Bubble Head - Serving and Protecting

The repercussions of this last summer's G20 protest in Toronto keep surfacing in the daily news. The latest story involves the touchy cop "attacked" by a bubble-blowing dissident provocatively blowing bubbles at him. The cop threatens to arrest (see below) the offending bubble-blower and charge her with assault if she persists. Later she is seen being arrested for some other "offence" and charged with conspiracy to commit an indictable offence, the catch-all charge. 
Apparently video of this "incident" which was posted on YouTube has been viewed 300,000 times, and has spawned a cartoon: "Officer Bubbles" that depicts a beefy-black cop wearing sunglasses arresting someone for dancing then joking that the next video will show him shooting a kitten stuck in a tree. The cop involved - Constable Adam Josephs is now suing YouTube because he wants the identity of those responsible for posting the cartoon, defaming him, and bringing threats to his family.
This comedy continues and really does not make anyone look good particularly the Toronto Police. Obviously, now everyone will stop picking on this cop.
        

Be it resolved that religion is a force for good in the world...

The next Munk Debate (Nov. 26, 2010) pits former British P.M. Tony Blair against writer Christopher Hitchens arguing if religion is a force for good. Is there really any point? It might be an interesting evening, but here we will see Blair defending the indefensible and Hitchens arguing for the intolerable.

Who knew that politics gave Blair the credentials to argue in favour of religion? Oh, wait a minute "power" is central to both, and there is corruption, control, obfuscation, and extortion in both; maybe he is qualified. Certainly Blair's recent book tour where he defends Britain's entry into the war in Iraq qualifies him to defend the indefensible.
Hitchens' is a widely respected atheist who certainly qualifies as a worthy opponent, but his position as posted on the Munk website is: "If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in a quite different world." That is as intolerable to me as religion itself. Imagine "instruction...not allowed", quite a different world indeed. Hitchens' shows us in that statement his true conservative roots - and when I use the word "conservative" I mean it in its most derogatory sense. What an ugly comment, what an ugly thought!

I don't have a problem with anyone practicing and perfecting their religion, just leave me out of it and keep me away from bigots like Hitchens'.

Balancing a budget sometimes means spending less on frills!

According to Dan Mitchell at CATO, spending less on government departments that are not really (according to the US Constitution) functions of government, will quickly balance the US budget. I know that sounds unbelievable; have a look for yourself:

It will always come down to morality

Last week I mentioned the talk given by Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio (FDR) fame. The event was recorded and the YouTube posting is now available. The video spans virtually the entire evening; 90 minutes long, and recorded at a pub in Toronto early in September 2010. The evening was sponsored by the Ontario Libertarian Party. 
Stefan talks about the one unavoidable fact that libertarians frequently fail to address in any discussion and I am as guilty as anyone. It is a fundamental belief, a starting point really of libertarianism. 
All libertarians will agree that the initiation of force in any interactions between people and other people, between individuals and groups of people including organizations and of course government is immoral; period. It is the non-aggression principle,  very simple but with huge repercussions in daily life. Stefan uses this interactive-talk to expand on his acceptance of the non-aggression principle versus the rationale people use today to justify our democracy.