radical wacko

An editor must have fallen asleep because this gem of an article appeared in yesterday’s New York Times:

You’re in for very bad weather. In 2008, your television will bring you image after frightening image of natural havoc linked to global warming. You will be told that such bizarre weather must be a sign of dangerous climate change — and that these images are a mere preview of what’s in store unless we act quickly to cool the planet.

Unfortunately, I can’t be more specific. I don’t know if disaster will come by flood or drought, hurricane or blizzard, fire or ice. Nor do I have any idea how much the planet will warm this year or what that means for your local forecast. Long-term climate models cannot explain short-term weather.

But there’s bound to be some weird weather somewhere, and we will react like the sailors in the Book of Jonah. When a storm hit their ship, they didn’t ascribe it to a seasonal weather pattern. They quickly identified the cause (Jonah’s sinfulness) and agreed to an appropriate policy response (throw Jonah overboard).

Predictions for 2008 – Climate Change – Global Warming – John Tierney – New York Times

There is an interesting case in Ohio working it’s way through the courts.  An employee was fired by UPS when he was discovered to have a dissembled firearm in his car which was parked in a public parking lot shared by both employees and non-employees.  The court has ruled that the company’s action was a violation of Ohio’s policy allowing citizens to bear arms.  (You can read more details about the case at The Volokh Conspiracy.)

All thoughts about busybody employers aside, the case has me wondering about the signing of contracts with terms that are intrusions on an individual’s rights.  I can understand laws preventing employers from punishing whistle-blowers who report criminal wrongdoing.  Such an action would be a direct attempt to subvert justice.  However, should an employer have the right to execute contracts with employees that curtail the personal rights of an employee outside of his work?  Can an employer hire on the condition that the employee not own firearms or that he submit to personal search without any evidence of wrongdoing?  I think the question comes down to a matter of mutual consent.  As odious as such requirements are, there is certainly no coercion going on, just a mutual agreement for mutual benefit. 

If a person has a right to personal sovereignty, then they must possess the right to voluntarily surrender it.  Unfortunately, while I certainly believe that a person should have the right to possess the means to protect himself against force, the judges in this case have now pulled their guns on the unarmed, namely UPS.  Ironically, the courts are now using force to protect the armed from the disarmed.

Well, I actually sat through the President’s speech tonight.  I didn’t find much interesting in the speech due to the constant leaks of the details.   There were no changes in the rules of engagement, no direct strategies to demoralize the enemy, etc.  However, one thing really caught my ear:

To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq’s provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs.

Source: Full Transcript Of Bush’s Iraq Speech, President Pledges To Hold Iraqi Government Accountable For Progress Toward Peace And Security – CBS News

So apparently, the way to solve the issues of radicalism and violence is bribery.  Just hand out money and patronage jobs.  What an insult!  I find it so amusing that with solemn tone and moral conviction, the President proposes Richard J. Daley style machine politics as a means to help democratic stability.  Boy, I can sure say that I feel confident in this new plan!