The picture of the staggering amount of regulations cranked out by the federal government as of the 1970s is amazing.  Considering that they haven’t slowed down, it’s almost painful to imagine the number of laws you’re breaking right now due to regulations as interpretations of statutes.

The response from the bureaucrats who demand that government protect you from yourself is rather entertaining, but goes to the famous C.S. Lewis quote about the know-what’s-best-for-you tyrant:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

A lot of what Friedman tries to impart to his panel and his audience is the second and third-order effects of regulation.  Not approving an effective drug stymies the ability for the drug to do good.  The good that is lost is never seen.  And the cart full of over a hundred volumes of reports required to approve ONE drug is a frightening look at the bureaucratic block put in place to “protect us”.   Sometimes government regulators will even outlaw proven good drugs “for the greater good” as effective inhalers for asthma are being pulled off the market to appease Manbearpig.

When Friedman mentions that cars had many of the safety regulations that existed before the govt started mandating them, there were many great examples of them.  Tucker was working on laminated glass, roll bars, improved side impact resistance, disc brakes, a padded dashboard, self-sealing tires, and other features that would make his cars better and safer way back in 1948.  The market began to develop safety because safety also sells – consumers want it, and unsafe products don’t get sold.

Friedman never bothers to ask one other interesting question – where exactly does government get the authority to regulate any of these things?  Oh, right.  For the vast majority, they don’t – it’s only through judicial warping of “regulating interstate commerce” that the government then decides it can rule everything.

At least for Prohibition, which was used to murder US citizens for their own good, there was a Constitutional amendment.

Consider also who’s in charge of protecting you.  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, for example, “protects you” but there is zero accountability to it.  It’s not even funded by the government, but by the Federal Reserve.  It’s accountable to no one, and makes any regulations it likes.  If you have pull with the administration, you get favors.  So if you’re a top contributor to the administration, you will get favors, and regulatory agencies will be used to crush your competition – a point that Friedman makes.  Rule of men, not the rule of law.

It “protects” the consumer from being afforded choices; of course, some administration officials think the best way to control you is through taking choices away (consider Cass Sunstein).  It does protect certain favored businesses who are in on the racket.

Note the responses from the American Federation of Teachers (union) president and the others who desire the current system to continue.  The current disaster is of course, for the children.  Anyone escaping crappy public schools would be bad, and making teachers ultimately accountable to students and their parents would also be bad, etc.

One gross failure in that anti-accountability mindset is that making teachers ultimately accountable to those they work for – the students and parents – rather than bureaucrats – means those teachers are accountable for their successes as well as their failures.  It means communities and students will support good teachers as much as they will push back against bad teachers.  This doesn’t benefit the union mindset, which pits masses of workers against individual workers and everyone else, but does benefit the public in general, good teachers, and all students.  But like so many union guys, the cry is: “this place will come to a crashing halt without me”.  The relentless screams for stagnation heard throughout Buggy Whip Makers Local 554 and Crappy Teachers Local 451 are just the same.

There is often a better way to do it, but it means getting rid of Mr. Shanker and replacing him with Sal Khan.

Free individuals and the market chose Sal Khan, not Mr. Shanker’s union or bureaucrats.

Gallup finds that a record 96% of Americans are feeling the love for that northern land of toques that’s 10% larger than the United States with one-tenth the population. U.S. lovers of Canada are up 4% just in the past year.

Well, Canadians are pretty decent folks.  They have crappy gun laws, but they’re working on that, and getting better.

The reason the U.S. affection is bad news for them is because the United States, its loud culture, raucous politics and immense economy loom so large in the life of Canadians that the American presence can be overwhelming, even if accidental. They’re best friends, like it or not.

When Americans start paying attention to anything, even if it’s positive, they tend to unintentionally smother, crush the bushes and walk all over the flower beds, telling you how really glad they are to be there, you know what I mean? It’s as if Randy McQuaid came for the weekend — and stayed a month.

The expression I’ve heard is that America is a big friendly dog in a small room.  Every time it wags its tail, it knocks something over.

Americans are also very fond of Australia this year (93% favorable) and, as usual, Great Britain (90%).

Well, of course.  For those on the right, all of us share a similar history, similar background, and have been allies in war and in peacetime for generations.  For those on the left, the silly social programs instituted by the UK, Australia, and Canada are something to emulate, even though those three countries warn us about traveling down a similar path.

While there’s plenty of love for Canada, we can never forget what that it was Canada that gave us this.

There’s some love for Canada because they’re so easy to make fun of.  But they’re good sports.

And good shots.

They also did give the world Kids In The Hall, which got away with humor no one else would, and taught us about strange Canadian folk heroes.

TUCSON — Newly released documents show that allowing guns to walk into Mexico was widely known outside of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), the agency accused of allowing the weapons to head south across the border. And now a retired federal law enforcement official says some of those outside government agencies interfered with ATF’s plans by stopping some of the shipments.

And it gets worse:

Tony Coulson was the DEA official in charge of Tucson at the time. He says the problems ran even deeper than that.

“In 2009, 2010, I became aware that ATF was walking guns into Mexico,” Coulson said. “I also learned that Homeland Security Investigations, then ICE, actually interceded on more than one occasion where they seized weapons at the ports of entry when they were heading southbound contrary to ATF’s plans.”

There was serious friction, Coulson claims, between ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and the ATF in Phoenix. When Coulson took the gun walking to his bosses in Phoenix, he was told the lead law enforcement official in Arizona – U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke – was already aware of it.

ATF’s running guns to criminals, ICE steps in and stops it when they see it, because they know it’s illegal.  They take it to Burke, and Burke was already aware?  Oh, of course Burke was already aware.  That’s why he panicked when Brian Terry was killed.  Of course, now Dennis Burke has resigned, and moved on to other places to be hidden from view.  Why?  Because it all came down from higher up.

And here’s the whole why:

Coulson also claims politics played a role in how Fast and Furious unfolded. The ATF officials who supervised the gun walking out of Phoenix were telling the news media as early as 2008 that 90 percent of the guns seized in Mexico came from the U.S. In other words, the same agency that was waging a public battle against gun smuggling was facilitating gun walking at the same time.

“Among federal law enforcement, that became somewhat of a joke,” Coulson said. “We all knew that was whatever weapons the Mexican government decided to follow or trace back to the U.S. And never took into account the weapons that come in from Central America, from other countries around the world.”

That 90 percent statistic was widely reported, but it was inflated. ATF officials quietly refuted those numbers. Later, they told auditors they were based on only a small portion of the guns seized in Mexico.

It’s all about control.  Want to crush citizen’s rights?  Make a crisis, solve the crisis by blaming US citizens, then cracking down on US citizens’ rights.  If you want to make a gun control omelette, you’ve got to scramble some eggs.

Note the exchanges at the end between Thomas Sowell and Frances Fox Piven.  Thomas Sowell being a wise, well-respected economist, and Frances Fox Piven, the mother of Cloward-Piven strategy, which seeks to overwhelm and collapse the state in order to make things “equal” for the poor.

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

Of course, Obama’s not interested in what that guy has to say.

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer was robbed at knife point in his vacation home on the Caribbean island of Nevis Feb. 9,  according to a court spokeswoman, although he’s not the first Supreme Court  justice become a victim of crime. In 2004, Justice David Souter was mugged while jogging, and in 1966, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had her purse snatched.

Breyer was with his wife,  Joanna Breyer, and guests when an intruder armed with a machete broke into their  home. The intruder  took $1,000 but no one was hurt.

Well, well, well if it isn’t one of the four who wanted to restrict self-defense rights?  Again and again, saying you can be disarmed, the constitution really didn’t mean what it said.

Supreme Court Justices receive government protection  when outside  Washington, D.C., from the U.S. Marshals Service.

Some animals are more equal than others, apparently.  But even so, sometimes the praetorian guard slips.

Breyer from the McDonald v. Chicago dissent:

In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense. There has been, and is, no consensus that the right is, or was, ‘fundamental.’

How does it feel to be like the rest of us, Stephen?  How did you enjoy the “reasonable restriction” of being defenseless?  How did you like not having a fundamental right to self-defense, and instead being left to the mercy of a man with a machete?

They say a conservative is just a liberal who’s been mugged.  You think reassessing your stance on self-defense and what 5 of your fellow justices said in Heller is worth it now?  Maybe looking into why Heller, and later McDonald, wanted guns to begin with?  Maybe you want to think about why those of us “little people” without full-time taxpayer-funded bodyguards want to protect ourselves?  Or are you just going to double-down on stupid and start arguing we ban machetes, sharp sticks and boards with nails through them?

Stephen, you’re more than welcome to come join us.  Here, I’ll help you out with this and get you up to speed:

We’ll stop with the “I-told-you-so’s” pretty quick, but only if you remember you’re still a citizen like the rest of us, no better, no worse, just with a job we gave you and pay you to do.

I know the previous post on this topic was intended to be the last, but, like Colombo, there’s just one more thing.

When Marine investigators learned last November that a scout sniper platoon in Afghanistan was using a Nazi “SS” flag as its standard, it wasn’t a member of the unit who told them. It was Iraq war veteran Waitman Beorn, a visiting history professor at Loyola University New Orleans, also a Fulbright and Guggenheim fellowship recipient who teaches at the National Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington. Dr. Beorn’s research on Nazis and genocide is informed by his military background: He is a West Point graduate and former officer who served as a scout platoon leader in Iraq from 2003-2004. Through his work he seeks to teach “ethical decision-making in a military context using the Holocaust as a vehicle.”

Okay, so in 2003-2004 he never saw the SS runes?  He was a freakin’ scout platoon leader and never saw it?  Anywhere?  The ones that have been in common use for decades?

Gawker managed to find a couple more:

It doesn’t mean Schutzstaffel to anyone in the sniper community.  This widow of a dead USMC sniper didn’t get this because of her love for snazzy uniforms and extermination:

Guess what, Mr. Beorn – no one on the pointy end of the spear cares what it used to mean.  It’s something different to them.

But a professor who specializes in the holocaust can sure find a way to burn someone else in order to make a name for himself.  Especially when there’s no way he didn’t know about it since 2003-2004, unless he’s astonishingly incompetent.  Now, he does point out he was a cav scout leader, but there’s enough crossover in duty that there’s no way if he ever worked with Marine scouts he would’ve missed it.

we had a proud tradition and considered ourselves elite, at least in the armor community. We wore Stetsons and spurs. So I understand the importance of symbols to unit cohesion and culture. This, perhaps, made the choice of the SS runes all the more troubling.

Stetsons and spurs?  Those are US cavalry traditions.  Y’know, there’s some people who might want to speak with you about your rabid racism and genocide, Mr. Beorn:

The scout snipers weren’t at Wounded Knee.  Beorn’s unit and the traditions he supports were.  Perhaps he should take a lesson there and be an apt pupil of his own teaching – and go ahead and retroactively demand termination of his own career based on something that really doesn’t matter in a combat zone.

Beorn continues:

I think our public needs to realize that this is not a case of the “liberal media” going after our brave men and women in uniform.

You’re talking to Mother-f***ing-Jones.  You couldn’t go further left if you tried.  You’re making a name for yourself with something that everyone has known about and no one has cared about.

The Gannett-Owned “Marine Corps Times”, previously noted for their ability to insult the Corps here, had this piece on the scout sniper issue:

“On behalf of the Marine Corps and all Marines, I apologize to all offended by this regrettable incident,” Amos said.

The incident has brought scrutiny to a longtime practice in the scout sniper community. Its members have used the “lightning bolt” SS logo for years on patches, posters and tattoos, a nod toward their title. The position is exclusive to the Corps; the Army has scouts and snipers, but separates their duties into two occupations.

The commandant said Friday that he has directed commanders to investigate the prevalence of the SS logo and other unauthorized symbols within the reconnaissance and sniper communities and for Training and Education Command, out of Quantico, Va., to review scout sniper school training to ensure it is clear the logo’s use is banned.

Sgt. Maj. Mike Barrett, the Corps’ top enlisted Marine, will meet personally with every senior staff noncommissioned officer in the sniper community in coming days to “reinforce my message and expectations,” Amos said. Barrett served as a scout sniper during the Gulf War, and later designed sniper training for Marine units in Iraq.

If the SgtMaj was a scout sniper, he saw it, knew about it, and, like everyone else who’s at the pointy end of the spear, and I’m sure held the following opinion:

Their investigation can be rather short.  The SS logo has been around for decades.  Snipers will tell you as much.  I saw it was prevalent in the sniper community almost a decade ago on their snazzy moto gear sold throughout J-Ville.  No one in the Marine Corps cares.  Amos and Barrett have to care because they’re ordered to, and will be forced to play political correctness games in the middle of a war.  As usual.

A full investigation is necessary, said Mikey Weinstein, president of the MRFF, an organization that says it’s devoted to religious freedom in the military.

I’ll give the Gannett reporter credit for this – he phrased that well.  The MRFF says it’s devoted to religious freedom.

“We don’t have all the information, but we know enough to know the Marine Corps needs to open a full investigation,” Weinstein said. “If these guys just get a non-judicial punishment, it’s absolutely absurd.”

Translation: “I don’t know shit, but they better bend over for me cuz I’ve got sand stuck in there deep,” Air Force lawyer turned professional offended guy said.  “They are already convicted!  Information is irrelevant!  Hang them all!”

The SS logo has been worn by scout snipers going back to at least the 1980s, said Earl Catagnus Jr., who served as a scout sniper in Iraq and now teaches military history at Valley Forge Military Academy and College in Pennsylvania and other institutions. Catagnus never got an “SS” tattoo, he said, but he knows Marines of many races who did.

“This symbol has taken on a myth of its own with scout snipers,” he said, adding that he does not condone its use. “They’re sporting it like it’s nothing because they have no idea what it means.”

They know it’s connected to the SS, but, to the Marine Corps is the honey badger of the military.

The scout snipers stole the symbol, and what it used to mean doesn’t matter anymore to them.

Finally, somebody sensible:

A Marine official, speaking on background due to the sensitivity of the issue, said Marine leadership does not believe the Marines depicted with the SS flag understood the significance of the logo. That seems possible, said Allen Falk, national commander of the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America.

“We believe that these young men likely did not understand the significance of this symbol, and we call on the Marine Corps to increase education on American history,” said Falk, who served in Vietnam as a Marine captain. “This issue goes beyond one of racism or anti-Semitism. Our fellow Americans fought and died to stop the Nazis, and it is shameful for any member of the military to display the symbols of Nazi Germany.”

What the snipers didn’t understand is that people like zany lawyer Mikey Weinstein, who’s crusading against “an army of zombie zealots prepared to fight and die in order to usher in the dispensational reign of Jesus Christ on earth” and whose mission in life is to be professionally butthurt, would go after them.  Or that a weenie academic who chats with hard-left Mother Jones would go after them for something that no one cares about.  What somebody back in the world thinks if they survive their deployment isn’t really relevant.

Captain Falk speaks in this quote with the reasoned tones of someone who has been there and done that.  The Marines there didn’t know there would be someone who’s professionally butthurt out to get them, let alone the screaming masses of the left.  The Marines didn’t care.  Falk presents a simple, well-reasoned argument that these are the symbols of a defeated enemy nation that was an enemy for a reason, and it isn’t respectful to our own fellow veterans.  There are scout snipers of many races and religions who don’t care about the SS runes – but Falk’s point that it’s offensive to people the Marines should respect – elder veterans and those on the home front that support the military – is a very sound one.

The people the Marines should, and would, listen to are the ones who say: “Marines, you remember the Nazis were the bad guys for a reason?  Just take it down.”  Catagnus above notes that they sport it like they don’t know what it means.  He’s right.  They know who it’s connected to, but they don’t care.  What it means to people they should respect is the only important issue.

No one cares at all what the media or a whiny, dense academic or a whiny, perpetually butthurt professional lawsuit machine think.  Captain Falk, points out that you should care what the guy represented here thinks, and those folks supporting him who are there for him think:

Falk also hits on something worth noting, that a greater understanding of American history would be helpful.  The forceful rejection of American heroes for the last several decades – spurred by oikophoba America-haters in academia and media – has been one that means few enlistees or officers will know American heroes – especially not before they come in.  Names we should know, like Audie Murphy, Dan Daly, the Sullivans, Roy Geiger, John Basilone, Ernest Janson, James Anderson Jr., Billy Mitchell, Chesty Puller, and Danny Dietz.

As evidenced by the Dietz story, there are plenty still trying to tear down American military history.  Doing so can even lead to the hackneyed cliche of the warrior believing that the enemy is more like the warrior than the people of his homeland.

A response to the snipers like this:

Yeah, I get what the scout snipers were trying to do. But still, it’s the Nazis. The Nazis were the bad guys. I hate Nazis.

Not cool, dudes. Not cool.

So, your weekend passes are revoked and you better get started peeling those potatoes you bunch of numbnuts.

That is all. Carry on.

Makes the point.

An excellent speech.  Worth spending the 27 minutes to watch.

Update: Note to HotAir readers (a lot more than normal for a trackback) who stumbled over here, you may want to check the “economic freedom” category of posts.  You’ll find many parallel themes there.