Medary.com

Into my news feed this morning (it used to be the Sunday paper, back in the days Before Internet) comes an op-ed from the Washington Post via Reason Hit & Run. A Maryland mayor's home was invaded by a rogue police SWAT team. He tells the tale:

An errant Prince George's County SWAT team had just forced its way into our home, shot dead our two black Labradors, Payton and Chase, and started ransacking our belongings as part of what would become a four-hour ordeal.

The police found nothing, of course, to connect my family and me to a box of drugs that they had been tracking and had delivered to our front door. The community -- of which I am mayor -- rallied to our side. . . . Ultimately, we were cleared of any wrongdoing, but not before the incident drew international outrage.

This was 14 months ago. We have since filed suit, and I am confident that we will find justice more quickly than most.

. . .

In the words of Prince George's County Sheriff Michael Jackson, whose deputies carried out the assault, "the guys did what they were supposed to do" -- acknowledging, almost as an afterthought, that terrorizing innocent citizens in Prince George's is standard fare. The only difference this time seems to be that the victim was a clean-cut white mayor with community support, resources and a story to tell the media.

. . .

Let me give you three specific concerns underscored by our case.

First, the Prince George's Police Department's internal affairs function is broken. . . . Internal affairs division (IAD) investigations were required to take no longer than 90 days. More than a year after our ordeal, my family awaits the IAD report on what happened at our home. The statute of limitations for officer misconduct is 12 months, which means that any wrongdoers are off the hook.

Next, there is significant evidence that the county is broadly violating the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure. After initially claiming that they had a "no-knock" warrant to forcibly enter our home, county police acknowledged that they did not have one. But they went on to contend that there is no such thing as a "no-knock" warrant in Maryland. But this isn't true. A statewide "no-knock" warrant statute was passed in 2005.

. . .

Finally, and perhaps most disturbing of all, county police may be lying to cover up their civil rights violations. A county officer on the scene told Berwyn Heights police a fabricated tale to justify the warrantless entry into our home. The lie disappeared after police learned that I was the mayor.

A nation that calls itself "civilized" can not tolerate this level of lawlessness from those whom we charge to enforce our laws.

Who watches the watchers?

One more thought--which should shake you down to your core: If a city mayor is not immune from abuse at the hands of the police, what about you?

This is a result of the confluence of two really bad ideas--first, that the people should depend entirely on the police for protection from the truly criminal element among us. This idea breeds an arrogance on the part of the police which is antithetical to the American tradition of liberty and self-reliance. The second bad idea is the overwrought "war on drugs" which not only distorts our entire judicial system but also provides vast amounts of money to domestic and international organized crime, terror, and anti-democratic organizations around the world. That money fuels the bad-guy side of the urban arms race to which SWAT teams are the government response.

If we legalize and regulate 'recreational' drug use, we regain control over this segment of the economy that is now completely lawless--and is dragging the rest of society into lawlessness with it.

This isn't about "advocating the use of drugs." Drugs are bad, m'kay? But people will seek out drugs for reasons good and bad--it's part of our flawed human nature.

And when we attempt to ignore human nature, we get ourselves into trouble--like mistaken no-knock SWAT raids on city mayor's houses.

From the book Power in the People by Felix Morley, as linked by Gary Galles at the Ludwig von Mises Institute:

The issue stands out clearly. Shall man be subject to the authoritarian State or shall he restrain State powers to the minimum necessary for an orderly Society?

Ephesians 6:12 (New International Version):

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

That's exactly a pound a day, since the diet started 29 days ago. 7.7 pounds in the last week. I guess political activism agrees with me.

It helps that--aided by the 25,000 steps in the three full days we spent in Washington--I averaged something over 6,000 steps a day. Add to that the three-times-weekly workouts with our personal trainer, and I'm a fat-burning machine.

But what's even better than the weight loss (and that's pretty good, don'tcha think?) is the results of another "body composition analysis" I had at the weight loss clinic today. The first analysis, which was done a week before I actually started the diet, showed that I weighed 274.5 pounds, of which 177.0 was lean body mass--muscle and water--and 97.5 pounds was body fat.

Well. Today, the numbers were 250.0 pounds total, 185.4 lean body mass, and 64.6 pounds of body fat. I've lost 32.9 pounds of fat, and actually gained "dry lean mass" (that is, muscle weight) of 2.3 pounds--from 47.1 to 49.4 pounds.

People aren't supposed to gain muscle mass when they're on one of these diets. The doctor and the nutritionists stress over and over how you're supposed to exercise (and eat all of your protein meal replacements) in order to avoid losing too much muscle. The dietitian I talked to said my numbers were just about the best she'd ever seen.

So, I'm doing it right.

I've got 41 days to go before Halloween, when I plan to go into a bit of a maintenance mode for the holiday season. My personal goal for that is to get down to 230 pounds. Considering that that means another 20 pounds in 41 days, that seems like a very reachable goal.

Now if you excuse me, I've got to go out and walk for an hour. Halloween is right around the corner!

Oh my Lord. Or, as Reason Hit & Run observes, a Sign of the Apocalypse.

Fashion Snuggies

When I was growing up, a "snuggie" was what is now termed a wedgie. I guess, considering what passes for fashion nowadays, either definition actually could work, couldn't it?

Southwest Airlines will no longer serve lemons on board their airliners. According to the Today in the Sky USA Today blog, this will save them $100,000 a year.

That's a lot of lemons.

Frank J. Fleming (wrangler of the IMAO.US humor web site) ponders "Why are liberals still angry?" at Pajamas Media:

While conservatives can still openly call themselves conservatives and argue directly for things they like (such as gun rights and free markets), liberals still have to run from their label and never dare say out loud the things they want, such as socialism and single-payer health care. How could liberals not see this coming? Are they not as smart as they think?

Having to even contemplate such a horrible possibility is enough to drive a liberal mad.

So they lash out. Since they are obviously so smart (obviously!), the only reason anyone could oppose them is that the person is stupid and evil. Thus everyone protesting must be a stupid racist. It’s the only conclusion possible without having to reexamine the central tenet that liberals are super smart and should totally run everything. And if you were under the delusion that you were surrounded by stupid racists who won’t listen to your obviously smart ideas, wouldn’t you be pretty angry all the time?

My only quibble is the continuing, pernicious use of the word "liberal" to describe leftist "progressive" statists. True liberals (i.e. those who value liberty) need to reclaim that word. Other than that . . .

Science Daily: Zero tolerance, zero effect, says expert

(Sam Houston State University economist Darren) Grant also compared the blood alcohol distributions of involved drivers in the two years before zero tolerance laws were established in each state, and again in the two years after. The two distributions were also virtually identical.

"That's a sign that this law is essentially inert; if it's affecting the amount of drinking that people do, these distributions should look different," he said. Grant's colleague at Sam Houston State and fellow economist, Donald Freeman, completed a similar study in 2007 that yielded similar results regarding a related law that lowered the allowable blood alcohol limit for adult drivers. That paper was published in the journal Contemporary Economic Policy.

I'm always wary of laws and regulations which attempt to substitute draconian rules for common sense. Especially when they have absolutist names like "zero tolerance."

They're in that class of ideas that sound really good in the abstract, but don't do what their proponents claim they do when you try to actually put them into operation.

Sort of like "universal health care" or the "war on drugs," to name two examples.

Let's think out there, people.

Futurepundit: Too much radiation for humans in Mars trip:

Dreams of a human trip to Mars run up against limits to allowable human radiation exposure.

. . .

One way to get a ship to Mars that would have lots of chemical rocket mass to propel a return trip: Send two space ships. First send one slowly that would carry a lot of fuel. That fuel would enter Mars orbit before humans even left Earth. Then humans could leave Earth on a fast ship and arrive to find another fast ship with lots of fuel ready to take them back to Earth.

Part of the radiation exposure would come while humans are on Mars. How to reduce that exposure? Send robots ahead of time that would burrow down underground to create living quarters in several places that would be within driving distance of each other. The astronauts could move from underground shelter to underground shelter.

Of course, all this requires huge amounts of money and resources.

Well, nobody said it would be easy.

Who is moving from ABC News to Fox News. He explains why in this Reason Magazine article:

In my new job, I want to dig into the meaning of the words "liberty" and "limited government." For many years, through Republican and Democratic administrations, we have been losing something vital in America: the commitment to individual liberty and the understanding that as government grows, liberty shrinks.

Fox offers me more airtime and a new challenge. I'm still thinking about what I will do with my own show. Economic analyses of the latest screwball ideas in Washington—certainly. I also want to undertake exercises in understanding libertarianism, the philosophy of freedom, which used to be called "liberalism."

What do you think? You can help me shape the new program. I ask you for your ideas. Which interesting speakers should I book? What thought experiments should I try with a studio audience? Please let me know.

I'm there, brother. I'm SO there.