A logical look at liberty by Stephanie E. Watson.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pk8IxqYF0E
Another good video from Reason.tv.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-1ZfFBMf8s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2c3fxAs7Tk
The word “czar” is derived from the word “ceasar,” and it implies empirical power. Is the executive appointment of “czars” an abuse of the power of the president? These people are given a lot of power of oversight, and are held to no accountability. Dan Mitchell has a lot of good points in this interview, including that these people may just be a big and expensive PR stunt by the administration. Whatever they are in terms of action, it disturbs me that current and past presidents use their authority to create these placeholder positions positions in an attempt to bypass the the checks and balances between government branches.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYTjiIm4h_Q

President Obama and his administration like to boast "bipartisan support" for certain things, simply because they had at least one Republican "cross the aisle" to support a piece of legislation sponsored by Democrats.  Obama is certainly not the first to do this; "bipartisan legislation" has been a key political boasting point for every president in the last two decades.  If a bill has "bipartisan" support, the administration proudly proclaims it as a solution that everyone can agree on, as a collectivist ideal.

The damage this is doing to public perception is frightening, but it is still reversible while the First Amendment still stands.  One way we can start a return toward the respect of multiple political views is through our word choices.  We need to be accurate, logical, and truthful rather than assuming, emotional, and conniving.

The use of "bipartisan" systematically perpetuates the assumption that there are, and only will be, exactly two political parties.

If we can change the use of this word alone, I think we can positively affect public opinion.

Of course, Republicans and Democrats are truly "bipartisan" in their efforts to give little or no credence to the mere existence of another party, preying on public apathy that this is the permanent and accepted reality.

The truth is that there are, and have always been, other voices and other views that do not align with the Republican or Democratic parties.  These voices are too often stifled because they are not backed by large marketing engines with limitless financial resources.  However, over the last decade, these voices are getting louder, in part because of the Internet.  Thanks to an increasingly educated and reasoning public, so-called "third-parties" are poised to get their voices heard both during campaigns and in the halls of local and state government.

The two-party assumption is dead.

Will you join with me in using "multipartisan" instead of "bipartisan" in conversations and writings?  How do you feel about a movement to write letters to the President, asking him  to bring "hope" to people with individual voices by replacing the word "bipartisan" in his press conferences and speeches?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7FS5B-CynM
Obama claims that he supports any program that is proven to work, “whether it’s liberal or conservative” in origin. However, the DC school voucher program is in direct contradiction to that and other claims Obama’s administration has made for “change we can believe in.”

UPDATE: As it turns out, this was probably a false claim: the teen was charged and held under regular laws, and the media was falsely alerted with regard to the Patriot Act. However, it definitely creates an emotional response.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFVQ0HZz2mc

Before I dived too deep in my investigation into the Friends of Dorothea Dix Park (aka Dix 306) and the so-called "world-class park" plans for Raleigh, I asked myself, "What would Dorothea think of this?"

To help answer this question, I read significant portions of a detailed biography called Voice for the Mad: The Life of Dorothea Dix (The Free Press, 1995). Author David Gollaher is an admitted fan of Dix’s nationwide activism in the mid-nineteenth century on behalf of those with a wide range of mental disorders. Gollaher thus details not only the historical details of her mission, but the emotional reflections in writings from her and others who were acquainted with her. It is clear throughout the book that Dix saw a blatant and inexcusable discrepancy between basic human rights and the mistreatment of those in the care of some mental institutions in the country.

The woman…
Dorothea Dix hailed from Massachusetts, was devoted to her Unitarian faith, and was a teacher and author of children’s books before an illness struck her in her 30s. During refuge and recovery across the Atlantic in the 1830s, she had her first exposure to new approaches to treating the mentally ill. This included modeling the mental institution after a familiar domestic environment "that would redeem the insane and, in turn, reunite them with the family of humankind." The promise alone of new cures was an inspiration that helped Dix herself find new hope and purpose.  This set her in motion to lead institution reform across the U.S.  Gollaher writes, "She had adopted a new criterion of humanitarianism and in the process discovered unanticipated reasons to be interested in government power."

At the time Dix was visiting facilities and formulating her message, many states and regions had implemented insane asylums to separate the mentally ill from society. In most cases, these asylums were a public safety measure more than treatment effort, and "treatment" too often consisted of torture if not also subhuman living conditions. In North Carolina in particular, Dix observed the harmful affects and inconsistencies in using common jails for those who committed violent crimes as a result of mental illness.

When Dix found her voice in her memorials and her presentations to state legislatures, many states followed her passionate pleas with much-needed action. It was 1848 when Dix toured North Carolina’s asylums and wrote her North Carolina Memorial. In it, she states, "I am the Hope of the poor crazed beings who pine in the cells, and stalls, and cages, and waste rooms of your poor-houses… I am the Revelation of hundreds of wailing, suffering creatures."

The NC state legislature…
In 1844, Governor John Motley Morehead had strongly recommended that NC build institutions for the mentally ill, blind, and deaf; but no legislation followed his recommendation. After her pleas to the state four years later, Dix adapted words from the Christian Gospels to admonish the state for not treating its mentally ill as it would want to be treated.

As in other states, Dix encouraged North Carolina to put the financial resources from its people into the treatment of the mentally ill. She suggested it would not be an onerous financial burden to the people of NC, and would cost "a few dollars and dimes, gathered from each citizen," like "a particular rent charge upon the great family of mankind." For libertarians, this suggestion sounds socialist; but consider also that her own words did not indicate explicity that taxes should be levied for such a purpose, though her legislative audience would naturally think in those terms.

Typically, an issue lobbied to members the legislature becomes a political target for one side or the other on the floor.  Such was the case with Dix’s pleas for the mentally ill in NC as she was dismissed by the NC Whigs, but found support from John W. Ellis and the Democratic majority in what was then the North Carolina House of Commons. The result was a bill to build and commence operations of an asylum on a site of at least 100 acres, with water and a list of supplies that would fulfill the purpose of the institution as a comparable domestic environment to that of Dix’s vision.

Neither Whigs nor Democrats were inclined to raise NC taxes to cover the proposed cost of $100,000 for the asylum. Likewise, they questioned why a woman from Massachusetts was intent on lobbying for a cause in North Carolina. After the bill faced almost certain defeat on the floor, an impassioned speech by James C. Dobbin, who would later serve as speaker of the House of Commons, provided a personal testament that changed its course. Dobbins had just returned from his wife’s funeral in Fayetteville, and he recounted Dix’s generous company and care to his sick wife while they were both guests at the Mansion House Hotel in Raleigh. He stated that Mrs. Dobbins’ dying request was that her husband do whatever he could to pass the bill for Dix’s asylum. Dobbins’ eleventh hour effort was the emotional movement needed to pass the bill 101 to 10, though not without an additional proposal to reduce a land tax and poll tax that had been the original means to finance the effort.

The NC legislature only approved $7,000 for the next fiscal year to select land and start planning, and they attempted to move forward with a "pay-as-you-go" basis that relied solely on the earmarked revenues for the asylum. Though not the full extent of what she wanted in NC, Dix marked it as a success. It was Governor William A. Graham who convinced the legislature to name the site of the asylum after her, calling it Dix Hill. A century later, it would be renamed to Dorothea Dix Hospital, continuing to honor her advocacy for the mentally ill.  The North Carolina State Medical Society formed in the following year (1849), and the asylum itself was finished and opened in 1856.

The land…
The focus of my "Dix 306" series is on the land that still currently houses the original hospital as the state continues its plans toward closing the facility and selling that land, most likely to an anxiously awaiting City of Raleigh.   As a result, for brevity’s sake, I will skip the rich hospital history and simply state the following key aspects of land allocation and use throughout the history of Dix Hill:

* The original land that comprised Dix Hill was 182 acres on two tracts purchased from Maria Hunter Hall and Sylvester Smith for $1,944.63.

* Dix clearly indicated that by using large tracts of land for asylums, patients in recovery could work the land and employ its resources as part of their recovery effort. This was consistent with the research on mental illness and recovery that she learned about in Europe.

* When the state changed some of its laws in 1899, the name of the asylum became The State Hospital in Raleigh, and the first voluntary admissions lead to a call to increase capacity. This resulted in the creation of an adjoining epileptic colony on 1,155 acres of land, bringing the land total to 1337 acres.

* In 1974, after years of changing laws and provisions by the state, and changing its name to Dorothea Dix Hospital, the facility was its largest size to date: 2,354 acres of land, including three lakes and 1,300 acres for the farm. At that time, there were 282 buildings equipped to handle 2,756 patients.

* Over time, the state has sold off or reallocated the acreage for other purposes, such as creating the Farmer’s Market and generously expanding North Carolina State University.

* As of today, Dix Hill is 306 acres of state-owned land which is still allocated to the North Carolina Division of Mental Health.

Today, mental health professionals in North Carolina, and advocates for the mentally ill across the state, say that the North Carolina mental healthcare system is in a crisis, and that shrinking the system is not the answer.

So… what would Dorothea do?

I predict she would admonish the state for ignoring the problems in its mental healthcare system, and for not ensuring behavioral treatments were applied such that patients could eventually return to be productive and self-sufficient.  Most of all, I think she would be glad that the hospital she pleaded for 160 years ago was still standing and operating, and she would personally fight in front of the General Assembly to keep it open and in service to the mentally ill of North Carolina.

I also think she would leverage the media to scold the City of Raleigh for its vulture-like hovering, waiting to devour the remains if the state leaves it behind.  For all their assuring words that they intend to give the hospital the time it needs to remove themselves from the land, she would look past the promises and find the allies she needed to fight city development  and keep the hospital open.

Sources:
Voice for the Mad: The Life of Dorothea Dix by David Gollaher, The Free Press, 1995.
"History of Dorothea Dix Hospital," NC MHDDSAS website (link)

We all know that most politicians have plenty of hot air to contribute to “global warming,” but it is interesting how on Earth Day the political stunts are seen as some good example to the country for taking care of our environment.

This morning, I asked myself, “What’s the environmental impact of politicians on Earth Day?”

Let’s see… according to this article, the Obamas and Bidens decided to hold their publicity opportunity at Kenilworth Park and Aquatic Gardens, which is 7.1 miles away from the White House. There is no indication on how the President, Vice President, their families, and their security details all went those 7.1 miles, but I’m inclined to think they didn’t use the DC Metro.

Those in attendance were wearing screen-printed T-shirts especially for this year’s Earth Day event. I’m not sure if they used green screen printing on unbleached material, but the photo on that web page does show some very bright white T-shirts. I’m inclined to think the Student Conservation Association chose whoever could put together the shirts in the fastest and cheapest way possible, like any good businessperson would do.

The article also does not indicate where the trees came from that were planted. If they did not already exist at that location, then they must have been grown somewhere. Typically, such trees would be grown at a tree farm. I did find several tree farm results in the DC area, mostly local vendors that resell trees, but I’m inclined to think the trees described in the article were trucked in from further into Maryland or Virginia. Either way, they were brought in from somewhere, and most likely by a large carbon-emitting vehicle.

Of course, nationwide, there have been plenty of other politicians and municipal groups putting on their own tree-planting publicity stunts for Earth Day 2009, too, complete with T-shirts and fliers and politicians and trees, all trucked about from place-to-place to smile for the cameras.

Is Earth Day just for the benefit of politicians and tree farmers?
I’m inclined to think… yes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAa6dYBwy7M
This video helps address some common misconceptions about what it means to have a “free market.”