's in critical condition. It doesn't look good."

Florida Highway Patrol troopers said the 48-year-old anesthesiologist drove into the accident scene, narrowly missing an emergency helicopter, then pushed past a trooper and a paramedic to get to his 18-year-old daughter's side.

Swanson was charged with battery on a law enforcement officer and battery on an emergency medical care provider. He is free on $10,000 bond.

"Basically, he made a very serious and stressful situation worse," Florida Highway Patrol Trooper Larry Coggins said. "When people just relax for a second and listen to reason, we always let them see their loved one."

Swanson's daughter, 18-year-old Krystyna, remains in serious condition at a hospital. On Wednesday, he defended his response to the crash.

"They told me my daughter was dying," he said Wednesday. "They told me to go there. So that's what I did."  

***End Quote***

I particularly note the arrogance of Trooper Coggins. "We always let them see their loved one" Well, isn't that big of them.

Who died and left them in charge?

And then charge him? Now unless the cop and "the rescue worker" have severe injuries, I am not so sure that this is an appropriate response.

You are not dealing with children or serfs. That fellow is your employer and you're supposed to be "serving" him. Has he been well served? Perhaps your attitude and "service" was less than desirable.

Now I give volunteers — the First Aid squad or the VFD — a lot more lattitude. They give freely of their time and effort for their community. The paid help gets a lot less lattitude. I expect superior performance. I'm sure that the dad wouldn't have had to push his way to his daughter's side if he was been quickly escorted there.

Arghhh!

LIBERTY: Another bozo wants to raise gasoline prices to $10 a gallon! Are you out of your mind?
May 9th, 2006

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/10/DDGNNIO05K1.DTL&hw=morford&sn=001&sc=1000

Want to change the world? Make gas $10 a gallon.
– Mark Morford
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Mark Morford's column appears Wednesdays and Fridays in Datebook and on sfgate.com. E-mail him at mmorford@sfgate.com.
 
***Begin Quote***

No wait, not 6. To hell with that. Make it 10. Ten bucks a gallon, no matter what the going rate for a barrel of light, sweet crude. That would so completely, violently, brilliantly do it. Revolutionize the country. Firebomb our pungent stasis. Change everything. Don't you agree?

{Extraneous deleted}

But, of course, such an idea is also, right now, absolutely impossible. It will never happen — not 10 bucks, not 6, not even a buck more per gallon — and not just because no politician on either side of the aisle has the nerve to come out and suggest that Americans might actually need to drive less, conserve and change their gluttonous habits. This is, of course, absolute death for a politician. Tell Americans what to do? Dare to suggest that they're doing something wrong or that their behaviors are destructive and irresponsible? Are you insane? This is America! We're flawless!

{Extraneous Deleted}

Another example: You know what would happen if guns — all guns, everywhere — were banned outright tomorrow? Well, right off, nothing much. Criminals would still commit crimes. Lawsuits would skyrocket. The NRA would shoot itself in the face in screaming protest. Crime rates would dance all over the map. It would be a little ugly.

{Extraneous Deleted}

So what? The rest of us can simply roll our eyes and laugh, evolve and sharpen and sigh, and wonder what great change we can embark upon next.

***End Quote***

Dear Mr. Morford,

NO!

Your plan is a disaster for liberty, a windfall to the big government statist, and proves to me that Californians must get too much sun!

First rule of political discussions is that they always generate more heat than light. I've been arguing for more freedom for a long time but don't have the sensitivity of a Mary Ruwart or the polish of a Harry Browne, may he rest in peace. So I'll try and be as gentle as possible.

Are you out of your mind?

Let's start with the fact that you can no more legislate the price of gas, or any other commodity. If the legal price is set lower than the replacement cost then gas lines will ensue because no one will make it. President Carter demonstrated that. If the legal price is set higher than the value it represents, then the sellers will be unable to sell it. At any arbitrary number, you will have created a market discontinuity that will make the Great Depression look like a boom!

It just seems obvious that you can't make people behave the way you want. If you have to force your ideas on people, then they can't be very good ideas. If they were, then you could convince people to do things voluntarily. See that is the problem with doing things by "law", you have to back up the laws with guns and worse.

So in the spirit you asked, here are some ideas that perhaps might convince you that freedom could work better.

(1) Increase supply

(a) Let's repeal all government rules in ANWAR. As a matter of fact, let's sell ANWAR to the highest bidders and leave the problem to the new owners. Maybe the Greens could partner with the oil companies to figure it out. Give them each a fifty percent interest and let them fight it out.

(b) Let's repeal all government rules on new refinery construction. And, then walk away.

(2) Reduce consumption

(a) Instead of raising the gasoline prices to $4 a gallon, let's eliminate all taxes on gasoline.

(b) Instead of making the price increase permanent, let's agree to make the tax reduction permanent.
Seriously, the only way to work with government is to starve it of it's life blood … … money.

You have to realize some key things:

(A) By uncoupling the dollar from gold in 1913, we permitted the government to inflate the currency. That means that the government can spend money without bothering to tax us.

(B) By hoodwinking us into the Social Security Ponzi scheme, we permitted the government to have an inter generational slush fund. That means that the government can spend money without bothering to tax us.

(C) By allowing the government to "protect us" by regulations, we permitted the government to foul up the economy and distorting the economy. That means the government can "direct" what we can and can not do.

Centralized planning did NOT work for the Communists. What makes you think it will work here?

Freedom doesn't require the government to tell us anything. The free marketplace allows peaceful exchanges that every one benefits from to occur.

In short, let's unlock the creative power of the free marketplace and put the government back in pandora's box.

IMHO,
a casual web browser

P.S.: After you have taken away guns, then get ready for the death camps. Don't laugh it can happen here. Can you say Japanese Internment, Lynch Mobs, and Waco? The Second Amendment is about the ultimate check on unrestrained Government abuse.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P150649.asp

Jubak's Journal
My 4-point plan to cut U.S. energy use
By Jim Jubak at jjmail@microsoft.com
 
***Begin Quote***
 
I want us to get real about wasteful, gas-guzzling vehicles and other stuff that soaks up too much electricity. Now, it’s your turn: Tell me how we can boost supplies.

{snip}

Raise gasoline prices to $4 a gallon

{snip}

Make the price increase permanent

{snip}

Create a national energy-efficiency lottery

{snip}

Use the remaining gas-tax revenue to shore up Social Security

{snip}

My suggestion: Sequester the tax money — I mean, really sequester it — by using the 75% that remains after my =

{snip}

Okay, your turn.

***End Quote***

Dear Jim,

Permit me to say that I enjoy reading your investment advice. Please allow me to repay that advice with some of my own. Stick to financial advice. Politically your plan is a disaster for liberty and a windfall to the big government statist.

First rule of political discussions is that they always generate more heat than light. I've been arguing for more freedom for a long time but don't have the sensitivity of a Mary Ruwart or the polish of a Harry Browne, may he rest in peace. So I'll try and be as gentle as possible.

Are you out of your mind?

Let's start with the fact that you can no more legislate the price of gas, or any other commodity. If the legal price is lower than the replacement cost then gas lines will ensue because no one will make it. President Carter demonstrated that. If the legal price is higher than the value it represents, then the sellers will be unable to sell it.

Why don't people recognize that there are "LAWS" in economics as there is the Law of Gravity in physics. Ignore the real world laws at your peril. Politicians in Louisiana repealed the Law of Gravity to demonstrate their stupidity.

It just seems obvious that you can't make people behave the way you want. If you have to force your ideas on people, then they can't be very good ideas. If they were, then you could convince people to do things voluntarily. See that is the problem with doing things by "law", you have to back up the laws with guns and worse.

So in the spirit you asked, here are some ideas that perhaps might convince you that freedom could work better.

(1) Increase supply

(a) Let's repeal all government rules in ANWAR. As a matter of fact, let's sell ANWAR to the highest bidders and leave the problem to the new owners. Maybe the Greens could partner with the oil companies to figure it out. Give them each a fifty percent interest and let them fight it out.

(b) Let's repeal all government rules on new refinery construction. And, then walk away.

(2) Reduce consumption

(a) Instead of raising the gasoline prices to $4 a gallon, let's eliminate all taxes on gasoline.

(b) Instead of making the price increase permanent, let's agree to make the tax reduction permanent.

(c) Instead of creating a national energy-efficiency lottery, let's just let people select the their own projects.

(d) Instead of using the remaining gas tax revenue to shore up Social Security, let sell the government's stuff and unwind social security completely. Chile did it. Why not us?

(e) Sequester the gas tax money! Yeah right. Maybe we can put it in the empty social security lockbox. That works so well.

Sorry about the last one, I'm an injineer and we think sensitivity is an electrical measurement.

Seriously, the only way to work with government is to starve it of it's life blood … … money.

You have to realize some key things:

(A) By uncoupling the dollar from gold in 1913, we permitted the government to inflate the currency. That means that the government can spend money without bothering to tax us.

(B) By hoodwinking us into the Social Security Ponzi scheme, we permitted the government to have an inter generational slush fund. That means that the government can spend money without bothering to tax us.

(C) By allowing the government to "protect us" by regulations, we permitted the government to foul up the economy and distorting the economy. That means the government can "direct" what we can and can not do.

Centralized planning did NOT work for the Communists. What makes you think it will work here?

Freedom doesn't require the government to tell us anything. The free marketplace allows peaceful exchanges that every one benefits from to occur.

In short, let's unlock the creative power of the free marketplace and put the government back in pandora's box.

IMHO,
a casual investor

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/british-dentistry.html

***Begin Quote***

Will he or you be the one to suffer if something goes wrong?

Who is going to be held to account if the plan results in deprivation rather than plenty?

What is the exit strategy for abolishing the system if it doesn't work?

Where is the guarantee that this exit plan will be followed?

***End Quote***

With all due respect to Lew, I'd suggest a few more.

(A) Where is the unequivocal universally agreed definition of the problem? It is not enough to say, for example, "homelessness", or "poverty" or "campaign finance".

(B) Where is the evidence that this proposal is a timely solution to that problem. Government and Politicians are great a providing solution to problems that are on their way to being fixed already only to make things worse.

(C) Who is going to pay? How much? And, who will make up the difference between your estimate and reality? The answers are universally the taxpayer, too much, and are you kidding. Estimates of cost are usually off by orders of magnitude.

IMHO