Thursday, April 18, 2024
More
    Home Blog Page 1996

    U.N. Foreign Ministers Take on Terrorism

    0

    UNITED NATIONS, Jan. 20 (UPI) — Foreign ministers in the U.N. Security Council Monday unanimously approved a resolution calling on all nations to move urgently against terrorism while in adjacent hallways, talk about Iraq underscored the British-U.S. rush vs. the “give-the-inspectors-more-time” stance of nearly all others.

    The ministerial-level meeting of the 15-member panel — only two foreign ministers failed to show — approved a draft hammered out by the permanent representatives late Friday calling for all countries to take urgent action to prevent and suppress all active and passive support of terrorism and to comply fully with Security Council resolutions dealing with it.

    The permanent U.N. representatives of Chile and Syria represented their respective nations.

    The meeting was called by France, this month’s rotating president of the council, and chaired by Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin.

    The ministers called on states to take a number of steps to fight the menace, including becoming a party to all international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism; helping each other in the prevention, investigation, prosecution and punishment of acts of terrorism, wherever they occurred; and cooperating closely to implement fully the sanctions against terrorists and their associates — in particular, al Qaida and the Taliban and their associates.

    The panel said its British-chaired Counter-Terrorism Committee must intensify its efforts to promote implementation by U.N. members of all aspects of Resolution 1373, adopted in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, by reviewing their reports and facilitating international assistance and cooperation.

    Germany’s Joschka Fischer, by luck of the draw, was the first foreign minister to speak, and the first to tie-in Baghdad. Berlin’s opposition to military action against Iraq has been well voiced.

    “The issue we are dealing with today is a top international priority,” he said, “since the Sword of Damocles of international terrorism is hanging over all of us. Terrorism kills innocent people and is a crime. It threatens peace and security, it threatens democracy, development and freedom, it scorns national and international law and brutally attacks human rights.”

    None of the subsequent speakers disagreed.

    But later in his remarks, he introduced Iraq into the debate.

    “We are greatly concerned that a military strike against the regime in Baghdad would involve considerable and unpredictable risks for the global fight against terrorism,” Fischer said. “We have no illusion about the nature of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Therefore, we all demand that Baghdad implement the relevant U.N. resolutions in full and without any exceptions.

    “However, in addition to disastrous consequences for long-term regional stability, we also fear possible negative repercussions for the joint fight against terrorism,” the foreign minister said. “These are fundamental reasons for our rejection of military action.”

    British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw followed shortly afterward with his say, reiterating the necessity for unity against terrorists.

    “The world must be in no doubt. If the terrorists can, they will,” he said. “If they can get their hands on nerve gases, or killer viruses, or, nuclear bombs, they will use them.”

    He went on to say “action to stop rogue states’ proliferation is as urgent as action to stop terrorism. Yes, wherever we can, we should use diplomatic means to get proliferators to comply, as we are with North Korea, patiently. But there comes a moment when our patience must run out.”

    “We are near that point with Iraq,” Straw said. “So the moment of choice for Saddam (Hussein) is close. He must either resolve this crisis peacefully, by the full and active compliance with his Security Council obligations and full cooperation with inspectors, or face the “serious consequences” — the use of force — which this council warned would follow when it passed (on Nov. 8, Resolution) 1441.”

    U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, nearly three-quarters of the way through the debate had his turn.

    “Iraq was given a last chance with Resolution 1441,” he said. “I’m pleased that it was President (George) Bush who brought this situation to the attention of the council in the most forceful way last September to give them this one last chance. We must not shrink from our duties and our responsibilities when the material comes before us next week, and as we consider Iraq’s response to 1441.

    “We cannot fail to take the action that may be necessary because we are afraid of what others might do. We cannot be shocked into impotence because we’re afraid of the difficult choices that are ahead of us,” said the former officer. “We’ll have much work to do, difficult work, in the days ahead. But we cannot shrink from the responsibilities of dealing with a regime that has gone about development, acquiring, stocking of weapons of mass destruction, that has committed terrorist acts against its neighbors and against its own people, trampled human rights of its own people and its neighbors.”

    Said Powell, “If Iraq does not come into full compliance, we must not shrink from the responsibilities that we set before ourselves when we adopted 1441 on a unanimous basis and so many other nations expressed their support for 1441.

    “Weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists or states that support terrorists would represent a mortal danger to us all,” he told the council. “We must make the United Nations even more effective. And we must build even closer international cooperation to keep these weapons out of the hands of terrorists.”

    Later, speaking with reporters, Powell said, “I wanted there to be no mistake about this — time is running out,” adding, “If the will of the United Nations is going to be relevant, it has to take a firm stand with regard to Iraq’s continuing disregard of its obligations.”

    As for the recent declaration of additional warheads by Baghdad, the secretary of state said, “They know what they have. It is their obligation to come forward, and we cannot let them to dribble this information and dribble these items out for as long as they choose to, in an effort to thwart the will of the international community.”

    The Security Council counter-terror measure also said states must ensure that any resolution adopted to combat terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law, and should adopt such measures in accordance with international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law. This was to counter claims that states were short-circuiting human rights in their zeal to catch and prosecute terrorists.

    “The United Nations has an indispensable role to play in providing the legal and organizational framework within which the international campaign against terrorism can unfold,” said Secretary-General Kofi Annan in his opening statement. “But we must never lose sight of the fact that any sacrifice of freedom or the rule of law within states — or any generation of new tensions between states in the name of anti-terrorism — is to hand the terrorists a victory that no act of theirs alone could possibly bring.”

    He added, “important and urgent questions are being asked about what might be called the ‘collateral damage’ of the war of terrorism — damage to the presumption of innocence, to precious human rights, to the rule of law, and to the very fabric of democratic governance.”

    Domestically, he said, the danger is that in pursuit of security, crucial liberties could be sacrificed — weakening rather than strengthening common security. “Internationally, the world is seeing an increasing use of what I call the ‘T-word’ — terrorism — to demonize political opponents, to throttle freedom of speech and the press, and to de-legitimize legitimate political grievances.”

    Similarly, states fighting various forms of unrest or insurgency are finding it tempting to abandon the sometimes slow process of political negotiation for the deceptively easy option of military action.

    He said the world organization had to do whatever it could to deny terrorists the opportunity to commit their crimes. But, he said, that just as terrorism must never be excused, so must genuine grievances never be ignored. He urged determination to solve political disputes and long-standing conflicts, which underpinned, fueled and generated support for terrorism.

    The adopted text encouraged international organizations to evaluate ways in which they could enhance the effectiveness of their action against terrorism, including by establishing dialogue and information exchange with each other and with other international participants.

    It also emphasized the role of regional and sub-regional organizations in working with the CTC, established by Resolution 1373, and other international organizations.

    The council said that continuing international efforts to enhance dialogue and broadening the understanding among civilizations “will contribute to international cooperation and collaboration, which by themselves are necessary to sustain the broadest possible fight against terrorism.”

    Copyright 2003 by United Press International. All rights reserved.

    Get Principals Out of the Union-One of Three Core Education Reform Proposals by Gov. Lingle

    0

    Laura Brown Image Thirty-three years after school principals joined the Hawaii Government Employee’s Association, Gov. Linda Lingle, in her Jan. 21 State of the State Address, is calling for the removal of principals from the union. See full text at: “State of the State – Jan. 21, 2003″ Hawaii is the only state in the nation with unionized principals. The debate to remove principals and vice-principals from the union is not new, with proposals by both Republicans and Democrats — most memorably ex-Gov. Cayetano — cropping up each session for over the past decade. Legislative proposals usually offer higher wages as an incentive for new principals to reject union membership. Takao Ito, former president and founding member of HGEA who died last year, believed any bill to remove principals from the union would punish them for public education failures over which they have no control. Principals initially united to fight racial discrimination — an issue that is irrelevant now. On the other side of the debate, legislators, teachers and the public simply want principals to be accountable for school performance. The general perception is that an HGEA contract protects principals’ jobs whether they perform or not. Principal salary is based on seniority and not merit and the career ladder leads away from the school into other administrative jobs. The United Public Workers (UPW), who control building and maintenance staff, also has proven to be a significant barrier to public education reform. The failure of school/community-based management at individual schools is directly attributable to flawed bylaws allowing overrepresentation of HGEA, HSTA, and UPW representatives with minimal input from parents. Children’s welfare is nowhere to be found in any union’s mission statement. Unions exist strictly to enhance the benefits to their members through collective bargaining, using member labor and dues to influence legislators, media and the public. However, HGEA leadership is not necessarily adverse to improving principal performance. A key recommendation of HGEA Executive Director Russell Okata on the 1997 Hawaii Economic Revitalization Task Force was to maintain existing work relationships, but provide performance-based pay and more flexibility in the assignment of principals to match school needs with individual skills. In 2000, State Auditor Marion Higa recommended revamping the Department of Education’s educational officer classification and compensation system and implementing a formal job evaluation methodology to ensure that duties and responsibilities were clearly defined. DOE educational officers currently receive much higher pay than state civil service or University of Hawaii employees with comparable jobs. While these improvements should be undertaken, Gov. Lingle’s proposal is more far-reaching in that it begins the process of reform by allowing charter schools responsibility for the hiring and firing of administrators. She further proposes local school boards, which would have the power to negotiate personnel decisions. Simply removing principals from the union will not be the silver-bullet that fixes public education. This measure is only one of the three logical steps outlined in Gov. Lingle’s message and goes hand-in-hand with the allocation of resources, authority and responsibility to individual communities, which then will be truly empowered to ensure children’s educational needs are first priority in these first valiant steps toward education reform. ”Laura Brown is the education reporter for HawaiiReporter.com and can be reached via email at” mailto:LauraBrown@hawaii.rr.com

    U.N. Foreign Ministers Take on Terrorism

    0

    UNITED NATIONS, Jan. 20 (UPI) — Foreign ministers in the U.N. Security Council Monday unanimously approved a resolution calling on all nations to move urgently against terrorism while in adjacent hallways, talk about Iraq underscored the British-U.S. rush vs. the “give-the-inspectors-more-time” stance of nearly all others. The ministerial-level meeting of the 15-member panel — only two foreign ministers failed to show — approved a draft hammered out by the permanent representatives late Friday calling for all countries to take urgent action to prevent and suppress all active and passive support of terrorism and to comply fully with Security Council resolutions dealing with it. The permanent U.N. representatives of Chile and Syria represented their respective nations. The meeting was called by France, this month’s rotating president of the council, and chaired by Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin. The ministers called on states to take a number of steps to fight the menace, including becoming a party to all international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism; helping each other in the prevention, investigation, prosecution and punishment of acts of terrorism, wherever they occurred; and cooperating closely to implement fully the sanctions against terrorists and their associates — in particular, al Qaida and the Taliban and their associates. The panel said its British-chaired Counter-Terrorism Committee must intensify its efforts to promote implementation by U.N. members of all aspects of Resolution 1373, adopted in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, by reviewing their reports and facilitating international assistance and cooperation. Germany’s Joschka Fischer, by luck of the draw, was the first foreign minister to speak, and the first to tie-in Baghdad. Berlin’s opposition to military action against Iraq has been well voiced. “The issue we are dealing with today is a top international priority,” he said, “since the Sword of Damocles of international terrorism is hanging over all of us. Terrorism kills innocent people and is a crime. It threatens peace and security, it threatens democracy, development and freedom, it scorns national and international law and brutally attacks human rights.” None of the subsequent speakers disagreed. But later in his remarks, he introduced Iraq into the debate. “We are greatly concerned that a military strike against the regime in Baghdad would involve considerable and unpredictable risks for the global fight against terrorism,” Fischer said. “We have no illusion about the nature of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Therefore, we all demand that Baghdad implement the relevant U.N. resolutions in full and without any exceptions. “However, in addition to disastrous consequences for long-term regional stability, we also fear possible negative repercussions for the joint fight against terrorism,” the foreign minister said. “These are fundamental reasons for our rejection of military action.” British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw followed shortly afterward with his say, reiterating the necessity for unity against terrorists. “The world must be in no doubt. If the terrorists can, they will,” he said. “If they can get their hands on nerve gases, or killer viruses, or, nuclear bombs, they will use them.” He went on to say “action to stop rogue states’ proliferation is as urgent as action to stop terrorism. Yes, wherever we can, we should use diplomatic means to get proliferators to comply, as we are with North Korea, patiently. But there comes a moment when our patience must run out.” “We are near that point with Iraq,” Straw said. “So the moment of choice for Saddam (Hussein) is close. He must either resolve this crisis peacefully, by the full and active compliance with his Security Council obligations and full cooperation with inspectors, or face the “serious consequences” — the use of force — which this council warned would follow when it passed (on Nov. 8, Resolution) 1441.” U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, nearly three-quarters of the way through the debate had his turn. “Iraq was given a last chance with Resolution 1441,” he said. “I’m pleased that it was President (George) Bush who brought this situation to the attention of the council in the most forceful way last September to give them this one last chance. We must not shrink from our duties and our responsibilities when the material comes before us next week, and as we consider Iraq’s response to 1441. “We cannot fail to take the action that may be necessary because we are afraid of what others might do. We cannot be shocked into impotence because we’re afraid of the difficult choices that are ahead of us,” said the former officer. “We’ll have much work to do, difficult work, in the days ahead. But we cannot shrink from the responsibilities of dealing with a regime that has gone about development, acquiring, stocking of weapons of mass destruction, that has committed terrorist acts against its neighbors and against its own people, trampled human rights of its own people and its neighbors.” Said Powell, “If Iraq does not come into full compliance, we must not shrink from the responsibilities that we set before ourselves when we adopted 1441 on a unanimous basis and so many other nations expressed their support for 1441. “Weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists or states that support terrorists would represent a mortal danger to us all,” he told the council. “We must make the United Nations even more effective. And we must build even closer international cooperation to keep these weapons out of the hands of terrorists.” Later, speaking with reporters, Powell said, “I wanted there to be no mistake about this — time is running out,” adding, “If the will of the United Nations is going to be relevant, it has to take a firm stand with regard to Iraq’s continuing disregard of its obligations.” As for the recent declaration of additional warheads by Baghdad, the secretary of state said, “They know what they have. It is their obligation to come forward, and we cannot let them to dribble this information and dribble these items out for as long as they choose to, in an effort to thwart the will of the international community.” The Security Council counter-terror measure also said states must ensure that any resolution adopted to combat terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law, and should adopt such measures in accordance with international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law. This was to counter claims that states were short-circuiting human rights in their zeal to catch and prosecute terrorists. “The United Nations has an indispensable role to play in providing the legal and organizational framework within which the international campaign against terrorism can unfold,” said Secretary-General Kofi Annan in his opening statement. “But we must never lose sight of the fact that any sacrifice of freedom or the rule of law within states — or any generation of new tensions between states in the name of anti-terrorism — is to hand the terrorists a victory that no act of theirs alone could possibly bring.” He added, “important and urgent questions are being asked about what might be called the ‘collateral damage’ of the war of terrorism — damage to the presumption of innocence, to precious human rights, to the rule of law, and to the very fabric of democratic governance.” Domestically, he said, the danger is that in pursuit of security, crucial liberties could be sacrificed — weakening rather than strengthening common security. “Internationally, the world is seeing an increasing use of what I call the ‘T-word’ — terrorism — to demonize political opponents, to throttle freedom of speech and the press, and to de-legitimize legitimate political grievances.” Similarly, states fighting various forms of unrest or insurgency are finding it tempting to abandon the sometimes slow process of political negotiation for the deceptively easy option of military action. He said the world organization had to do whatever it could to deny terrorists the opportunity to commit their crimes. But, he said, that just as terrorism must never be excused, so must genuine grievances never be ignored. He urged determination to solve political disputes and long-standing conflicts, which underpinned, fueled and generated support for terrorism. The adopted text encouraged international organizations to evaluate ways in which they could enhance the effectiveness of their action against terrorism, including by establishing dialogue and information exchange with each other and with other international participants. It also emphasized the role of regional and sub-regional organizations in working with the CTC, established by Resolution 1373, and other international organizations. The council said that continuing international efforts to enhance dialogue and broadening the understanding among civilizations “will contribute to international cooperation and collaboration, which by themselves are necessary to sustain the broadest possible fight against terrorism.” Copyright 2003 by United Press International. All rights reserved.

    Grassroot Perspective – Jan. 22, 2003-Don't Worry About Over-rated Hazards; Dixiecrats Triumphant; Forest Fights; Hit & Run; Freedom, Not Voting, Makes America Great; U.S. Government Continues to Stiff Montana

    0

    “Dick Rowland Image”

    ”Shoots (News, Views and Quotes)”

    – Don’t Worry About Over-rated Hazards

    Despite living healthier and longer lives, and enjoying more pleasures and conveniences than ever before, Americans are often prey to unwarranted worries, observers note. Many of these worries spring from environmental warnings, say observers, and being scared affects their ability to think realistically and use good judgment.

    Often all the worrying turns out to be for naught, researchers say.

    It took an $8 million federal study to calm fears that breast cancer
    could be linked to environmental causes among women in Long Island, N.Y. — and, indeed, no scientific study has ever actually confirmed such a link.

    For a detailed discussion of how best to evaluate environmental threats, there is a new book: “How Much Risk? A Guide to Understanding Environmental Health Hazards,” by Inge F. Goldstein and Martin Goldstein, published by the Oxford University Press.

    Source: Jane E. Brody, “Risks and Realities: In a world of Hazards,
    Worries Are Often Misplaced,” New York Times, August 20, 2002

    For text https://www/nytimes.com/2002/08/20/health/20BROD.html

    For more on Human Health Risks https://www.ncpa.org/iss/env

    – Dixiecrats Triumphant

    Woodrow Wilson’s historical reputation is that of a far-sighted
    progressive. But Reason Senior Editor Charles Paul Freund explains that Wilson was a racist retrograde, one who attempted to engineer the diminution of both justice and democracy for American blacks — who were enjoying little of either to begin with. See: https://reason.com/links/links121802.shtml

    – Forest Fights

    Just before leaving office, Bill Clinton issued a rule prohibiting the
    building of roads on untouched parcels of federal forest that applies to some 58.5 million acres of national forests. Reason Science
    Correspondent Ronald Bailey points out that the national forests were
    created as timber reserves, and says the courts should overturn that
    rule. See: https://www.reason.com/rb/rb121802.shtml

    – Hit & Run

    Be sure to check out Hit & Run, Reason’s new group blog which officially launched last week, featuring continuously updated news, views and abuse by the Reason staff — and comments by visitors. Join the debate. See: https://www.reason.com/hitandrun/

    ”Roots (Food for Thought)”

    Freedom, Not Voting, Makes America Great

    By Alex Epstein

    Every Election Day politicians, intellectuals, and activists
    propagate a seemingly patriotic but utterly un-American idea: the notion that our most important right-and the source of America’s greatness-is the right to vote. According to former President Bill Clinton, the right to vote is “the most fundamental right of citizenship”; it is “the heart and soul of our democracy,” says Senator John McCain.

    Such statements are regarded as uncontroversial-but consider
    their implications. If voting is truly our most fundamental right, then all other rights-including free speech, property, even life-are
    contingent on and revocable by the whims of the voting public (or their elected officials). America, on this view, is a society based not on individual rights, but on unlimited majority rule-like Ancient Athens, where the populace, exercising “the most fundamental right of citizenship,” elected to kill Socrates for voicing unpopular ideas-or
    modern-day Zimbabwe, where the democratically elected Robert Mugabe has seized the property of the nation’s white farmers and brought the nation to the verge of starvation-or Germany in 1932, when the people democratically elected the Nazi Party, including future Chancellor Adolph Hitler. Would anyone dare claim that America is thus fundamentally similar to these regimes, and that it is perfectly acceptable to kill controversial philosophers or to exterminate 6 million Jews, so long as it is done by popular vote?

    Contrary to popular rhetoric, America was founded, not as a
    “democracy,” but as a constitutional republic-a political structure
    under which the government is bound by a written constitution to the task of protecting individual rights. “Democracy” does not mean a system that holds public elections for government officials; it means a system in which a majority vote rules everything and everyone, and in which the individual thus has no rights. In a democracy, observed James Madison in The Federalist Papers, “there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention [and] have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.”

    The right to vote derives from the recognition of man as an
    autonomous, rational being, who is responsible for his own life and who should therefore freely choose the people he authorizes to represent him in the government of his country. That autonomy is contradicted if a majority of voters is allowed to do whatever it wishes to the individual citizen. The right to vote is not a sanction for a gang to deprive other individuals of their freedom. Rather, because a free society requires a certain type of government, it is a means of installing the officials who will safeguard the individual rights of each citizen.

    What makes America unique is not that it has elections-even
    dictatorships hold elections-but that its elections take place in a
    country limited by the absolute principle of individual freedom. From our Declaration of Independence, which upholds the “unalienable rights” of every individual, among which are “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” to our Constitution, whose Bill of Rights protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the freedom of private property, respect for individual liberty is the essence of America-and the root of her greatness.

    Unfortunately, with each passing Election Day, too many
    Americans view elections less as a means to protect freedom, and more as a means to win some government favor or handout at the expense of the liberty and property of other Americans. Our politicians promise, not to protect the basic rights spelled out in the Declaration and the Constitution, but to violate the rights of some people in order to benefit others. Today’s politicians want subsidies for farmers — by forcing non-farmers to pay for them; prescription drugs for the elderly — by forcing the non-elderly to pay for them; housing for the homeless — by forcing the non-homeless to pay for it. The more “democratic” our government becomes, the more we cannibalize our liberty, ultimately to the detriment of all.

    This Election Day, therefore, we should reject those who wish to
    reduce our republic to mob rule. Instead, we should vote for those, to whatever extent they can be found, who are defenders of the essence of America: individual freedom.

    Alex Epstein is a writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

    Above article is from
    https://www.aynrand.org/medialink/meaningoftherighttovote.shtml

    ”Roots (Food for Thought)”

    U.S. Government Continues to Stiff Montana

    By William Perry Pendley

    Published: The Heartland Institute 04/01/2002

    In the summer of 1996, President Bill Clinton traveled to Yellowstone
    National Park to announce that his administration, in concert with
    environmental groups, had killed hundreds of jobs in southern Montana and northern Wyoming.

    The New World Mine, a world-class ($650 million) deposit of gold,
    silver, and copper in an area heavily mined since Europeans came west, would never open. Crown Butte Mines agreed to ensure the reclamation of the land, which had experienced decades of mining activity by other companies. In exchange, Crown Butte was promised $65 million worth of federal property.

    But federal officials could not identify any such property, so Congress appropriated the funds to pay Crown Butte instead. Recognizing that Montana, the nation’s poorest state, had been dealt a severe economic blow by the mine’s failure to open, Congress mandated some recompense. The Secretary of the Interior was to give Montana either $10 million in federal mineral rights as agreed to by the Secretary and Montana’s Governor, or all rights in 533 million tons of federal coal in the “Otter Creek tracts.”

    Then-Governor Marc Racicot told then-Secretary Bruce Babbitt that
    Montana wanted the Otter Creek tracts within Powder River County, one of the nation’s most productive coal mining regions. Babbitt refused, saying the congressional mandate created a “windfall” for Montana. Undeterred, Racicot pressed for transfer of the Otter Creek tracts.

    Attorneys Promise He’ll Comply

    In 1998, landowners near Ashland, in Montana’s poorest region, sued to force Babbitt to comply with federal law by transferring the Otter Creek tracts. They argued that Babbitt’s well-publicized characterization of the coal transfer (Babbitt told a U.S. Senate committee what he told Racicot) proved Babbitt had no intention of complying with the law.

    Federal attorneys asserted that negotiations had begun, that
    negotiations were continuing, and that Babbitt would comply with federal law on or before New Year’s Day 2001. Given these assertions, a Washington, DC federal district court, in September 1999, dismissed the case as not ripe; that is, Babbitt had not yet violated the law and had indicated he would comply.

    On Dec. 22, 2000, Secretary Babbitt wrote to Gov. Racicot
    advising him, once again, that Babbitt had no intention of transferring the Otter Creek tracts to Montana and would not, under any circumstances, do so. The letter did not arrive in Montana until after Inauguration Day 2001. By then, Montana had a new governor, Judy Martz, who went to Washington, DC for President George W. Bush’s swearing in.

    While there, Gov. Martz met with Gale Norton, Secretary of the
    Department of Interior, to whom she communicated Montana’s request for immediate transfer of the Otter Creek tracts. Governor Martz repeated that request in a letter dated Feb. 1, 2001. A year after that letter was signed, Secretary Norton has yet to transfer the Otter Creek tracts to Montana, a year and a month after the transfer was to have taken place.

    Blackmail in the Courts

    Meanwhile, on Jan. 25, 2002, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe filed a
    lawsuit in Washington, DC to prevent Norton from doing what Babbitt
    should have done in 1998, or 1999, or 2000, and what Norton should have done days after being sworn-in, given as how the deadline was Jan. 1, 2001.

    Although the tribe is seeking an order compelling Norton to conduct a lengthy environmental review before transferring the coal, the tribe’s attorney stated the real reason for the lawsuit is to force Montana to meet the tribe’s demands for employment and contracting guarantees. If the attorney’s statement is accurate, and for a host of other reasons, the lawsuit should be dismissed. Whether federal lawyers will file a motion to dismiss is unknown.

    In 1996, when Clinton stood before the media and smiling
    environmentalists to announce the death of hundreds of high-paying jobs, he enthused, “What a happy day.” It has not been a happy day
    economically in southeastern Montana for many years. Worse yet, the happy day envisioned by Congress when it mandated the coal transfer appears far away.

    William Perry Pendley is president and chief legal officer of the
    Mountain States Legal Foundation.

    Above article is from https://www.heartland.org Environment & Climate News April 2002.

    GRIH Comment: If they are big & strong enough to successfully tax you, they are all too able to hand you an empty sack full of promises. What they can do to Montana, they can do to Hawaii, or New Hampshire etc.

    ”Evergreen (Today’s Quote)”

    There are two ways to slide easily through life; to believe everything or to doubt everything. Both will save us from thinking.

    – Alfred Korsybski

    ”’See Web site”’ https://www.grassrootinstitute.org ”’for further information. Join its efforts at “Nurturing the rights and responsibilities of the individual in a civil society. …” or email or call Grassroot of Hawaii Institute President Richard O. Rowland at mailto:grassroot@hawaii.rr.com or (808) 487-4959.”’

    Grassroot Perspective – Jan. 22, 2003-Don’t Worry About Over-rated Hazards; Dixiecrats Triumphant; Forest Fights; Hit & Run; Freedom, Not Voting, Makes America Great; U.S. Government Continues to Stiff Montana

    0

    “Dick Rowland Image”

    ”Shoots (News, Views and Quotes)”

    – Don’t Worry About Over-rated Hazards

    Despite living healthier and longer lives, and enjoying more pleasures and conveniences than ever before, Americans are often prey to unwarranted worries, observers note. Many of these worries spring from environmental warnings, say observers, and being scared affects their ability to think realistically and use good judgment.

    Often all the worrying turns out to be for naught, researchers say.

    It took an $8 million federal study to calm fears that breast cancer
    could be linked to environmental causes among women in Long Island, N.Y. — and, indeed, no scientific study has ever actually confirmed such a link.

    For a detailed discussion of how best to evaluate environmental threats, there is a new book: “How Much Risk? A Guide to Understanding Environmental Health Hazards,” by Inge F. Goldstein and Martin Goldstein, published by the Oxford University Press.

    Source: Jane E. Brody, “Risks and Realities: In a world of Hazards,
    Worries Are Often Misplaced,” New York Times, August 20, 2002

    For text https://www/nytimes.com/2002/08/20/health/20BROD.html

    For more on Human Health Risks https://www.ncpa.org/iss/env

    – Dixiecrats Triumphant

    Woodrow Wilson’s historical reputation is that of a far-sighted
    progressive. But Reason Senior Editor Charles Paul Freund explains that Wilson was a racist retrograde, one who attempted to engineer the diminution of both justice and democracy for American blacks — who were enjoying little of either to begin with. See: https://reason.com/links/links121802.shtml

    – Forest Fights

    Just before leaving office, Bill Clinton issued a rule prohibiting the
    building of roads on untouched parcels of federal forest that applies to some 58.5 million acres of national forests. Reason Science
    Correspondent Ronald Bailey points out that the national forests were
    created as timber reserves, and says the courts should overturn that
    rule. See: https://www.reason.com/rb/rb121802.shtml

    – Hit & Run

    Be sure to check out Hit & Run, Reason’s new group blog which officially launched last week, featuring continuously updated news, views and abuse by the Reason staff — and comments by visitors. Join the debate. See: https://www.reason.com/hitandrun/

    ”Roots (Food for Thought)”

    Freedom, Not Voting, Makes America Great

    By Alex Epstein

    Every Election Day politicians, intellectuals, and activists
    propagate a seemingly patriotic but utterly un-American idea: the notion that our most important right-and the source of America’s greatness-is the right to vote. According to former President Bill Clinton, the right to vote is “the most fundamental right of citizenship”; it is “the heart and soul of our democracy,” says Senator John McCain.

    Such statements are regarded as uncontroversial-but consider
    their implications. If voting is truly our most fundamental right, then all other rights-including free speech, property, even life-are
    contingent on and revocable by the whims of the voting public (or their elected officials). America, on this view, is a society based not on individual rights, but on unlimited majority rule-like Ancient Athens, where the populace, exercising “the most fundamental right of citizenship,” elected to kill Socrates for voicing unpopular ideas-or
    modern-day Zimbabwe, where the democratically elected Robert Mugabe has seized the property of the nation’s white farmers and brought the nation to the verge of starvation-or Germany in 1932, when the people democratically elected the Nazi Party, including future Chancellor Adolph Hitler. Would anyone dare claim that America is thus fundamentally similar to these regimes, and that it is perfectly acceptable to kill controversial philosophers or to exterminate 6 million Jews, so long as it is done by popular vote?

    Contrary to popular rhetoric, America was founded, not as a
    “democracy,” but as a constitutional republic-a political structure
    under which the government is bound by a written constitution to the task of protecting individual rights. “Democracy” does not mean a system that holds public elections for government officials; it means a system in which a majority vote rules everything and everyone, and in which the individual thus has no rights. In a democracy, observed James Madison in The Federalist Papers, “there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention [and] have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.”

    The right to vote derives from the recognition of man as an
    autonomous, rational being, who is responsible for his own life and who should therefore freely choose the people he authorizes to represent him in the government of his country. That autonomy is contradicted if a majority of voters is allowed to do whatever it wishes to the individual citizen. The right to vote is not a sanction for a gang to deprive other individuals of their freedom. Rather, because a free society requires a certain type of government, it is a means of installing the officials who will safeguard the individual rights of each citizen.

    What makes America unique is not that it has elections-even
    dictatorships hold elections-but that its elections take place in a
    country limited by the absolute principle of individual freedom. From our Declaration of Independence, which upholds the “unalienable rights” of every individual, among which are “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” to our Constitution, whose Bill of Rights protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the freedom of private property, respect for individual liberty is the essence of America-and the root of her greatness.

    Unfortunately, with each passing Election Day, too many
    Americans view elections less as a means to protect freedom, and more as a means to win some government favor or handout at the expense of the liberty and property of other Americans. Our politicians promise, not to protect the basic rights spelled out in the Declaration and the Constitution, but to violate the rights of some people in order to benefit others. Today’s politicians want subsidies for farmers — by forcing non-farmers to pay for them; prescription drugs for the elderly — by forcing the non-elderly to pay for them; housing for the homeless — by forcing the non-homeless to pay for it. The more “democratic” our government becomes, the more we cannibalize our liberty, ultimately to the detriment of all.

    This Election Day, therefore, we should reject those who wish to
    reduce our republic to mob rule. Instead, we should vote for those, to whatever extent they can be found, who are defenders of the essence of America: individual freedom.

    Alex Epstein is a writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

    Above article is from
    https://www.aynrand.org/medialink/meaningoftherighttovote.shtml

    ”Roots (Food for Thought)”

    U.S. Government Continues to Stiff Montana

    By William Perry Pendley

    Published: The Heartland Institute 04/01/2002

    In the summer of 1996, President Bill Clinton traveled to Yellowstone
    National Park to announce that his administration, in concert with
    environmental groups, had killed hundreds of jobs in southern Montana and northern Wyoming.

    The New World Mine, a world-class ($650 million) deposit of gold,
    silver, and copper in an area heavily mined since Europeans came west, would never open. Crown Butte Mines agreed to ensure the reclamation of the land, which had experienced decades of mining activity by other companies. In exchange, Crown Butte was promised $65 million worth of federal property.

    But federal officials could not identify any such property, so Congress appropriated the funds to pay Crown Butte instead. Recognizing that Montana, the nation’s poorest state, had been dealt a severe economic blow by the mine’s failure to open, Congress mandated some recompense. The Secretary of the Interior was to give Montana either $10 million in federal mineral rights as agreed to by the Secretary and Montana’s Governor, or all rights in 533 million tons of federal coal in the “Otter Creek tracts.”

    Then-Governor Marc Racicot told then-Secretary Bruce Babbitt that
    Montana wanted the Otter Creek tracts within Powder River County, one of the nation’s most productive coal mining regions. Babbitt refused, saying the congressional mandate created a “windfall” for Montana. Undeterred, Racicot pressed for transfer of the Otter Creek tracts.

    Attorneys Promise He’ll Comply

    In 1998, landowners near Ashland, in Montana’s poorest region, sued to force Babbitt to comply with federal law by transferring the Otter Creek tracts. They argued that Babbitt’s well-publicized characterization of the coal transfer (Babbitt told a U.S. Senate committee what he told Racicot) proved Babbitt had no intention of complying with the law.

    Federal attorneys asserted that negotiations had begun, that
    negotiations were continuing, and that Babbitt would comply with federal law on or before New Year’s Day 2001. Given these assertions, a Washington, DC federal district court, in September 1999, dismissed the case as not ripe; that is, Babbitt had not yet violated the law and had indicated he would comply.

    On Dec. 22, 2000, Secretary Babbitt wrote to Gov. Racicot
    advising him, once again, that Babbitt had no intention of transferring the Otter Creek tracts to Montana and would not, under any circumstances, do so. The letter did not arrive in Montana until after Inauguration Day 2001. By then, Montana had a new governor, Judy Martz, who went to Washington, DC for President George W. Bush’s swearing in.

    While there, Gov. Martz met with Gale Norton, Secretary of the
    Department of Interior, to whom she communicated Montana’s request for immediate transfer of the Otter Creek tracts. Governor Martz repeated that request in a letter dated Feb. 1, 2001. A year after that letter was signed, Secretary Norton has yet to transfer the Otter Creek tracts to Montana, a year and a month after the transfer was to have taken place.

    Blackmail in the Courts

    Meanwhile, on Jan. 25, 2002, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe filed a
    lawsuit in Washington, DC to prevent Norton from doing what Babbitt
    should have done in 1998, or 1999, or 2000, and what Norton should have done days after being sworn-in, given as how the deadline was Jan. 1, 2001.

    Although the tribe is seeking an order compelling Norton to conduct a lengthy environmental review before transferring the coal, the tribe’s attorney stated the real reason for the lawsuit is to force Montana to meet the tribe’s demands for employment and contracting guarantees. If the attorney’s statement is accurate, and for a host of other reasons, the lawsuit should be dismissed. Whether federal lawyers will file a motion to dismiss is unknown.

    In 1996, when Clinton stood before the media and smiling
    environmentalists to announce the death of hundreds of high-paying jobs, he enthused, “What a happy day.” It has not been a happy day
    economically in southeastern Montana for many years. Worse yet, the happy day envisioned by Congress when it mandated the coal transfer appears far away.

    William Perry Pendley is president and chief legal officer of the
    Mountain States Legal Foundation.

    Above article is from https://www.heartland.org Environment & Climate News April 2002.

    GRIH Comment: If they are big & strong enough to successfully tax you, they are all too able to hand you an empty sack full of promises. What they can do to Montana, they can do to Hawaii, or New Hampshire etc.

    ”Evergreen (Today’s Quote)”

    There are two ways to slide easily through life; to believe everything or to doubt everything. Both will save us from thinking.

    – Alfred Korsybski

    ”’See Web site”’ https://www.grassrootinstitute.org ”’for further information. Join its efforts at “Nurturing the rights and responsibilities of the individual in a civil society. …” or email or call Grassroot of Hawaii Institute President Richard O. Rowland at mailto:grassroot@hawaii.rr.com or (808) 487-4959.”’

    Grassroot Perspective – Jan. 22, 2003-Don't Worry About Over-rated Hazards; Dixiecrats Triumphant; Forest Fights; Hit & Run; Freedom, Not Voting, Makes America Great; U.S. Government Continues to Stiff Montana

    0

    Dick Rowland Image ‘Shoots (News, Views and Quotes)’ – Don’t Worry About Over-rated Hazards Despite living healthier and longer lives, and enjoying more pleasures and conveniences than ever before, Americans are often prey to unwarranted worries, observers note. Many of these worries spring from environmental warnings, say observers, and being scared affects their ability to think realistically and use good judgment. Often all the worrying turns out to be for naught, researchers say. It took an $8 million federal study to calm fears that breast cancer could be linked to environmental causes among women in Long Island, N.Y. — and, indeed, no scientific study has ever actually confirmed such a link. For a detailed discussion of how best to evaluate environmental threats, there is a new book: “How Much Risk? A Guide to Understanding Environmental Health Hazards,” by Inge F. Goldstein and Martin Goldstein, published by the Oxford University Press. Source: Jane E. Brody, “Risks and Realities: In a world of Hazards, Worries Are Often Misplaced,” New York Times, August 20, 2002 For text https://www/nytimes.com/2002/08/20/health/20BROD.html For more on Human Health Risks https://www.ncpa.org/iss/env – Dixiecrats Triumphant Woodrow Wilson’s historical reputation is that of a far-sighted progressive. But Reason Senior Editor Charles Paul Freund explains that Wilson was a racist retrograde, one who attempted to engineer the diminution of both justice and democracy for American blacks — who were enjoying little of either to begin with. See: https://reason.com/links/links121802.shtml – Forest Fights Just before leaving office, Bill Clinton issued a rule prohibiting the building of roads on untouched parcels of federal forest that applies to some 58.5 million acres of national forests. Reason Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey points out that the national forests were created as timber reserves, and says the courts should overturn that rule. See: https://www.reason.com/rb/rb121802.shtml – Hit & Run Be sure to check out Hit & Run, Reason’s new group blog which officially launched last week, featuring continuously updated news, views and abuse by the Reason staff — and comments by visitors. Join the debate. See: https://www.reason.com/hitandrun/ ‘Roots (Food for Thought)’ Freedom, Not Voting, Makes America Great By Alex Epstein Every Election Day politicians, intellectuals, and activists propagate a seemingly patriotic but utterly un-American idea: the notion that our most important right-and the source of America’s greatness-is the right to vote. According to former President Bill Clinton, the right to vote is “the most fundamental right of citizenship”; it is “the heart and soul of our democracy,” says Senator John McCain. Such statements are regarded as uncontroversial-but consider their implications. If voting is truly our most fundamental right, then all other rights-including free speech, property, even life-are contingent on and revocable by the whims of the voting public (or their elected officials). America, on this view, is a society based not on individual rights, but on unlimited majority rule-like Ancient Athens, where the populace, exercising “the most fundamental right of citizenship,” elected to kill Socrates for voicing unpopular ideas-or modern-day Zimbabwe, where the democratically elected Robert Mugabe has seized the property of the nation’s white farmers and brought the nation to the verge of starvation-or Germany in 1932, when the people democratically elected the Nazi Party, including future Chancellor Adolph Hitler. Would anyone dare claim that America is thus fundamentally similar to these regimes, and that it is perfectly acceptable to kill controversial philosophers or to exterminate 6 million Jews, so long as it is done by popular vote? Contrary to popular rhetoric, America was founded, not as a “democracy,” but as a constitutional republic-a political structure under which the government is bound by a written constitution to the task of protecting individual rights. “Democracy” does not mean a system that holds public elections for government officials; it means a system in which a majority vote rules everything and everyone, and in which the individual thus has no rights. In a democracy, observed James Madison in The Federalist Papers, “there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention [and] have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.” The right to vote derives from the recognition of man as an autonomous, rational being, who is responsible for his own life and who should therefore freely choose the people he authorizes to represent him in the government of his country. That autonomy is contradicted if a majority of voters is allowed to do whatever it wishes to the individual citizen. The right to vote is not a sanction for a gang to deprive other individuals of their freedom. Rather, because a free society requires a certain type of government, it is a means of installing the officials who will safeguard the individual rights of each citizen. What makes America unique is not that it has elections-even dictatorships hold elections-but that its elections take place in a country limited by the absolute principle of individual freedom. From our Declaration of Independence, which upholds the “unalienable rights” of every individual, among which are “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” to our Constitution, whose Bill of Rights protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the freedom of private property, respect for individual liberty is the essence of America-and the root of her greatness. Unfortunately, with each passing Election Day, too many Americans view elections less as a means to protect freedom, and more as a means to win some government favor or handout at the expense of the liberty and property of other Americans. Our politicians promise, not to protect the basic rights spelled out in the Declaration and the Constitution, but to violate the rights of some people in order to benefit others. Today’s politicians want subsidies for farmers — by forcing non-farmers to pay for them; prescription drugs for the elderly — by forcing the non-elderly to pay for them; housing for the homeless — by forcing the non-homeless to pay for it. The more “democratic” our government becomes, the more we cannibalize our liberty, ultimately to the detriment of all. This Election Day, therefore, we should reject those who wish to reduce our republic to mob rule. Instead, we should vote for those, to whatever extent they can be found, who are defenders of the essence of America: individual freedom. Alex Epstein is a writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. Above article is from https://www.aynrand.org/medialink/meaningoftherighttovote.shtml ‘Roots (Food for Thought)’ U.S. Government Continues to Stiff Montana By William Perry Pendley Published: The Heartland Institute 04/01/2002 In the summer of 1996, President Bill Clinton traveled to Yellowstone National Park to announce that his administration, in concert with environmental groups, had killed hundreds of jobs in southern Montana and northern Wyoming. The New World Mine, a world-class ($650 million) deposit of gold, silver, and copper in an area heavily mined since Europeans came west, would never open. Crown Butte Mines agreed to ensure the reclamation of the land, which had experienced decades of mining activity by other companies. In exchange, Crown Butte was promised $65 million worth of federal property. But federal officials could not identify any such property, so Congress appropriated the funds to pay Crown Butte instead. Recognizing that Montana, the nation’s poorest state, had been dealt a severe economic blow by the mine’s failure to open, Congress mandated some recompense. The Secretary of the Interior was to give Montana either $10 millio
    n in federal mineral rights as agreed to by the Secretary and Montana’s Governor, or all rights in 533 million tons of federal coal in the “Otter Creek tracts.” Then-Governor Marc Racicot told then-Secretary Bruce Babbitt that Montana wanted the Otter Creek tracts within Powder River County, one of the nation’s most productive coal mining regions. Babbitt refused, saying the congressional mandate created a “windfall” for Montana. Undeterred, Racicot pressed for transfer of the Otter Creek tracts. Attorneys Promise He’ll Comply In 1998, landowners near Ashland, in Montana’s poorest region, sued to force Babbitt to comply with federal law by transferring the Otter Creek tracts. They argued that Babbitt’s well-publicized characterization of the coal transfer (Babbitt told a U.S. Senate committee what he told Racicot) proved Babbitt had no intention of complying with the law. Federal attorneys asserted that negotiations had begun, that negotiations were continuing, and that Babbitt would comply with federal law on or before New Year’s Day 2001. Given these assertions, a Washington, DC federal district court, in September 1999, dismissed the case as not ripe; that is, Babbitt had not yet violated the law and had indicated he would comply. On Dec. 22, 2000, Secretary Babbitt wrote to Gov. Racicot advising him, once again, that Babbitt had no intention of transferring the Otter Creek tracts to Montana and would not, under any circumstances, do so. The letter did not arrive in Montana until after Inauguration Day 2001. By then, Montana had a new governor, Judy Martz, who went to Washington, DC for President George W. Bush’s swearing in. While there, Gov. Martz met with Gale Norton, Secretary of the Department of Interior, to whom she communicated Montana’s request for immediate transfer of the Otter Creek tracts. Governor Martz repeated that request in a letter dated Feb. 1, 2001. A year after that letter was signed, Secretary Norton has yet to transfer the Otter Creek tracts to Montana, a year and a month after the transfer was to have taken place. Blackmail in the Courts Meanwhile, on Jan. 25, 2002, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe filed a lawsuit in Washington, DC to prevent Norton from doing what Babbitt should have done in 1998, or 1999, or 2000, and what Norton should have done days after being sworn-in, given as how the deadline was Jan. 1, 2001. Although the tribe is seeking an order compelling Norton to conduct a lengthy environmental review before transferring the coal, the tribe’s attorney stated the real reason for the lawsuit is to force Montana to meet the tribe’s demands for employment and contracting guarantees. If the attorney’s statement is accurate, and for a host of other reasons, the lawsuit should be dismissed. Whether federal lawyers will file a motion to dismiss is unknown. In 1996, when Clinton stood before the media and smiling environmentalists to announce the death of hundreds of high-paying jobs, he enthused, “What a happy day.” It has not been a happy day economically in southeastern Montana for many years. Worse yet, the happy day envisioned by Congress when it mandated the coal transfer appears far away. William Perry Pendley is president and chief legal officer of the Mountain States Legal Foundation. Above article is from https://www.heartland.org Environment & Climate News April 2002. GRIH Comment: If they are big & strong enough to successfully tax you, they are all too able to hand you an empty sack full of promises. What they can do to Montana, they can do to Hawaii, or New Hampshire etc. ‘Evergreen (Today’s Quote)’ There are two ways to slide easily through life; to believe everything or to doubt everything. Both will save us from thinking. – Alfred Korsybski ”See Web site” https://www.grassrootinstitute.org ”for further information. Join its efforts at “Nurturing the rights and responsibilities of the individual in a civil society. …” or email or call Grassroot of Hawaii Institute President Richard O. Rowland at mailto:grassroot@hawaii.rr.com or (808) 487-4959.”

    Grassroot Perspective – Jan. 22, 2003-Don’t Worry About Over-rated Hazards; Dixiecrats Triumphant; Forest Fights; Hit & Run; Freedom, Not Voting, Makes America Great; U.S. Government Continues to Stiff Montana

    0

    Dick Rowland Image ‘Shoots (News, Views and Quotes)’ – Don’t Worry About Over-rated Hazards Despite living healthier and longer lives, and enjoying more pleasures and conveniences than ever before, Americans are often prey to unwarranted worries, observers note. Many of these worries spring from environmental warnings, say observers, and being scared affects their ability to think realistically and use good judgment. Often all the worrying turns out to be for naught, researchers say. It took an $8 million federal study to calm fears that breast cancer could be linked to environmental causes among women in Long Island, N.Y. — and, indeed, no scientific study has ever actually confirmed such a link. For a detailed discussion of how best to evaluate environmental threats, there is a new book: “How Much Risk? A Guide to Understanding Environmental Health Hazards,” by Inge F. Goldstein and Martin Goldstein, published by the Oxford University Press. Source: Jane E. Brody, “Risks and Realities: In a world of Hazards, Worries Are Often Misplaced,” New York Times, August 20, 2002 For text https://www/nytimes.com/2002/08/20/health/20BROD.html For more on Human Health Risks https://www.ncpa.org/iss/env – Dixiecrats Triumphant Woodrow Wilson’s historical reputation is that of a far-sighted progressive. But Reason Senior Editor Charles Paul Freund explains that Wilson was a racist retrograde, one who attempted to engineer the diminution of both justice and democracy for American blacks — who were enjoying little of either to begin with. See: https://reason.com/links/links121802.shtml – Forest Fights Just before leaving office, Bill Clinton issued a rule prohibiting the building of roads on untouched parcels of federal forest that applies to some 58.5 million acres of national forests. Reason Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey points out that the national forests were created as timber reserves, and says the courts should overturn that rule. See: https://www.reason.com/rb/rb121802.shtml – Hit & Run Be sure to check out Hit & Run, Reason’s new group blog which officially launched last week, featuring continuously updated news, views and abuse by the Reason staff — and comments by visitors. Join the debate. See: https://www.reason.com/hitandrun/ ‘Roots (Food for Thought)’ Freedom, Not Voting, Makes America Great By Alex Epstein Every Election Day politicians, intellectuals, and activists propagate a seemingly patriotic but utterly un-American idea: the notion that our most important right-and the source of America’s greatness-is the right to vote. According to former President Bill Clinton, the right to vote is “the most fundamental right of citizenship”; it is “the heart and soul of our democracy,” says Senator John McCain. Such statements are regarded as uncontroversial-but consider their implications. If voting is truly our most fundamental right, then all other rights-including free speech, property, even life-are contingent on and revocable by the whims of the voting public (or their elected officials). America, on this view, is a society based not on individual rights, but on unlimited majority rule-like Ancient Athens, where the populace, exercising “the most fundamental right of citizenship,” elected to kill Socrates for voicing unpopular ideas-or modern-day Zimbabwe, where the democratically elected Robert Mugabe has seized the property of the nation’s white farmers and brought the nation to the verge of starvation-or Germany in 1932, when the people democratically elected the Nazi Party, including future Chancellor Adolph Hitler. Would anyone dare claim that America is thus fundamentally similar to these regimes, and that it is perfectly acceptable to kill controversial philosophers or to exterminate 6 million Jews, so long as it is done by popular vote? Contrary to popular rhetoric, America was founded, not as a “democracy,” but as a constitutional republic-a political structure under which the government is bound by a written constitution to the task of protecting individual rights. “Democracy” does not mean a system that holds public elections for government officials; it means a system in which a majority vote rules everything and everyone, and in which the individual thus has no rights. In a democracy, observed James Madison in The Federalist Papers, “there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention [and] have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.” The right to vote derives from the recognition of man as an autonomous, rational being, who is responsible for his own life and who should therefore freely choose the people he authorizes to represent him in the government of his country. That autonomy is contradicted if a majority of voters is allowed to do whatever it wishes to the individual citizen. The right to vote is not a sanction for a gang to deprive other individuals of their freedom. Rather, because a free society requires a certain type of government, it is a means of installing the officials who will safeguard the individual rights of each citizen. What makes America unique is not that it has elections-even dictatorships hold elections-but that its elections take place in a country limited by the absolute principle of individual freedom. From our Declaration of Independence, which upholds the “unalienable rights” of every individual, among which are “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” to our Constitution, whose Bill of Rights protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the freedom of private property, respect for individual liberty is the essence of America-and the root of her greatness. Unfortunately, with each passing Election Day, too many Americans view elections less as a means to protect freedom, and more as a means to win some government favor or handout at the expense of the liberty and property of other Americans. Our politicians promise, not to protect the basic rights spelled out in the Declaration and the Constitution, but to violate the rights of some people in order to benefit others. Today’s politicians want subsidies for farmers — by forcing non-farmers to pay for them; prescription drugs for the elderly — by forcing the non-elderly to pay for them; housing for the homeless — by forcing the non-homeless to pay for it. The more “democratic” our government becomes, the more we cannibalize our liberty, ultimately to the detriment of all. This Election Day, therefore, we should reject those who wish to reduce our republic to mob rule. Instead, we should vote for those, to whatever extent they can be found, who are defenders of the essence of America: individual freedom. Alex Epstein is a writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. Above article is from https://www.aynrand.org/medialink/meaningoftherighttovote.shtml ‘Roots (Food for Thought)’ U.S. Government Continues to Stiff Montana By William Perry Pendley Published: The Heartland Institute 04/01/2002 In the summer of 1996, President Bill Clinton traveled to Yellowstone National Park to announce that his administration, in concert with environmental groups, had killed hundreds of jobs in southern Montana and northern Wyoming. The New World Mine, a world-class ($650 million) deposit of gold, silver, and copper in an area heavily mined since Europeans came west, would never open. Crown Butte Mines agreed to ensure the reclamation of the land, which had experienced decades of mining activity by other companies. In exchange, Crown Butte was promised $65 million worth of federal property. But federal officials could not identify any such property, so Congress appropriated the funds to pay Crown Butte instead. Recognizing that Montana, the nation’s poorest state, had been dealt a severe economic blow by the mine’s failure to open, Congress mandated some recompense. The Secretary of the Interior was to give Montana either $10 million in federal mineral rights as agreed to by the Secretary and Montana’s Governor, or all rights in 533 million tons of federal coal in the “Otter Creek tracts.” Then-Governor Marc Racicot told then-Secretary Bruce Babbitt that Montana wanted the Otter Creek tracts within Powder River County, one of the nation’s most productive coal mining regions. Babbitt refused, saying the congressional mandate created a “windfall” for Montana. Undeterred, Racicot pressed for transfer of the Otter Creek tracts. Attorneys Promise He’ll Comply In 1998, landowners near Ashland, in Montana’s poorest region, sued to force Babbitt to comply with federal law by transferring the Otter Creek tracts. They argued that Babbitt’s well-publicized characterization of the coal transfer (Babbitt told a U.S. Senate committee what he told Racicot) proved Babbitt had no intention of complying with the law. Federal attorneys asserted that negotiations had begun, that negotiations were continuing, and that Babbitt would comply with federal law on or before New Year’s Day 2001. Given these assertions, a Washington, DC federal district court, in September 1999, dismissed the case as not ripe; that is, Babbitt had not yet violated the law and had indicated he would comply. On Dec. 22, 2000, Secretary Babbitt wrote to Gov. Racicot advising him, once again, that Babbitt had no intention of transferring the Otter Creek tracts to Montana and would not, under any circumstances, do so. The letter did not arrive in Montana until after Inauguration Day 2001. By then, Montana had a new governor, Judy Martz, who went to Washington, DC for President George W. Bush’s swearing in. While there, Gov. Martz met with Gale Norton, Secretary of the Department of Interior, to whom she communicated Montana’s request for immediate transfer of the Otter Creek tracts. Governor Martz repeated that request in a letter dated Feb. 1, 2001. A year after that letter was signed, Secretary Norton has yet to transfer the Otter Creek tracts to Montana, a year and a month after the transfer was to have taken place. Blackmail in the Courts Meanwhile, on Jan. 25, 2002, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe filed a lawsuit in Washington, DC to prevent Norton from doing what Babbitt should have done in 1998, or 1999, or 2000, and what Norton should have done days after being sworn-in, given as how the deadline was Jan. 1, 2001. Although the tribe is seeking an order compelling Norton to conduct a lengthy environmental review before transferring the coal, the tribe’s attorney stated the real reason for the lawsuit is to force Montana to meet the tribe’s demands for employment and contracting guarantees. If the attorney’s statement is accurate, and for a host of other reasons, the lawsuit should be dismissed. Whether federal lawyers will file a motion to dismiss is unknown. In 1996, when Clinton stood before the media and smiling environmentalists to announce the death of hundreds of high-paying jobs, he enthused, “What a happy day.” It has not been a happy day economically in southeastern Montana for many years. Worse yet, the happy day envisioned by Congress when it mandated the coal transfer appears far away. William Perry Pendley is president and chief legal officer of the Mountain States Legal Foundation. Above article is from https://www.heartland.org Environment & Climate News April 2002. GRIH Comment: If they are big & strong enough to successfully tax you, they are all too able to hand you an empty sack full of promises. What they can do to Montana, they can do to Hawaii, or New Hampshire etc. ‘Evergreen (Today’s Quote)’ There are two ways to slide easily through life; to believe everything or to doubt everything. Both will save us from thinking. – Alfred Korsybski ”See Web site” https://www.grassrootinstitute.org ”for further information. Join its efforts at “Nurturing the rights and responsibilities of the individual in a civil society. …” or email or call Grassroot of Hawaii Institute President Richard O. Rowland at mailto:grassroot@hawaii.rr.com or (808) 487-4959.”

    Robbery, Kidnapping and Sexual Assault

    0

    CrimeStoppers and the Honolulu Police Department are asking the public’s assistance in identifying four male suspects who kidnapped, robbed and sexually assaulted a 22-year-old Asian female on Thursday, Jan. 9, 2003, at 8 p.m.

    The victim was walking on Kaheka Street near Kanunu Street when she was approached by the suspect identified as “Jack” who brandished a silver semi-automatic handgun and directed the victim into a vehicle occupied by three other males. The victim was taken to a First Hawaiian Bank ATM machine located at Liliha Street, forced to withdraw cash, and then to a Bank of Hawaii ATM machine in Nuuanu Shopping Plaza. The suspects then drove the victim to the Nuuanu Pali Drive where two of the males sexually assaulted her. The victim was dropped off opposite 4151 Nuuanu Drive where
    she was picked up by a passerby.

    Anyone who has information about this case or recognizes the suspects or the suspect vehicle may contact Detective Dennis KIM, Adult Sex Crimes Detail at 529-3417, or anonymous calls may be made to CrimeStoppers at 955-8300, *CRIME on your cellular phone. Free cellular calls are provided by AT&T, Nextel Hawaii, and Verizon Wireless Hawaii.

    “CrimeStoppers010=03_Jack Image”

    *Suspect #1 “Jack” (See composite)

    Polynesian male, mid 20’s

    5’2″ to 5’6″, stock build, mustache

    Wearing a dark, two-tone beanie hat

    Silver colored semi-automatic handgun

    “CrimeStoppers010=03_Jim Image”

    *Suspect #2 “Jim” (See composite)

    Asian male, mid 20’s

    5’2″ to 5’6″, slim build

    *Suspect #3 Adult male

    Local male, mid 20’s

    Heavy build

    *Suspect #4 Local juvenile male

    5’2″ to 5’6″, slim build

    Severe acne on face

    “CrimeStoppers010=03_Car Image”

    *Suspect Vehicle

    4-door maroon compact vehicle

    “Bazooka” type muffler

    Upper front front windshield white design (See drawing)

    Honolulu CrimeStoppers Inc., will pay a cash reward of up to $1,000 for information which results in the arrest of a wanted person or the solving of case(s) reported to CrimeStoppers Honolulu Inc. All calls are confidential. Do not approach any suspect. All suspects and wanted fugitives should be considered armed and dangerous. All calls are confidential and anonymous. Persons who participate in the crime, or are victims of the crime are ineligible to receive CrimeStoppers rewards. Be a CrimeStopper and call the hot line at 955-8300 or *Crime on your cellular telephone.

    Access the CrimeStoppers Web site at https://www.crimestoppers-honolulu.org or the Student CrimeStoppers Web site at https://www.studentcrimestoppers.org

    Foaming-at-the-Mouth Feminists Twist Logic

    Topic: Boneheaded feminists continually employ confusion and contradiction to further their Left-wing agenda.

    Intellectual dishonesty in the debate over public policy comes from both sides of the political spectrum, but the Left is particularly adept at contorting logic and creating double standards. My New Year’s resolution is to start a file of these whoppers. The examples are too numerous to commit to memory.

    It should be fun. These are the folks who came up with my all-time favorite fiscal fallacy: a decrease in the projected increase of a program’s budget is actually a cut in spending. Based on that bonehead logic, my next raise will be a blow to my family’s income.

    Where the Left draws the line on sexual conduct depends on who’s stepped over it. Wouldn’t you love to ask Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas how serious feminists are about repudiating sexual harassment in the workplace, especially when a powerful man interacts with a female subordinate? The rules and scorn they applied to Thomas somehow weren’t relevant to Bill Clinton. Conservatives don’t understand, liberals huffed. Relationships are complex. Monica was willing. It was private behavior, they lectured, in a stunning display of feminist hypocrisy.

    Of all the Left’s sources of intellectual game-playing, none is more reliable than the National Organization for Women. Their Web site https://www.now.org rarely disappoints. On a recent visit to this haven for angry women who seem intent on eliminating all pleasure from the earth, the example jumped off the home page. Picture this. On one side of the screen in bold letters is this headline: NOW Joins Peace Vigil at White House: Calls for Bush Administration to End Cycle of Violence. Opposite the give-peace-a-chance mantra is this call to action, showcased in a box for emphasis: Save Roe Now. Sign the Petition Today.

    I laughed out loud. Could the person who designed this page be oblivious to the irony? The most valuable action NOW members could take to “End (the) Cycle of Violence” is to stop championing a law that snuffs out life in the womb.

    There is some useful information on the site. I learned that NOW sleeper cells may exist in our neighborhoods, just waiting to act on orders from the national office. Called “feminist fieldanalysts,” these 80-plus teams across the country were recruited by NOW to monitor prime-time broadcast television programs and rate their friendliness to feminist doctrine on gender composition and diversity, violence, sexual exploitation, and social responsibility.

    The result, produced by the NOW Foundation, is the 2002 Feminist Primetime Report. To be fair, there is no doubt about excesses on TV. I’ve cringed many times at risqu

    Robbery, Kidnapping and Sexual Assault

    0

    CrimeStoppers and the Honolulu Police Department are asking the public’s assistance in identifying four male suspects who kidnapped, robbed and sexually assaulted a 22-year-old Asian female on Thursday, Jan. 9, 2003, at 8 p.m. The victim was walking on Kaheka Street near Kanunu Street when she was approached by the suspect identified as “Jack” who brandished a silver semi-automatic handgun and directed the victim into a vehicle occupied by three other males. The victim was taken to a First Hawaiian Bank ATM machine located at Liliha Street, forced to withdraw cash, and then to a Bank of Hawaii ATM machine in Nuuanu Shopping Plaza. The suspects then drove the victim to the Nuuanu Pali Drive where two of the males sexually assaulted her. The victim was dropped off opposite 4151 Nuuanu Drive where she was picked up by a passerby. Anyone who has information about this case or recognizes the suspects or the suspect vehicle may contact Detective Dennis KIM, Adult Sex Crimes Detail at 529-3417, or anonymous calls may be made to CrimeStoppers at 955-8300, *CRIME on your cellular phone. Free cellular calls are provided by AT&T, Nextel Hawaii, and Verizon Wireless Hawaii. “CrimeStoppers010=03_Jack Image” *Suspect #1 “Jack” (See composite) Polynesian male, mid 20’s 5’2″ to 5’6″, stock build, mustache Wearing a dark, two-tone beanie hat Silver colored semi-automatic handgun “CrimeStoppers010=03_Jim Image” *Suspect #2 “Jim” (See composite) Asian male, mid 20’s 5’2″ to 5’6″, slim build *Suspect #3 Adult male Local male, mid 20’s Heavy build *Suspect #4 Local juvenile male 5’2″ to 5’6″, slim build Severe acne on face “CrimeStoppers010=03_Car Image” *Suspect Vehicle 4-door maroon compact vehicle “Bazooka” type muffler Upper front front windshield white design (See drawing) Honolulu CrimeStoppers Inc., will pay a cash reward of up to $1,000 for information which results in the arrest of a wanted person or the solving of case(s) reported to CrimeStoppers Honolulu Inc. All calls are confidential. Do not approach any suspect. All suspects and wanted fugitives should be considered armed and dangerous. All calls are confidential and anonymous. Persons who participate in the crime, or are victims of the crime are ineligible to receive CrimeStoppers rewards. Be a CrimeStopper and call the hot line at 955-8300 or *Crime on your cellular telephone. Access the CrimeStoppers Web site at https://www.crimestoppers-honolulu.org or the Student CrimeStoppers Web site at https://www.studentcrimestoppers.org