Libertarian Commentary #16-11B By Nathan A. Barton
What gives? This is the kind of story that normally pops up on a dozen pro-gun and pro-self defense websites, but THIS one showed up on the daily headline news e-mail from the WaPo. A concealed weapon owner shot and killed an attacker at a 7-Eleven in King County, Washington (state) when the attacker went after the clerk with a hatchet. It isn’t really a high-priority or hot news story, certainly not close to a story showing what bikini Beyonce isn’t wearing. Similar incidents happen multiple times a week. So why is the WaPo reporting this? I admit, I don’t trust them. I figure they’ve got some hidden agenda more than just trying to make money by selling more views or hard copies. But can’t figure out why. The article DOES dwell on a number of recent cases where people were stupid, poorly trained, and made a bad example, but not your usual “hatchet job” (pun intended) on gunowners. Anyone have any ideas?
Mama’s Note: I’m seeing more and more of these stories all the time. Not a lot, and not nearly as many as happen, but more than there used to be. The anti-gun thing is often subtle, but is almost always there in some measure, but it’s far better than having these stories ignored.
Good news, assuming the FDA or some other bureaucrat allows it to proceed. Popular Science [http://www.popsci.com/technique-allows-kidney-transplants-from-any-donor] reports on a new technique that supposedly allows kidney transplants to be given by almost any donor to the person needing it, without the previously required determination of antigens. It has worked on more than 1,000 test subjects, and is reported to be nearly twice as effective as constant dialysis. But how many hoops must it pass to be acceptable to government?
Mama’s Note: Here is a much more complete description of the problems and the new technology. New Laboratory Technique Improves Success in Highly Sensitized Kidney Transplants. While this is good news for a lot of people, and promises more for the future as it is used, it is not going to do much to resolve the problems associated with transplants in general. As Nathan implied, as long as government is in control, people will continue to suffer. Personally, I think that this kind of technology, together with cloning, stem cells, and 3D printing would quickly resolve the barriers to organ and other tissue transplants… but only if there was a truly free market and no non-voluntary government involved. We can wish.
Violence in the the streets. A military unit comes into your community and sets up a base, from which it patrols the streets supposedly to maintain the peace, and constantly harasses people going about their daily business. The armed, uniformed men and women patrol in specially marked vehicles, stop and question people, sometimes breaking into homes and businesses to drag out suspects who are then taken to the base and from there transferred to somewhere else. The occupation troops often mill around outside their base, and seem to swagger in their uniforms. Then, one day, a guy shows up, perhaps in another uniform, and pulls out a gun and starts shooting at these occupation troops, in what CNS News calls an “unprovoked attack.” One of the troops is killed, and others return fire on the attacker and one or two more confederates. News comes out that the dead man may be the victim of friendly fire. Local officials, quislings all, as well as superiors in the occupation force, condemn the attack as “cowardly” and a “horrific act of evil,” even before anything is known about the attacker. And praise the swarm of armed responders returning fire as brave. This is not, of course, Afghanistan or Serbia or Korea or Darfur: it is Maryland: the suburbs of Washington, DC. The occupation force wears dark blue or black, NOT UN blue or digicam. Unprovoked?
Oh, let me whale on the WaPo again. There is an article much more in keeping with the usual WaPo fare today as well, dealing with the “cruelty” that rich people not just pay less of their income for diapers but even pay less per diaper because of the unfortunate advantages that they have. The WaPo goes on to talk about the crisis of “diaper need” in the country, blaming Congress and the bureaucracy for not paying for diapers in their welfare programs. Buried in the article is a PRIVATE, non-profit, non-government initiative which thinks it has reduced or gotten rid of the problem for many (urban, connected) poor families by reducing costs to just 13 cents a diaper. Diapers – DISPOSABLE diapers – are an essential of life for pre-potty-trained children, we are told. Government MUST provide, especially since WalMart was so hateful as to close the stores that many poor families could walk to, and buyer’s club stores have membership fees and poor people don’t have smart phones or credit cards or “real” addresses to get diapers from Amazon. I’d write a “Baker’s Dozen: Why Liberals think the government should subsidize diapers” if it weren’t such a messy topic. (Not a WORD about cloth diapers in the article, I notice. The environist editor at the WaPo must be on vacation this week.)
Mama’s Note: Good grief… All of my children wore cloth diapers, and were toilet trained as soon as possible. The disposable diapers were very new, and very expensive, but I bought a big pack to take on a long trip and seriously regretted it almost immediately. The baby developed a terrible diaper rash the first day, and I had to spend even more money to buy cloth diapers at the town where we stayed the first night. Long story short, we went back home the next day and it took a week or more to resolve the rash. Being too scotch to throw them away, I finally used the disposable diapers taped onto new baby goats brought into the house because they got too cold in the barn. No rash on the goats sleeping in the playpen by the fire.
I have a suggestion for those who feel government should provide these things free. Think about some improved birth control… then you won’t need them at all.